- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18435 CRL.A No. 1149 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1149 OF 2013 (C) BETWEEN: B.S. KAVERAPPA @ JAPU S/O B.T.SOMAIAH @ CHOMANI AGED 26 YEARS, AGRICULTURISTS, ABBYALA, ERALAVALAMUDI VILLAGE, CHETTALLI - 571 201 APPELLANT (BY SRI. KRISHNA MOORTHY.P.,ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE MADIKERI RURAL CIRCLE KODAGU DISTRICT-571 201 REPRESENTED BY LEARNED S.P.P. RESPONDENT (BY SRI.R.LAKSHMAN, HCGP) THIS CRL.A. FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C BY THE ADV., FOR THE APPELLANT PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:27/30.11.13 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. DIST., AND S.J., KODAGU, MADIKERI IN S.C.NO.91/2006 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 304 PART II OF IPC AND ETC., THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18435 CRL.A No. 1149 of 2013 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is by the accused being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.11.2013 passed in S.C.No. 91/2006 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu Madikeri [for short 'the trial Court'] which reads as follows: "ORDER In the result, the accused- B.S. Kaverappa @ Jappu, is convicted under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C. for the offence p/u/s 304 Part II of IPC instead of offence under section 302 of IPC. Posted for hearing on quantum of sentence to be imposed on the accuse." "ORDER ON THE SENTENCE In the result, accused/convict is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 4 years 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.6,000/- (Six Thousand), in default of payment of fine shall have to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence p/u/s 304 Part II of IPC, The default sentence regarding non payment of fine shall run separately. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18435 CRL.A No. 1149 of 2013 While executing the sentence of imprisonment, the period of custody already undergone during the trial is to be considered. In the event of payment of fine, the sum of Rs.5,000/- is ordered to be paid to the wife of the deceased by way of compensation under section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. after appeal period is over. If wife is not alive, then to be confiscated to the State after appeal period is over and the remaining fine amount is confiscated to the State after appeal period is over." 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 19.07.2006, at about 12 noon, in the land belonging to one Mudera Suri and Neharu of Abbyala, Eralavalamudi Village, the accused had intentionally caused the death of one T.M.Moidu on the issue of non-payment of commission by the deceased in connection with timber business, by assaulting him with sickle on his head, neck and throat causing grievous injuries resulting in his death thereby committing the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18435 CRL.A No. 1149 of 2013 3. After framing of the charges, the accused denied the charges and sought to be tried. The prosecution has examined 34 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.34 and has exhibited 43 documents as Exhibit P.1 to Exhibit P.43 and marked 15 material objects as MO.1 to MO.15. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of CrPC, which having been denied, the trial Court framed the following points for its consideration and consequently passed the order as extracted hereinabove. Point No.1: Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on 19-07-2006, at about 12- 00 noon, in the land belonging to Mudera Suri and Neharu in Abbyala of Eralavalamudi village, the accused with an intention to commit the murder of T.M.Moidu, with regard to the non payment of his commission amount by the T.M.Moidu in connection with the timber business has assaulted with sickle on his head, neck, throat caused the grievous injuries, and committed the murder of said T.M.Moidu, thereby committed an offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder punishable under section 302 of IPC? POINT NO.2: If so, what order" - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18435 CRL.A No. 1149 of 2013 4. Learned counsel for the appellant, taking this Court through the record, submits that the case is one based entirely on circumstantial evidence and there is no direct evidence of any nature whatsoever. That initially, a complaint dated 19.07.2006 as per Exhibit P.2 came to be filed by PW.3, the son of the deceased, in that, it was alleged that about 10.45 a.m. on 19.07.2006, the deceased left home informing that he was going to meet the accused in connection with timber business and that PW.3 had received information from one Appanna at about 01.15 p.m., about someone assaulting the victim and he lying by the side of road near Abbyal temple and that he had gone to the said spot with T.M. Moideen - CW.8, Ibrahim M - PW.20, Abid - CW.7, Appanna - PW.6 and they found the victim lying in a pool of blood and thereafter they took him to a hospital at Madikeri. 5. That the said complaint as per Exhibit P.2 was filed without specifying or suspecting anyone in the matter. A case was registered in Crime No.108 of 2006 for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. Subsequent complaint as per Exhibit P.3 was filed alleging that the doctors at the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18435 CRL.A No. 1149 of 2013 Hospital at Madikeri had recommended to take the victim to Mangalore for further treatment and while the victim was being taken to Mangalore, he succumbed to the injuries. 6. Based on the said complaint and further complaint, the earlier offence under Section 307 IPC was substituted with the offence under Section 302 IPC. He submits that the first complaint was registered against an unknown person and in the second complaint, the name of the accused was mentioned. He submits that though in the second complaint there is allegation of dispute with regard to the payment of commission, no material evidence in this regard has been produced and he refers to the deposition of PW.3 who has partly turned hostile. 7. He submits that PW.3 has pleaded ignorance about the persons with whom the deceased had timber business. The initial information was apparently passed on to PW.3 by PW.6 - Appanna, who in turn had received the information from Chinnamma, PW.11. He reads into the deposition of PW.11, who also has turned hostile and submits that according to the version of PW.11, the accused was her neighbour and that on the said date, one Moti Devaiah and Somaiah, the father of the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18435 CRL.A No. 1149 of 2013 accused, had come to her house for the purpose of making a telephone call and she overheard about the victim being not well. Except that she has not stated anything further. The said Moti Devaiah and Somaiah have been examined and they have turned hostile. 8. Referring to the spot mahazar, Exhibit P.4, the learned counsel points out that the said mahazar has been drawn on 20.07.2006 that is the day subsequent to the date of incident. According to the said mahazar, the victim had fallen with bleeding injuries at a public road near Bhagavathi Temple adjacent to the house of one Kokkera Cariappa on Chettalli - Madikeri Road. During the said mahazar, the police had collected blood mixed mud as sample for further investigation. The said place was about 20 feet away from the house of Kokkera Cariappa. The said Kokkera Cariappa has not been examined. 9. He further refers to Exhibit P.30, which is another mahazar drawn at the instance of the accused. Referring to the contents of the said mahazar, the learned counsel points out that as per the said mahazar, the place of incident is different - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18435 CRL.A No. 1149 of 2013 from the one found at Exhibit P.4. As per Exhibit P.30, the place of incident is the property belonging to one Mudera Suri and Neharu. 10. The said mahazar also indicates recovery of plastic slippers, an umbrella as well as a measuring tape from the spot which allegedly belonged to the victim. Thus comparing Exhibit P.4 and Exhibit P.30, the learned counsel submits that there is no material evidence brought on record by the prosecution to link these two places to the alleged offence committed by the accused. 11. The material objects in the nature of slippers, umbrella and measuring tape have not been identified by PW.3 and PW.8, the son and wife respectively of the victim. Thus he submits that this critical chain of circumstances not having been proved beyond reasonable doubt, the prosecution has failed to prove the case of the very spot at which the alleged offence had taken place. He refers to Exhibit P.41, the FSL Report and Serology Report and submits that the said evidence cannot be relied upon as the same is inconclusive and also does not indicate the actual blood group of the deceased. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18435 CRL.A No. 1149 of 2013 Therefore, he submits that the said piece of evidence is not safe to rely upon to record conviction. 12. The learned counsel submits that though the charge framed was for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, the trial Court, in the absence of any material evidence, on the basis of conjunctures and surmises, has proceeded to alter the said charge from Section 302 IPC to 304 Part-II of IPC. He refers to paragraphs 103 and 104 of the impugned judgment and submits that in the absence of any acceptable material evidence with regard to the dispute between the deceased and the accused over non-payment of commission amount, the trial Court could not have arrived at a conclusion of there being sudden and grave provocation resulting in homicidal death of the deceased. Thus he submits that the prosecution having failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, the trial Court ought not have proceeded even to alter the charge and convict him for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part- II of IPC. Hence, the learned counsel seeks for allowing of the appeal. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18435 CRL.A No. 1149 of 2013 13. Learned High Court Government Pleader, on the other hand, justifying the judgment and order passed by the trial Court, submits that the circumstances of the offence having taken place near the house of the accused and accused pointing out to the place of incident and recovery of the weapon at his instance are circumstances sufficient to establish his guilt. 14. He submits that though PW.11 has turned hostile, she has spoken to the fact of accused frequenting her house to use the telephone with regard to timber business he had with the deceased. He also submits that on the date of the incident, the father of the accused had indeed come to the house of PW.11, which aspect of the matter has not been denied at this point. 15. He submits that PW.3 has consistently deposed that on the date of the incident, he had left home informing that he was going to meet the accused and the said incident can be taken as the last seen circumstance. The case of the prosecution is further strengthened by the scientific evidence in the nature of Exhibit P.40 and Exhibit P.41, which establishes - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18435 CRL.A No. 1149 of 2013 the blood stains found on the incriminating objects. Thus he submits that the trial Court has committed no error in convicting and sentencing the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC warranting no interference at the hands of this Court. Hence, the learned HCGP seeks dismissal of the appeal. 16. Heard. Perused the records. 17. There is no dispute over the fact that the case is only based on circumstantial evidence. Exhibit P.2 is the complaint lodged by PW.3, the son of the deceased, which reads as under: "ºÉýPÉ: ²æà n.JA. dªÀÄìzï AiÀiÁ£É £ËµÁzï, vÀAzÉ n.JA. ªÉÆAiÀÄÄÝ, ¥ÁæAiÀÄ 18 ªÀµÀð, DmÉÆà ZÁ®PÀ, ZÉlÖ½î, ªÁ¸À PÀAqÀPÉgÉ, ZÉlÖ½î, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 19.07.2006. £Á£ÀÄ F ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «¼Á¸ÀzÀ°è vÀAzÉ vÁ¬ÄAiÉÆA¢UÉ ªÁ¸À«zÀÄÝ ZÉlÖ½î £ÀUÀgÀzÀ°è £À£Àß ¨Á¥ÀÄÛ DmÉÆà jPÁëªÀ£ÀÄß ¨ÁrUÉUÉ Nr¹PÉÆArgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. £À£Àß vÀAzÉ. ªÁå¥ÁgÀ PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀvÁÛgÉ. ¢: 19.07.2006 gÀAzÀÄ ¨É½UÉÎ £Á£ÀÄ ZÉlÖ½î £ÀUÀgÀzÀ°è DmÉÆà jPÁëªÀ£ÀÄß ¤°è¹PÉÆArgÀĪÁUÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ 10.45 J.JA. UÀAmÉ ªÉüÉUÉ £À£Àß vÀAzÉ ¹QÌ £Á£ÀÄ C¨Áå®zÀ §¯ÁègÀAqÀ d¥ÀÅàgÀªÀgÀ vÉÆÃlPÉÌ ºÉÆÃV nA§gï PÉ®¸À EzÉ ºÉÆÃV §gÀÄvÉÛÃ£É JAzÀÄ ºÉý ºÉÆgÀlÄ ºÉÆÃzÀgÀÄ. ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ 1.15 ¦.JA. ºÉÆwÛUÉ, ZÉlÖ½î £ÀUÀgÀzÀ°è fÃ¥À£ÀÄß ¨ÁrUÉUÉ Nr¹PÉÆArgÀĪÀ C¥ÀàtÚ AiÀiÁ£É ZÀĪÀÄÄägÀªÀgÀ §AzÀÄ ¤£Àß vÀAzÉUÉ AiÀiÁgÉÆà zÀĵÀÌ«ÄðUÀ¼ÀÄ PÀÄwÛUÉ ¨sÁUÀPÉÌ PÀrzÀÄ C¨Áå® zÉêÀ¸ÁÜ£ÀzÀ §½ gÀ¸ÉÛ §¢AiÀÄ°è ©zÀÄÝPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18435 CRL.A No. 1149 of 2013 ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀĪÀ ¹ÜwAiÀÄ°è EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀÄ §¯ÁègÀAqÀ ªÉÆÃwgÀªÀgÀÄ £À£Àß ªÉƨÉʯïUÉ ¥sÉÇÃ£ï ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀÄ w½¹zÀ ªÉÄÃgÉ £Á£ÀÄ n.JA.ªÉƬĢÝãï, E¨Áæ»A, D©Ãzï gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß eÉÆvÉAiÀÄ°è PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ, C¥ÀàtÚ AiÀiÁ£É ZÀĪÀÄägÀªÀgÀ fæ£À°è C¨Áå®PÉÌ §AzÀÄ, vÀAzÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃrzÁUÀ, vÀAzÉAiÀÄ UÀAl°UÉ, »A¨sÁUÀzÀ PÀÄwÛUÉUÉ, vÀ¯ÉAiÀÄ ¨sÁUÀPÉÌ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÆà ºÀjvÀªÁzÀ DAiÀÄÄzsÀ¢AzÀ PÀrzÀÄ gÀPÀÛ §gÀÄwÛvÀÄÛ. ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀĪÀ ¹ÜwAiÀÄ°è EgÀ°®è. £ÀAvÀgÀ £ÁªÀÅ §AzÀ fæ£À°è £À£Àß vÀAzÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀÄ ªÀÄrPÉÃj ¸ÀPÁðj D¸ÀàvÉæUÉ aQvÉì §UÉÎ zÁR®Ä ¥Àr¹gÀÄvÉÛãÉ. £À£Àß vÀAzÉUÉ wêÀæ ¸ÀégÀÆ¥ÀzÀ UÁAiÀĪÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀÝjAzÀ AiÀiÁgÉÆÃ, zÀĵÀÌ«ÄðUÀ¼ÀÄ £À£Àß vÀAzÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÆ¯É ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ PÀÄwÛUÉ ºÁUÀÆ vÀ¯ÉAiÀÄ ¨sÁUÀPÉÌ PÀrzÀÄ UÁAiÀÄ¥Àr¹gÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ, zÀĵÀÌ«ÄðUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀvÉÛ ºÀaÑ CªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À ªÉÄÃ¯É PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉƼÀî¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ PÉÆlÖ ºÉýPÉ. N.ºÉÃ.PÉÃ.¸Àj EzÉ. ¸À»/- (dªÀÄìzï n.JA.)" 18. Exhibit P.3 is the further complaint given by PW.3, which reads as under: "EAzÀ, n.JA. dªÀÄìzï AiÀiÁ£É £ËµÁzï, vÀAzÉ, n.JA. ªÉÄÊzÀÄ, ¥ÁæAiÀÄ 18 ªÀµÀð, DmÉÆà ZÁ®PÀ, ªÁ¸À PÀAqÀPÉÌgÉ, ZÉlÖ½î. UÉ, ¥Éǰøï G¥À ¤jÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ ªÀÄrPÉÃj, UÁæªÀiÁAvÀgÀ oÁuÉ ªÀÄrPÉÃj. ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉÃ, F ¢£À vÁjÃRÄB 19.07.2006 gÀAzÀÄ ¨É¼ÀUÉÎ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ 10.45 UÀAmɬÄAzÀ ªÀÄzsÁåºÀß 1-15 UÀAmÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄzsÀåzÀ CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è £À£Àß vÀAzÉ n.JA.ªÉÄÊzÀÄ gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß FgÀ¼ÀªÀ¼ÀªÀÄÄr UÁæªÀÄzÀ C¨Áå® - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18435 CRL.A No. 1149 of 2013 JA§°è AiÀiÁgÉÆà zÀĵÀÌ«ÄðUÀ¼ÀÄ vÀAzÉAiÀĪÀgÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆ¯É ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ vÀAzÉAiÀÄ UÀAl°UÉ, PÀÄwÛUÉAiÀÄ »A¨sÁUÀPÉÌ ºÁUÀÆ vÀ¯ÉUÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÆà ºÀjvÀªÁzÀ DAiÀÄÄzsÀ¢AzÀ PÀrzÀÄ UÀA©üÃgÀ ¸ÀégÀÆ¥ÀzÀ UÁAiÀÄ ¥Àr¹zÀÄÝ vÀAzÉAiÀĪÀgÀ£ÀÄß PÀÆqÀ¯Éà ªÀÄrPÉÃj ¸ÀgÀPÁj D¸ÀàvÉæUÉ vÀAzÀÄ zÁR®Ä ¥Àr¹zÀÄÝ WÀl£ÉAiÀÄ §UÉÎ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉƼÀî®Ä PÉÆÃj £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄrPÉÃj UÁæªÀiÁAvÀgÀ ¥Éǰøï oÁuÉUÉ ¥ÀÅPÁgÀÄ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. £À£Àß vÀAzÉAiÀĪÀjUÉ UÀA©üÃgÀ ¸ÀégÀÆ¥ÀzÀ UÁAiÀĪÁVzÀÄÝ, vÀAzÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀĪÀ ¹ÜwAiÀÄ°è E®èzÉ EzÀÄÝ ªÉÊzÁå¢üPÁjAiÀĪÀgÀÄ vÀAzÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÉaÑ£À aQvÉìUÁV ªÀÄAUÀ¼ÀÆjUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀ®Ä w½¹zÀgÀÄ. £À£ÀUÉ EzÀ£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃr ªÀÄ£À¹ìUÉ zÀÄBR ºÁUÀÆ UÁ§j DzÀÝjAzÀ vÀAzÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £À£Àß ¸ÀA§A¢üPÀgÁzÀ n.JA.D°PÀÄnÖ, E¨Áæ»ÃA, C¹Ã¸ï, ºÀA¸À¥Àà ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄw ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÁzÀ D©Ãzï gÀªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ªÀÄAUÀ¼ÀÆjUÉ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹PÉÆlÄÖ £Á£ÀÄ ªÁ¥À¸ÀÄì ZÉlÖ½îUÉ ºÉÆÃV F WÀl£ÉAiÀÄ §UÉÎ «ZÁgÀuÉ ªÀiÁrzÁUÀ £À£Àß vÀAzÉAiÀĪÀjUÉ nA§gï ªÁå¥ÁgÀzÀ°è FgÀ¼ÀªÀ¼ÀªÀÄÄr UÁæªÀÄzÀ C¨Áå®zÀ°è ªÁ¸À«gÀĪÀ §¯ÁègÀAqÀ ZÉÆêÀÄtÂAiÀĪÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ d¥ÀÅàgÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ ªÀµÀðUÀ½AzÀ nA§gï ¨ÉÆæÃPÀgï DV PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ EªÀgÀÄUÀ½UÉ ºÀtzÀ ªÀåªÀºÁgÀ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. EzÉà ºÀtzÀ «ZÁgÀzÀ°è CªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À ªÀÄzsÉå ªÀiÁvÀÄPÀvÉAiÀiÁV £À£Àß vÀAzÉAiÀĪÀgÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆ¯É ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ¯Éà F jÃw PÀrzÀÄ UÀA©üÃgÀ ¸ÀégÀÆ¥ÀzÀ UÁAiÀÄ ¥Àr¹gÀĪÀÅzÀgÀ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ DvÀ£À ªÉÄÃ¯É ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀÄ w½zÀÄ §A¢zÉ. £Á£ÀÄ ZÉlÖ½îAiÀÄ°ègÀĪÁUÀ ¸ÁAiÀÄAPÁ® ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 5.00 UÀAmÉ ºÉÆwÛUÉ vÀAzÉAiÀĪÀgÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄAUÀ¼ÀÆjUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃVzÀÝ C©ÃzïgÀªÀgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ ¥sÉÇÃ£ï ªÀiÁr vÀAzÉAiÀĪÀgÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄAUÀ¼ÀÆjUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛgÀĪÁUÀ ¸ÀļÀåzÀ ºÀwÛgÀ vÀ®Ä¥ÀŪÁUÉÎ ªÀÄÈvÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ªÁ¥À¸ÀÄì ªÀÄrPÉÃjUÉ vÀgÀÄwÛgÀĪÀÅzÁV w½¹zÀgÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ PÀÆqÀ¯Éà ªÀÄrPÉÃjUÉ §AzÀÄ £À£Àß vÀAzÉAiÀĪÀgÀ ªÀÄÈvÀ ±ÀjÃgÀªÀ£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃrzÉ. £À£Àß vÀAzÉAiÀĪÀgÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆ¯É ªÀiÁrzÀ §UÉÎ £À£ÀUÉ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ d¥ÀÅà JA§ÄªÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É §®ªÁzÀ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀÄ«gÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ DvÀ£À ªÉÄÃ¯É PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ jÃw PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉƼÀî ¨ÉÃPÁV PÉÆÃjPÉ. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18435 CRL.A No. 1149 of 2013 vÀªÀÄä «±Áé¹, ¸À»/- (dªÀiï±Àzï n.JA.) ¸ÀܼÀB ªÀÄrPÉÃj. ¢£ÁAPÀ: 19.07.2006" 19. It is these initial averments which had set the case in motion. Perusal of Exhibit P.2 only indicates that the deceased had left home at 10.45 p.m., informing that he was going to meet the accused. Exhibit P.2 further indicates that PW.3 along with Moideen, CW.8, Ibrahim PW.20, and Appanna PW.6, Abid CW.7 having gone to the place where the victim was lying in a pool of blood, namely Abbyala Temple Road. Exhibit P.4 is the spot mahazar, which indicates that upon information given by PW.3, the police had gone to the said spot on the following day, which is a road. The description of the said spot is as under: "¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀܼÀªÀÅ FgÀ¼ÀªÀ¼ÀªÀÄÄr UÁæªÀÄzÀ C¨Áå® JA§°è ªÁ¸À«gÀĪÀ PÉÆPÉÌÃgÀ PÁAiÀÄð¥Àà£ÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ºÀwÛgÀzÀ°è ZÉlÖ½î ªÀÄrPÉÃj ªÀÄÄRågÀ¸ÉÛ¬ÄAzÀ FgÀ¼ÀªÀ¼ÀªÀÄÄr UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¨sÀUÀªÀw zÉêÀ¸ÁÜ£ÀPÉÌ ºÁUÀÆ §¯ÁègÀAqÀ PÀÄlÄA§¸ÀÜgÀ L£ï ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ºÉÆÃUÀĪÀ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄw gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ°è DVzÀÄÝ ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀܼÀzÀ°è gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄÄ GvÀÛgÀ zÀQëtªÁV ºÁzÀÄ ºÉÆÃVzÀÄÝ ¸ÀܼÀzÀ°è gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄÄ 6 Cr CUÀ®¢AzÀ PÀÆrgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ §¢AiÀÄ°è ºÀÄ®Äè «Ä²ævÀ ªÀÄtÂÚ£À ªÉÄÃ¯É gÀPÀÛzÀ PÀ¯ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ ©¢ÝzÀÄÝ GvÀÛgÀ ¢QÌ£À PÀqÉUÉ gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ°è C®è°è gÀPÀÛzÀ vÉÆlÄÖUÀ¼ÀÄ ©¢ÝgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ §gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀܼÀzÀ°è gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ §¢AiÀÄ°è ºÀÄ®Äè «Ä²ævÀ ªÀÄtÂÚ£À ªÉÄÃ¯É ©¢ÝzÀÝ gÀPÀÛ «Ä²ævÀ ºÀÄ®Äè ªÀÄtÄÚ ºÁUÀÆ CzÀgÀ ¥ÀPÀÌ¢AzÀ ¸ÁåA¥À¯ï ºÀÄ®Äè «Ä²ævÀ ªÀÄtÚ£ÀÄß - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18435 CRL.A No. 1149 of 2013 ¥ÀævÉåÃPÀªÁV vÉUÉzÀÄ CªÀÅUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀævÉåÃPÀªÁV ¥Áè¹ÖPï qÀ§âUÀ¼À°è ºÁQ qÀ§âUÀ¼À ¨Á¬ÄAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄaÑ ©½ §mÉÖAiÀÄ aîzÀ°è ºÁQ aîzÀ ¨Á¬ÄAiÀÄ£ÀÄß zÁgÀ¢AzÀ PÀnÖ CgÀUÀÄ ºÁQ 'J¸ï.PÉ' CPÀëgÀ¢AzÀ ¹Ã®Ä ªÀiÁr ¥ÀAZÀgÀ ¸À»¬ÄgÀĪÀ UÀÄgÀÄw£À aÃnAiÀÄ£ÀÄß CAn¹ CªÀiÁ£ÀvÀÄ ¥Àr¹PÉƼÀî¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ. ZÉPÀ̧A¢ ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀܼÀzÀ°è gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄÄ GvÀÛgÀ zÀQëtªÁV ºÁzÀÄ ºÉÆÃVzÀÄÝ, GvÀÛgÀPÉÌ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 2 ¥sÀ¯ÁAðUÀÄ zÀÆgÀzÀ°è §¯ÁègÀAqÀ PÀÄlÄA§¸ÀÜgÀ L£ï ªÀÄ£É EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. zÀQëtPÉÌ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 1.1/2 Q.«Äà zÀÆgÀzÀ°è ZÉlÖ½î ªÀÄrPÉÃj ªÀÄÄRå gÀ¸ÉÛ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¥ÀǪÀðPÉÌ PÁa ¨Éð¬ÄzÀÄÝ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 20 Cr zÀÆgÀzÀ°è PÉÆPÉÌÃgÀ PÁAiÀÄð¥Àà£ÀªÀgÀ zÀ£ÀzÀ PÉÆnÖUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄ£É EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¥À²ÑªÀÄPÉÌ ¨ÁgɬÄzÀÄÝ ªÀÄÄAzÀPÉÌ ¢£ÀªÀÄtÂAiÀĪÀgÀ PÁ¦ü vÉÆÃl«gÀÄvÀÛzÉ JA§ÄzÁV ºÉý §gɬĹzÀ ªÀĺÀdgÀÄ. F ªÀĺÀdgÀ£ÀÄß 8.00 J.JA. ¤AzÀ 9.00 J.JA. ªÀgÉUÉ §gÉzÀÄ ªÀÄÄV¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄÛ". 20. Thus from the perusal of Exhibit P.1, complaint and Exhibit P.4, spot inspection report, it appears that the victim was found lying in a pool of blood near Bhagavathi temple which is situated near the house of one Kokkera Cariappa. In complete contrast to the said aspect of the matter, a perusal of Exhibit P.30, which was allegedly shown by the accused to be the place of incident on 22.07.2006, which reads as under: "¸À£ï 2006£Éà E¸À« dįÉÊ wAUÀ¼ÀÄ vÁ: 22 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄrPÉÃj UÁæªÀiÁAvÀgÀ ¥Éǰøï oÁuÁ ¸ÀgÀºÀzÀÄÝ FgÀ¼ÀªÀ¼ÀªÀÄÄr UÁæªÀÄzÀ C¨Áå®zÀ ªÀÄÆqÉÃgÀ ¸ÀÆj ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÉºÀgÀÄgÀªÀjUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ K®QÌ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CrPÉ ºÁUÀÆ ¨Á¼ÉVqÀUÀ½gÀĪÀ vÉÆÃlzÀ ºÀwÛgÀ ¥À²ÑªÀÄ¢AzÀ ¥ÀǪÀðzÀ PÀqÉUÉ ºÀjzÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀĪÀ ¤Ãj£À PÉÆ°èAiÀÄ GvÀÛgÀ ¢QÌ£À §¢AiÀÄ°è F PɼÀUÉ ¸À» ªÀiÁqÀ°gÀĪÀ ¥ÀAZÀgÁzÀ £ÁªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄrPÉÃj UÁæªÀiÁAvÀgÀ ªÀÈvÀÛzÀ ªÀÈvÀÛ ¤jÃPÀëPÀgÁzÀ ²æà J¸ï.J£ï. ¸ÀÄgÉÃ±ï ¨Á§Ä gÀªÀjUÉ ºÉý §gɬĹzÀ ªÀĺÀdgÀÄ. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18435 CRL.A No. 1149 of 2013 F ¢ªÀ¸À vÁ: 22.07.2006 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄrPÉÃj UÁæªÀiÁAvÀgÀ ªÀÈvÀÛzÀ ªÀÈvÀÛ ¤jÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ CªÀgÀÄ vÀ¤SÉ £ÀqɸÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ ªÀÄrPÉÃj UÁæªÀiÁAvÀgÀ ¥Éǰøï oÁuÉ ªÉÆ.¸ÀA. 108/2006 «¢ü 302 L¦¹ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ vÀ¤SÉAiÀÄ §UÉÎ C¨Áâ® §¸ÀÄì vÀAUÀÄzÁtzÀ ºÀwÛgÀ fæ£À°è §AzÀÄ fÃ¥À£ÀÄß ¤°è¹ §¸ÀÄì vÀAUÀÄzÁtzÀ §½ ¤AwzÀÝ £ÀªÀÄä£ÀÄß E£ïì¥ÉPÀÖgïgÀªÀgÀÄ CªÀgÀ fæ£À §½ PÀgÉzÀÄ fæ£À°è ¥Éǰù£ÀªÀgÀ ªÀ±ÀzÀ°èzÀÝ DgÉÆæAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÉÆÃj¹ DgÉÆæAiÀÄ£ÀÄß «ZÁj¹ DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ºÁdgÀÄ ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀ ¸ÉÆwÛUÉ ¥ÀAZÀgÁV ¥Éǰù£ÀªÀgÀ eÉÆvÉAiÀÄ°è ºÁdjzÀÄÝ RavÀ ªÀĺÀdgÀÄ vÀAiÀiÁj¹ PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ E£ïì¥ÉPÀÖgïgÀªÀgÀÄ PÉýPÉÆAqÀ ªÉÄÃgÉ ¥ÀAZÀgÁzÀ £ÁªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ M¦àPÉÆAqɪÀÅ. fæ£À°èzÀÝ ªÀåQÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß «ZÁj¸À¯ÁV vÀªÀÄä ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ PÁªÉÃgÀ¥Àà @ d¥ÀÅà, ªÁ¸À C¨Áå® JA§ÄzÁV w½¹ vÁ: 19.07.2006 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄzsÁåºÀß ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 12.00 UÀAmÉUÉ PÀAqÀPÉgÉAiÀÄ ªÁ¹ n.JA. ªÉÄÊzÀÄgÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß PÀrzÀÄ UÀA©üÃgÀ ¸ÀégÀÆ¥ÀzÀ UÁAiÀÄ ¥Àr¹gÀĪÀ ¸ÀܼÀ ºÁUÀÆ ªÉÄÊzÀĪÀjUÉ PÀrAiÀÄ®Ä G¥ÀAiÉÆÃV¹zÀ PÀwÛ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ D ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ vÁ£ÀÄ zsÀj¹zÀÝ §mÉÖUÀ¼À£ÀÄß EnÖgÀĪÀ ¸ÀܼÀ vÉÆÃj¹ CªÀÅUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÉÆÃj¹ vÉUÉzÀÄ PÉÆqÀÄvÉÛÃ£É JA§ÄzÁV w½¹zÀ£ÀÄ. £ÀAvÀgÀ DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ £ÀªÀÄä£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥Éǰù£ÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ fæ£À°è zÁj vÉÆÃj¸ÀÄvÁÛ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 3 Q.«Äà zÀÆgÀzÀªÀgÉUÉ ºÉÆÃV fÃ¥À£ÀÄß ¤°è¸ÀĪÀAvÉ w½¹, fÃ¥ÀÄ ¤°è¹zÀ §½PÀ DgÉÆæAiÀÄ ªÀÄÄAzÁVAiÀÄÆ £ÁªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ »A¢¤AzÀ®Æ fæ¤AzÀ E½zÀÄ DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ zÁj vÉÆÃj¸ÀÄvÁÛ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 3/4 Q.«Äà zÀÆgÀzÀªÀgÉUÉ vÉÆÃlzÀ M¼ÀUÀqÉ EgÀĪÀ ªÀÄtÄÚ gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀiÁV PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ ¸ÀܼÀPÉÌ §AzÀÄ EzÉà ¸ÀܼÀzÀ°è vÁ£ÀÄ ªÉÄÊzÀÄgÀªÀgÀ PÀÄwÛUÉ UÀAl®Ä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ vÀ¯ÉAiÀÄ ¨sÁUÀPÉÌ PÀrzÀÄ UÁAiÀÄ¥Àr¹gÀĪÀÅzÁV w½¹zÀ ªÉÄÃgÉ ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀܼÀzÀ°è MAzÀÄ eÉÆvÉ PÀ¥ÀÅà §tÚzÀ ¥Áè¹ÖPï ZÀ¥Àà®Ä ¥ÀPÀÌ ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ°è ©¢ÝzÀÄÝ CzÀgÀ ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ°è MAzÀÄ PÉÆqÉ ºÁUÀÆ vÀÄAqÁV ©¢ÝgÀĪÀ D¼ÀvÉ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ mÉÃ¥ï ©¢ÝgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀħAvÀÄ. ¸ÀzÀj ZÀ¥Àà°AiÀÄ£ÀÄß CdªÀiÁ¬Ä¸À¯ÁV ¥ÁzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÉÄïÁâUÀ PÀ¥ÀÅà §tÚ¢AzÀ®Ä M¼À¨sÁUÀ ©¸ÉÌmï PÀ®j¤AzÀ PÀÆrzÀ ¥Áè¹ÖPï ZÀ¥Àà°AiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ Fischer JA§ÄzÁV M¼À¨sÁUÀzÀ°èAiÀÄÆ vÀ¼À¨sÁUÀzÀ°è Josco-JR-002T JA§ÄzÁV §gÉ¢zÀÄÝ 8 ¸ÉÊf£À ZÀ¥Àà°AiÀiÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. MAzÀÄ ©¸ÉÌmï PÀ®j£À ¹éZï PÉÆqÉAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ ¸ÀzÀj PÉÆqÉAiÀÄÄ ºÀ¼ÉAiÀÄzÁVzÀÄÝ vÀÄ¢ ¨sÁUÀzÀ°è PÉA¥ÀÅ ªÀÄÄZÀѼÀzÀAvÉ EzÀÄÝ, »r ¨sÁUÀzÀ°è ©½ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ §Æ¢ §tÚ¢AzÀ PÀÆrzÀ »rPÉ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj PÉÆqÉ §mÉÖAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÀÆUÀ¼À UÀÄgÀÄw¤AzÀ PÀÆrgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. MAzÀÄ vÀÄAqÁzÀ D¼ÀvÉ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ©½ §tÚzÀ mÉÃ¥ï DVzÀÄÝ 1 jAzÀ 60 EAZÀÄUÀ¼ÀªÀgÉUÉ GzÀÝ«zÀÄÝ 34 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 35 EAZÀÄ ªÀÄzsÀåzÀ°è PÁæ¸ï DV PÀvÀÛj¹zÀAvÉ vÀÄAqÁV ©¢ÝgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ §gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀévÀÄÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀævÉåÃPÀªÁV ©½ §mÉÖAiÀÄ aîzÀ°è ºÁQ ¥ÀAZÀgÁzÀ £ÀªÀÄäUÀ¼À ¸À» EgÀĪÀ aÃnAiÀÄ£ÀÄß CAn¹ ¥Éǰù£ÀªÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ªÀ±ÀPÉÌ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀgÀÄ. ªÀĺÀdgÀÄ PÁ®zÀ°è ªÀÄ¼É ©Ã¼ÀÄwÛzÀÝ ¸ÀܼÀzÀ°è gÀPÀÛzÀ PÀ¯ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ EgÀĪÀ ¤±Á£É PÀAqÀÄ §gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18435 CRL.A No. 1149 of 2013 ZÉPÀÄ̧A¢ ¸ÀzÀj ¤ÃgÀÄ ºÀjAiÀÄĪÀ PÉÆ°èAiÀÄ CUÀ® ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 6 CrUÀ½AzÀ PÀÆrzÀÄÝ ¥À²ÑªÀÄ ¢Q̤AzÀ ¥ÀǪÀð ¢QÌ£À PÀqÉUÉ ºÀjzÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. F ¸ÉÆvÀÄÛUÀ¼ÀÄ ©zÀÝ ¸ÀܼÀ¢AzÀ zÀQët ¨sÁUÀzÀ°è ¤Ãj£À PÉÆ°è¬ÄzÀÄÝ ªÀÄÄAzÀPÉÌ ªÀÄÆqÉÃgÀ ¸ÀÆj ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÉºÀgÀÆgÀªÀjUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ K®QÌ CrPÉ, ¨Á¼ÉVqÀ EgÀĪÀ vÉÆÃl, GvÀÛgÀPÉÌ ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀÆj£ÀªÀjUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ vÉÆÃl. ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÉÆvÀÄÛUÀ¼ÀÄ ©zÀÝ ¸ÀܼÀ¢AzÀ 10 Cr ¥À²ÑªÀÄ ¢QÌ£À PÀqÉ MAzÀÄ ªÀiÁ«£À ªÀÄgÀ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ JA§ÄzÁV ºÉý §gɬĹzÀ ªÀĺÀdgÀÄ. F ªÀĺÀdgÀ£ÀÄß 8.30 J.JA. ¤AzÀ 9.30 J.JA. £ÀªÀgÉUÉ §gÉzÀÄ ªÀÄÄV¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ. ªÀĺÀdgÀÄ PÁ®zÀ°è ¨sÁªÀavÀæ vÉUɸÀ¯ÁVzÉ." 21. This gives rise to a serious doubt with regard to the very case of the prosecution as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant as to the actual place of incident i.e., whether the incident had taken place at Bhagwati Temple Road as pointed out by PW.3, who along with other persons named above, had first seen the injured victim lying in a pool of blood or at the place found mention at Exhibit P.30, allegedly shown by the accused. There is no explanation by the prosecution with regard to these two completely different places of incident. 22. Another important aspect of the matter to be seen is that Exhibit P.30 indicates recovery of slippers, umbrella and measuring tape which are marked as MOs.11, 12 and 13 through Mahazar witnesses who have not supported the case of prosecution completely. The prosecution has not identified the - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18435 CRL.A No. 1149 of 2013 said objects either through PW.3 or PW.8, who could have been the witnesses in normal course and have identified the said objects as belonging to the deceased. The incident seemed to have taken place between 11 am and 01.15 pm on 19.07.2006 in a public place and no neighbouring witnesses have been either cited or examined. As per the Post-mortem Report, Exhibit P.33, the victim has sustained seven injuries which are as under: 1. Incised wound over upper part of neck transversely placed just above thyroid cartilage and in the left submandibular region measuring 5.5cm * 1.5 cm size deep up to hyoid bone. All vessels, nerves and phalynx muscles severed. 2. An incised wound over left side of the neck below the wound No.(1) measuring 3cm * 0.5 cm muscles deep. 3. An incised wound over right side of the neck measuring 2cm * 1 cm muscles deep. 4. An incised wound over back of neck (root of neck) 6cm * 2 cm size bone deep (vertebra) all muscles severed transversely placed. 5. Incised wound over left temporal region measuring 3cm* lcm bone deep fracture of bone present. 6. Incised wound over left temporal region near wound No.(5) measuring 2cm * 0.5 cm bone deep. - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18435 CRL.A No. 1149 of 2013 7. Right black eye present. - Age of the wounds about 24 hours. 23. The reason for the death shown is shock and haemorrhage as a result of cumulative effect of the multiple injuries. The nature of injuries seen above and the place of incident, indicate that the same could not have gone unnoticed by anyone whatsoever. 24. There is also discrepancy in the consistency of the case of prosecution with regard to the very first information that emanated and reached PW.3, in that, PW.3 purportedly received the information about his father being injured and lying in a pool of blood first by PW.6 Appanna and Appanna in his evidence has indicated that he in turn received the information from PW.11 Chinnamma. Chinnamma, on the other hand, in her deposition has not spoken about she either calling PW.6 or she having seen the injured. According to the version of PW.11, it is Somaiah, the father of the accused, had purportedly made a call to PW.6, Mothi Devaiah and Somaiah - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18435 CRL.A No. 1149 of 2013 had informed PW.6 and she overheard the same. Thus the very genesis of the information of the incident itself is unclear. 25. It is useful to refer the observation made by the Apex Court in the case of Abdul Nassar vs State of Kerala reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 111, at paragraph No.30, reads as under: "30. We deem it essential to enunciate the principles that courts must adhere to while appreciating and evaluating evidence in cases based on circumstantial evidence, as follows: (i) The testimony of each prosecution and defence witness must be meticulously discussed and analysed. Each witness's evidence should be assessed in its entirety to ensure no material aspect is overlooked. (ii) Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact. Thus, the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the testimony of each witness must be explicitly delineated. (iii) Each of the links of incriminating circumstantial evidence should be meticulously examined so as to find out if each one of the circumstances is proved individually and whether collectively taken, they forge an unbroken chain consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence. (iv) The judgment must comprehensively elucidate the rationale for accepting or rejecting specific pieces of evidence, - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18435 CRL.A No. 1149 of 2013 demonstrating how the conclusion was logically derived from the evidence. It should explicitly articulate how each piece of evidence contributes to the overall narrative of guilt. (v) The judgment must reflect that the finding of guilt, if any, has been reached after a proper and careful evaluation of circumstances in order to determine whether they are compatible with any other reasonable hypothesis." 26. Thus with the aforesaid glaring gaps in the case of the prosecution and in the absence of any acceptable evidence, the prosecution has failed to prove the case of accused assaulting and causing grievous hurt to the deceased. The trial Court has proceeded to convict the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II instead of 302 IPC. The reasoning reads as under: "112. In the light of this observation of the Apex Court, if the evidence of the PW.27 Doctor who conducted the P.M. examination referred above is scrutinized. He specifically denied the possibility of sustaining the type of injury that had found on the dead body of the Moidu if the person fall from the tree. Hence the possibility of sustaining injuries which were found on the dead body of Moidu, explained in the P.M. examination on account of fall from the tree is also to be ruled out. Accordingly, I hold that the injuries found on the deceased Moidu were not caused due to fall from the tree, but by the sickle seized in this case. The said sickle is seized at the instance of - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18435 CRL.A No. 1149 of 2013 the accused from his house under Ex.P.31. In view of the principles laid down in the citation given in 2013 Crl.L.J. Pg. 3944 S.C. (D.B.) in a case Harivadan referred above. The said information is to be hold as within the special knowledge of the accused and it can be relied upon etc., Hence on all these grounds the prosecution proves that the death of the deceased is homicidal one and it was caused by the accused on 19-07-2006 in the estate of one Suri and Neharu. The defence has much argued regarding the non- examination of the Suri, Neharu and one Raghu. But it is pertinent to note that, the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. Under such circumstances, the prosecution is at liberty to establish its case on the circumstantial evidence. Further in the citation given in 2013 Crl.L.J. Pg. 3944 S.C (D.B) in a case Harivadan referred above -> In Head Note (D) it is stated that -> Murder case - Non examination of material witnesses Not significant when other reliable evidence proves prosecution case...... Under such circumstances, the opponent cannot insist the prosecution to adduce such and such evidence. On the other hand the accused is at liberty to examine the said person in support of his defence, that has not been done here. Hence on all these grounds, it is proved that, the death of the deceased is homicidal one committed by the accused on account of non payment of his commission by the deceased towards the timber broker business of accused. Now the question is whether the said homicidal death is coming within the ingredients of the offence under section 302 of IPC or not. The very case of the prosecution is that ªÀÄÈvÀ n.JA.ªÉƬÄzÀÄzÀªÀjUÉ ªÀÄgÀ ªÁå¥ÁgÀ ªÀiÁr PÉÆlÖ §UÉÎ DgÉÆæUÉ PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÁzÀ PÀ«ÄµÀ£ï ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ªÉƬÄzÀÄgÀªÀgÀÄ PÉÆqÀzÉà EzÀÄÝzÀÝjAzÀ dUÀ¼À vÉUÉzÀÄ ªÉƬÄzÀÄgÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆ¯É ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÉA§ GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ PÀwÛ¬ÄAzÀ ªÉƬÄzÀÄgÀªÀgÀ vÀ¯ÉUÉ PÀÄwÛUÉ, UÀAl°UÉ PÀrzÀÄ wêÀæ ¸ÀégÀÆ¥ÀzÀ UÁAiÀÄ¥Àr¹ PÉÆ¯É ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ...... This shows that, the cause for the said incident is money pertaining to the commission. If the deceased has paid money - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18435 CRL.A No. 1149 of 2013 pertaining to the commission then question of assault by the accused on him does not arise. It was occurred only on accouant of non-payment of commission amount to the accused by the deceased. Hence it is a case of an sudden grave provocation, the consequences of the said factum of grave provocation is homicidal death of the injured Moidu. As there is no prior intention to the accused to commit the culpable homicide of the Moidu. As the said incident is occurred on the spur of moment on account of non payment of commission. Hence on all these above said grounds, I am of the considered view that, the prosecution has proved the offence p/u/s.304 part II of IPC against the accused instead of the offence p/u/s.302 of IPC. Accordingly, I answered Point No.1 in Partly Affirmative." 27. As already noted above, neither PW.3 nor PW.8 have deposed concretely about the deceased having had commission business with the accused. PW.3 has pleaded ignorance about he knowing anything about the deceased having business relating to timber. He has not given any specific description as to accused having had business with the deceased. PW.8 also has not spoken anything concrete about the deceased having had business with the accused. The assumption of the trial Court in the circumstances of accused causing injuries under grave provocation, also cannot be sustained. Mere recovery of the weapon cannot lead to the conviction of the petitioner. - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18435 CRL.A No. 1149 of 2013 28. For the aforesaid reasons and analysis, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the trial Court cannot be sustained. Hence, the following: ORDER [a] Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. [b] The impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 27.11.2013 passed in S.C.No. 91/2006 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu Madikeri are set aside. [c] Accused is acquitted of the charges for the offences punishable under section 304 Part II IPC. [d] Accused is set at liberty forthwith, if his detention is not required in any other case. [e] The bail bond and surety if any stands cancelled. NV SD/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE