Wife of a murder victim appealed against the acquittal of the accused for an offence under Section 302 IPC. The High Court found the circumstantial evidence unreliable: doubtful FIR, inconsistent seizure evidence, unproven blood-stained clothes and unestablished motive, and dismissed the appeal, confirming the acquittal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl.A.No.442/2018
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.442 OF 2018 (A)
BETWEEN:
Smt. Puttamma Aged about 51 years W/o. Late Rangaswamy Housewife and agriculture Residing at Kambathanahalli village Hiriyur taluk, Chitradurga district – 577 528
... Appellant
(By Shri. Gopalakrishna Murthy C., Advocate)
and:
1 . State of Karnataka by Abbinahole police station Represented by its Public Prosecutor High Court Complex Bengaluru – 560 001
2 . Ranganatha S/o Thimmanna R/o Kambathanahalli village Hiriyur Taluk, Chitradurga District – 577 528
… Respondents
(By Shri. P. Thejesh, HCGP for R1 Shri. N. Srinivas, Advocate for R2)
Crl.A.No.442/2018
2
This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the judgment and order of acquittal dated 02.11.2017 passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga in S.C.No.12/2017 - acquitting the respondent/accused for the offence punishable under section 302 of IPC.
This Criminal Appeal coming on for Further Arguments having been heard through Physical Hearing/Video Conference and reserved for judgment on 12.12.2023, coming on for pronouncement, this day, Umesh M. Adiga J., delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by wife of victim, who is a defacto complainant, against judgment passed in Sessions case No.12/2017 dated 02.11.2017 on the file
of I Additional District and Sessions Judge Court, Chitradurga. Accused – Respondent was charge-sheeted by Abbinahole Police station of Chitradurga for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. After holding trial, the trial Court acquitted the accused for the said offence. Same is challenged in the present appeal.
Crl.A.No.442/2018
3
trial Court.
PW-1/Smt.Puttamma is the wife of deceased
Ranganatha. Accused elder brother’s son of the deceased Rangaswamy. It appears there were some dispute between deceased and accused and few days prior to the incident, deceased filed a complaint against the accused for setting fire on the hay stack belonging to him. Due to the same, accused had grudge against the deceased. Deceased had small piece of land in Kambathanahalli Village of Hiriyuru Taluk in Chitradurga District. It appears at the time of incident deceased had cultivated the said land and grown onion in the said land. Everyday night PW-1 and deceased used to go to agricultural land for watering the crop. On the day of incident, son-in-law of PW-1 appears to be not in town and daughter of PW-1 was alone at house, therefore, deceased alone went to agricultural land to water the crop and PW-1 remained at
home. Normally, deceased used to come home before
Crl.A.No.442/2018
4
7.00 a.m., but on that day deceased did not return from agricultural land. Therefore, PW-1 went to agricultural land, on 04.09.2016 around 7.00 a.m. she saw that deceased was lying on the land. She found that her husband had sustained head injuries and also injury to other parts of the body and was dead. She also observed that, someone had assaulted on the head and other parts of her husband. It is further case of prosecutor that, Accused had quarrelled few days prior to the said incident, accused burnt hay stack belonging to deceased and in this regard deceased lodged police complaint. Police called both accused and deceased and advised. Thereafter, accused was very angry against deceased for lodging complaint. Hence, PW-1 suspected that accused might have murdered her husband, lodged the complaint to the jurisdictional police. On the basis of the said complaint, Police registered a case in Crime No.109/2016 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (for short referred to as ‘IPC’). The concerned police investigated the case and charge-sheeted the
Crl.A.No.442/2018
5
accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC before concerned JMFC Court.
6 Crl.A.No.442/2018
of Cr.P.C. and his answers were recorded. The accused did not lead evidence in his defense evidence called upon.
advocate for appellant, learned High Court Government Pleader and advocate appearing for the accused.
The learned advocate for appellant would submit that PW-1 is wife of deceased, has stated about enmity of accused with them, registering of case against him for the mischief he had committed. She has also stated on 03.09.2016, deceased alone had gone to agricultural land to water the crop. On the next day, when PW-1 had gone to agricultural land in the morning, she found that her husband was having injuries on his head and other parts of the body. She suspected against accused and
Crl.A.No.442/2018
7
filed complaint to the police. PW-2 in his evidence had stated that on the previous night, he saw accused was coming running from the side of land of the deceased and accused appeared to be frightened and was in hurry. It indicates that accused murdered Rangaswamy and therefore was in hurry to leave that place. Accused has not given any explanation about his presence at that spot. It will connect the accused with the death of Rangaswamy.
accused, which he was wearing at the time of incident and that were blood stained. The said dress materials were sent to FSL for serology report. Scientific expert of a FSL, Bengaluru, on chemical examination of dress materials of the accused and other materials, found that out of the 12 articles sent to FSL. Item No. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, 15 and 16 were stained with ‘A’ Group blood. Out of them, item Nos.6 and 7 are blood stained clothes of accused. It clearly indicates that accused had committed murder of deceased. Accused did not offer
Crl.A.No.442/2018
8
any explanation regarding blood stains on his clothes. It is another strong circumstances to believe that accused had committed murder of Rangaswamy.
Crl.A.No.442/2018
9
Crl.A.No.442/2018
10
i. Whether prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that on 03.09.2016 during night in Kambathanahalli Village of Hiriyuru Taluk, accused with an intention to murder Rangaswamy, when he was sitting in his agricultural land, assaulted him with wooden stick and stone on his head and other parts of the body, when he fell down, accused stamped on him and kicked him and caused his death thereby accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.
ii. Whether findings of the trial Court is erroneous and call for interference by this Court?
iii. What order ?
witness to the incident and prosecution built up this case
on the basis of circumstantial evidence. Following circumstances are to be proved to connect the accused with the guilt:
Crl.A.No.442/2018
11
Kambathanahalli Village to water the crop.
PW-1 is wife of deceased Rangaswamy. In her
evidence, she has stated that on the unfortunate day, during night deceased had gone to agricultural land to water the onion crop. Next day morning he did not return home. Therefore, she had been to agricultural land and found that her husband had sustained injuries on head
and other parts and he was dead. She also observed
Crl.A.No.442/2018
12
wooden stick near dead body. Deceased had sustained head injury and cut injury near cheek. She shouted for help and some people gathered at spot. In the meanwhile within 15 minutes, police came to the spot. She lodged the complaint to police as per Ex.P1. She has further stated that dead body of her husband was shifted to hospital. Police came to the spot and drew mahazar as per Ex.P2 and seized M.Os.1 to 4 from the spot. Prior to the incident, accused set fire to the haystack because of which, her husband lodged complaint to police against accused. By intervention of police, it was settled. Due to the same accused had grudge against the deceased and hence, he murdered her husband.
that owners of nearby land of her husband were also staying in the agricultural land during night to water their crop. Normally agriculturist go to work in the agricultural land in the early morning. She reached agricultural land and thereafter, within fifteen (15) minutes, Police came to the spot and took her signature on Ex.P1. She does
Crl.A.No.442/2018
13
not know contents of Ex.P2. She has stated that at about two to three months prior to the incident, deceased had quarrelled with neighbouring land owners regarding sharing of water to the field and they also threatened him holding a knife. She denied suggestion that she was giving false evidence.
Crl.A.No.442/2018
14
deceased, he saw the accused coming from the side of land belonging to the deceased. Accused appeared to be frightened and was came running. According to prosecution, PW-2 saw the accused coming from the side of land belonging to deceased and hence, on that circumstance, prosecution contending that the accused had murdered deceased Rangaswamy. Therefore, death of Rangaswamy might be before 10.00 p.m. PW-1 says that owners of the nearby lands were also staying during the night in their respective agricultural land to water the crop. If that is the case, anyone could have witnessed the incident. None of the probable witnesses were examined. PW-6 has not stated that he enquired with any of the owners of the nearby land of the deceased, to ascertain the truth in the allegation made against the accused. No explanation is forth coming for nonexamination of them. Therefore, the investigation is not fair.
PW-1 has stated that two to three months prior to
the incident, owners of the neighbouring lands fought
Crl.A.No.442/2018
15
with the deceased, on the ground that he was not allowing other land owners to draw the water. In this regard, they have threatened deceased even holding the knife. In view of the said evidence, it appears the deceased was not in good terms with the owners of the nearby land, under such circumstances, there are chances that someone might have caused injury to the deceased due to the said dispute.
who has stated that on the day of incident during night, he was going by walk towards his house and on the way, he saw that accused, came running from the side of land belonging to the deceased and he was very much frightened. On the next day, he came to know that the said Rangaswamy was murdered. In his crossexamination, he has stated that he did not inform to any members of his family that accused came running from the side of land belonging to the deceased. Looking to the cross-examination of PW-2, it is difficult to believe said evidence given by him. As already stated above, if
Crl.A.No.442/2018
16
the incident had taken place prior to 10.00 p.m., then, there might be chances that owners of the nearby lands, who also went to water their crop, could have seen the incident. Except PW-2, who is a close relative, i.e., sonin-law of the deceased and PW-1, none have witnessed the said incident. Therefore, it appears, he is a planted witness.
Crl.A.No.442/2018
17
1, then, seizure of stone on the confession of the accused, under Ex.P9 is not believable. In this case, Police seized only one stone, i.e., MO-2. As per the evidence of PWs-2 and 5, two stones were seized by the investigating officer. In view of the inconsistency in the evidence, seizure of MO-2 is highly doubtful.
Crl.A.No.442/2018
18
the dead body, could be possible in motor vehicle accident. The said suggestion is not of much consequence since it is nobody’s case that deceased sustained such injuries in vehicle accident. By the evidence of PW-4 and Ex.P6, prosecution proved that death of Rangaswamy is homicidal death.
Crl.A.No.442/2018
19
serology report. It is the case of prosecution that blood said to be found on clothes of the accused are of ‘A’ group. Without ascertaining blood group of the accused, it is difficult to accept the contention of the prosecution that blood stains found on the dress materials of accused was of the deceased. Had blood samples of the accused was taken, it could have helped prosecution to connect accused with death of Rangaswamy.
Crl.A.No.442/2018
20
Under such circumstances, even if the blood stains are found on MOs-6 and 7 are belonging to the same blood group as that of the deceased, in view of the not proving the fact that MOs-6 and 7 belonging to the accused, it will not connect the accused with the death of Rangaswamy.
circumstances mentioned above. There are no materials placed on record to show that prior to the death of Rangaswamy, there was quarrel between the accused and the deceased regarding setting fire to the haystack of the deceased and in this regard, complaint was given to Police. Prosecution has not let in evidence to prove that accused has set fire to the haystack of deceased. PW-6 could have obtained the records from the police station, about filing of complaint by PW-1 and her husband against the accused. Therefore, prosecution has utterly failed to prove that due to the said incident,
Crl.A.No.442/2018
21
accused was angry against the deceased and he intended to take revenge against the deceased. It appears the concerned investigating officer was influenced by the statement given by PW-1 and accepted it as a gospel truth. Therefore, he did not collect any materials to prove that accused had enmity against the deceased.
For the aforesaid discussion, we answer Point Nos.
1 and 2 in the ‘Negative’ and proceed to pass the following:
Crl.A.No.442/2018
22
ORDER
i) The Appeal is dismissed .
ii) The impugned order dated 02.11.2017 passed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga in S.C.No.12/2017 is confirmed.
iii) Registry is directed to send back Sessions Court Records forthwith along with the copy of the judgment.
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
AG/DH
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused murdered Rangaswamy on 03.09.2016 based on circumstantial evidence?
Whether the trial court's acquittal was erroneous and called for interference by this Court?
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. Puttamma
State of Karnataka by Abbinahole police station
Ranganatha
H.B. Prabhakara Sastry
Umesh M Adiga
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
