Shri. Nagaraj S/O Narayan Poojari Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:18346-DB CRL.A No. 100460 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100460 OF 2025 (C)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHRI NAGARAJ S/O. NARAYAN POOJARI, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O.KUMBRI HEMMADI VILLAGE, TALUKA: YELLAPUR, U.K.-581359.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. MEGHARAJ H. KABADI, ADV. FOR SRI. RAIBAGI GANAPATASA RAMAKRISHNSA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench.

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY YELLAPUR POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. M. B. GUNDAWADE, ADDL. S.P.P.)

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF CR.P.C. 1973, (SECTION 415(2) OF BNSS, 2023) PRAYING TO ADMIT THIS APPEAL, CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 11.07.2025 PASSED BY 1ST ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KARWAR, SITTING AT SIRSI IN S.C. NO.5020/2019 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 323, 302 AND 201 OF IPC AND ETC.

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 27.11.2025, COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT’, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC-D:18346-DB CRL.A No. 100460 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI

¶22

CAV JUDGMENT

¶23

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI)

¶24

The accused in S.C. No. 5020/2019 on the file of learned I Additional District and Sessions Court, Karwar, sitting at Sirsi, has preferred this appeal assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.07.2025 passed therein, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 302, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶25

The facts of the case in nutshell are as under:

¶26

2.1 On 10.01.2019 at about 1.00 a.m., one Sri Raghu lodged a complaint before the Yellapur Police, requesting initiation of legal action against the accused on the allegation that the accused had murdered his daughter, Kumari Nayana, on 09.01.2019 between 9.00 a.m. and 3.00 p.m., either by assaulting her or by administering pesticide. In the said complaint, the complainant further narrated that the accused had previously committed certain offences against his wife and daughters prior to the incident dated 09.01.2019.

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:18346-DB CRL.A No. 100460 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

2.2 Based on the said complaint, Yellapur Police registered a case against the accused in Crime No.10/2019 for the offences under Sections 324 and 302 of IPC and took up investigation.

¶30

2.3 PW-6 Sri Dinesh, HC No.744, received the complaint, registered the case and handed over the papers to PW-17 for the investigation in the case. PW-17 Sri Manjunath, Police Inspector of Khanapura, has conducted entire investigation in the case except on 12.1.2019, the day on which he was deputed to provide security for PSI Examination.

¶31

2.4 On 12.1.2019 PW-16 Sri Chandrashekar, CPI of Joida, was the Investigating Officer in the case. On that day he said to have recorded voluntary statement of the accused and drawn seized mahazar at the instance of the accused.

¶32

2.5 After conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was laid against the accused for offences under Sections 302, 324, 323, 498A, and 201 of the IPC. The offences being triable by Court of Sessions, the case was committed and then made over to the trial court. The said court framed charges against the

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:18346-DB CRL.A No. 100460 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

accused for the above mentioned offenses, who abjured his guilt and claimed trial.

¶36

2.6 The prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses, exhibited 32 documents and 5 material objects to prove its case. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and he was confronted with the allegations as appearing against him in the prosecution case. The accused denied the same and claimed to be innocent. The accused adduced his defense by stepping into witness box as DW-1 and got marked a document as Ex.D1.

¶37

2.7 Upon hearing the arguments advanced on both sides and considering the evidence on record, the trial court proceeded to convict and sentence the accused for the offences under Sections 323, 302 and 201 of the IPC and acquitted him of the charges framed under Sections 498A and 324.

¶38

2.8 The accused has preferred this appeal questioning his conviction and order of sentence for the offences under Sections 323, 302 and 201 of IPC. No one has challenged the acquittal of the accused for the offences under Sections 498A and 324 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶39

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:18346-DB CRL.A No. 100460 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

Sri Megharaj H. Kabadi, learned Counsel appearing for Sri Raibagi Ganapatsa Ramakrishna, learned Counsel for the Accused, vehemently contended that the conviction of the accused by the trial court is based purely on conjectures and surmises. He submitted that the prosecution case is totally based on circumstantial evidence and that the prosecution could not lead reliable evidence to establish the complete chain of incriminating circumstances required to prove guilt of the accused. He further submitted that the trial court has committed grave error in placing reliance on the so-called suspicious conduct of the accused and alleged failure to give proper explanation, ignoring the position of law. On these grounds, learned Counsel for Accused pleaded to accept the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and acquit the accused of the charges leveled against him.

¶42

Per contra, Sri M.B.Gundwade, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor, fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the counsel appearing for the accused. He submitted that the material witnesses, who hail from a rustic background, have given natural and truthful evidence regarding

¶43

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:18346-DB CRL.A No. 100460 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

the incident and suspicious conduct of the accused corresponding to the time of the incident. He further submitted that trivial inconsistencies in evidence of these witnesses here and there, were bound to occur and no advantage thereof can be gained by the accused. He also submitted that the accused has failed to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and urged that the conviction recorded by the trial court needs to be maintained.

¶46

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced on both sides in the case and have carefully gone through the impugned judgement and the materials available on record.

¶47

The following admitted facts emerge from the record:

¶48

a) The accused and PW-2 Smt. Mangala are the husband and wife. They had three children by name Kum. Bhavana, Kum. Nayana and Kum. Sahana.

¶49

b) During the relevant period, the eldest daughter i.e., Kum. Pavana, was a student of 7^th Standard in Morarji Residential School at Yellapura. Other two daughters

¶50

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:18346-DB CRL.A No. 100460 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

were studying in 5^th and 3rd Standard respectively in Hemmadi Kumbra Kannada School.

¶53

c) The accused was residing in a house at Kumbra along with his wife/PW-2 and two daughters i.e., Nayana and Sahana.

¶54

d) On account of marital discord, about 7-8 months prior to the date of incident, the wife/PW-2 went away from the house by leaving her two daughters with the accused, without disclosing her whereabouts.

¶55

e) On 26.12.2018 the accused gave a complaint to Yellapur Police about missing of his wife/PW-2. A report was also published in the newspaper in that regard. Later, on 3.1.2019 PW-2 met the police and disclosed the reason for which she is living separately at Karwar.

¶56

f) On 4.1.2019, PW-2 and the accused were summoned to Karuna Women Counselling Centre at Karwar in connection with their marital discord. In response, the accused had gone to the counseling centre along with his daughters and returned to his home with them.

¶57

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:18346-DB CRL.A No. 100460 of 2025

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

g) On 9.1.2019 in the evening, PW-3 Kum. Sahana came to the house of PW-1 and asked him to come to their house since Kum. Nayana was vomiting and that bad smell was coming.

¶60

h) Accordingly, PW-1, his elder sister Parvati and his mother went to the house of the accused at 6.00 pm. They found Kum. Nayana had vomited and that she was dead. There was pungent smell of pesticide in the house of the accused.

¶61

i) During the intervening night i.e, on 10.1.2019 at 1.00 am, PW-1 lodged the complaint with Yellapur Police expressing suspicion against the accused.

¶62

The disputed facts of the case appearing from the

¶63

record are as follows:

¶64

a) During the counseling at Karwar, the children of the accused were asked about their views – with whom they wish to go and it is said that the children expressed their wish to go with mother, because of which the accused

¶65

9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:18346-DB CRL.A No. 100460 of 2025

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

was angry with his children on the ground that they did not express their willingness to go with him.

¶68

b) On 5.1.2019 at about 10.30 p.m., the accused beat his two daughters with broom stick and as such the father of PW-1, who is the elder brother of the accused, went to the house of the accused, brought the children to his house and then, left them back in the house of the accused in the evening of next day.

¶69

c) When PW-1, his elder sister Parvati and his mother went to the house of the accused on 9.1.2019 at 6.00 pm, the accused was weeping in the first room by holding Kum. Nayana.

¶70

d) When PW-1 made an attempt to inquire with the accused about the incident, the accused ran away from the place.

¶71

e) The accused who was angry on his children because they expressed their wish to go with their mother during counseling, on 9.1.2019 between 9.00 am to 3.00 pm, murdered the deceased by causing assault on her or by forcibly administering poison.

¶72

10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:18346-DB CRL.A No. 100460 of 2025

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

The case of the prosecution as projected in the charge sheet, in brief, is as follows: On 17.06.2018 at about 7:30 p.m., the accused abused his wife in filthy language and inflicted mental cruelty upon her, for having given birth to three female children. Thereafter, on 05.01.2019 at about 10:30 p.m., the accused beat his daughters i.e., the deceased Nayana and CW-9 with broom stick, as they did not express their willingness to go along with the accused when they were asked to express their view before a counseling centre. Subsequently, in the said background thinking that if he kills the deceased, who was suffering from congenital heart disease, he could lead his life comfortably than spending all his earnings for her treatment, on 09.01.2019 at about 4:30 p.m., the accused forcibly administered the pesticide in the house, which was brought for termite treatment, and thereby murdered the deceased. It is further alleged that the accused tried to destroy the traces and conceal evidence of the crime by wiping off the vomit of the deceased.

¶75

The materials available on record clearly indicate that there is no dispute with regard to the cause of death of the

¶76

11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:18346-DB CRL.A No. 100460 of 2025

¶77

HC-KAR

¶78

deceased. PW-4 - Dr. Abhijith, who conducted the post-mortem examination, based on his observations and the report received from the RFSL, Mangaluru, stated that the cause of death of the deceased appears to be due to poisoning by an insecticide belonging to the pyrethroid group. The opinion so expressed by PW-4 stands corroborated by the post-mortem report and the FSL report, which are marked as Ex.P7 and Ex.P-25 respectively.

¶79

Undisputedly, the prosecution case entirely rests on circumstantial evidence to establish the allegation against the accused as there was no eye witness to the incident of alleged forcible administration of pesticide to the deceased. As such before proceeding further, we find it beneficial to refer to some of the important decisions, which lay down legal position governing the field in cases based on circumstantial evidence.

¶80

In Vaibhav v. State of Maharashtra, reported in

¶81

[(2025) 8 SCC 315] , as under:

¶82

“29. In criminal jurisprudence, it is a time-tested proposition that the primary burden falls upon the shoulders of the prosecution and it is only if the prosecution succeeds in discharging its burden beyond reasonable doubt that the burden shifts upon the accused to explain the evidence against him or to present a defence.

¶83

12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:18346-DB CRL.A No. 100460 of 2025

¶84

HC-KAR

¶85

31. In law, there is a significant difference in the evidentiary burden to be discharged by the prosecution and the accused. Whereas, the former is expected to discharge its burden beyond reasonable doubt, the latter is only required to prove a defence on the anvil of preponderance of probabilities. If the accused leads defence evidence in the course of a criminal trial, the same ought to be tested as probable or improbable in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶86

33. … It is trite law that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, motive is relevant. However, it is not conclusive of the matter. There is no rule of law that the absence of motive would ipso facto dismember the chain of evidence and would lead to automatic acquittal of the accused. It is so because the weight of other evidence needs to be seen and if the remaining evidence is sufficient to prove guilt, motive may not hold relevance. But a complete absence of motive is certainly a circumstance which may weigh in favour of the accused. During appreciation of evidence wherein favourable and unfavourable circumstances are sifted and weighed against each other, this circumstance ought to be incorporated as one leaning in favour of the accused.

¶87

37. … Ordinarily, in cases involving direct evidence of the commission of crime, motive has little role to play as presence or absence of motive is immaterial if the commission of the crime stands proved through other evidence. Even otherwise, motiveless crimes are not unknown to the society.

¶88

However, in cases purely based on circumstantial evidence, the absence of motive could raise serious questions and might even render the chain of evidence as doubtful. It is so because the presence of motive does the job of explaining the circumstantial evidence.

¶89

13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:18346-DB CRL.A No. 100460 of 2025

¶90

HC-KAR

¶91

43. …It is a time-tested proposition of law that when a court is faced with a situation wherein two different views appear to be reasonably possible, the matter is to be decided in favour of the accused. The benefit of a counter possibility goes to the accused in such cases…”.

¶92

In Subramanya Vs State of Karnataka reported in

¶93

(2022 INSC 1083) , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that

¶94

“…. Even if it is believed that the accused had a motive to commit the crime, the same may be an important circumstance in a case based on circumstantial evidence but cannot take the place as a conclusive proof that the person concerned was the author of the crime. One could even say that the presence of motive in the facts and circumstances of the case creates a strong suspicion against the accused but suspicion, howsoever strong, cannot be a substitute for proof of the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt…”

¶95

In Munikrishna @ Krishna Etc. Vs State by Ulsoor Police Station [2022 INSC 1322], Hon’ble Supreme Court of India relying on Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and another Vs State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 1952 SC 343, held that

¶96

“12. In a case of circumstantial evidence, the Court has to scrutinize each and every circumstantial possibility, which is place before it in the form of an evidence and the evidence must point towards only one conclusion, which is the guilt of the accsused. In other words, a very heavy duty is cast upon the prosecution to prove its case, beyond reasonable doubt. …”.

¶97

14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:18346-DB CRL.A No. 100460 of 2025

¶98

HC-KAR

¶99

14. In Nusrat Parveen Vs State of Jharkhand [2024

¶100

INSC 955] Hon’ble Apex Court has held that

¶101

“17. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that Section 106 of the Evidence Act shall apply and the onus to explain would shift on to the accused only after the prosecution succeeds in establishing the basic facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts which are within the special knowledge of the accused. When the accused fails to offer a proper explanation about the existence of the said other facts, the Court can draw an appropriate inference against the accused. In cases based on circumstantial evidence, the accused’s failure to provide a reasonable explanation as required under Section 106 of the Evidence Act can serve as an additional link in the chain of circumstantial evidence – but only if the prosecution has already established other essential ingredients sufficient to shift the onus on to the accused. However, if the prosecution fails to establish a complete chain of circumstances in the first place, then the accused’s failure to discharge the burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act becomes irrelevant….”

¶102

15. With regard to the incident dated 09.01.2019, PW-3

¶103

has stated that on the particular day the deceased was at home owing to her illness, and when PW-3 was at school, the accused came there at about 3:30 p.m. and took her home saying that the deceased was unwell. PW-3 has stated that upon returning home, she noticed the deceased vomiting. She further stated that as the accused asked her to take bath, she went and took

¶104

15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:18346-DB CRL.A No. 100460 of 2025

¶105

HC-KAR

¶106

bath and on returning once again she found the deceased vomiting. PW-3 stated that thereafter the accused had sent her to call CW-11 and CW-1.

¶107

It is to be noted that in her examination-in-chief, PW-3 has clearly stated that she does not know whether the accused had forcibly administered any pesticide to the deceased. In spite of such categorical statement made by PW-3, the prosecution has neither disputed the said statement of PW-3 nor chose to cross examine her, by treating her as a hostile witness. In view of the same, it is to be held that the testimony of PW-3 in no way helpful for the prosecution in proving the guilt of the accused.

¶108

PW-1 - Sri Raghu, is the de-facto complainant. In his evidence, PW-1 has stated that on the particular day in the afternoon while he was at home, PW-3 came there and informed him that the deceased was vomiting and requested him to come to their house. PW-1 further stated that accordingly he went to the house of the accused at around 5:00 p.m. along with his mother and elder sister, and found the deceased lying dead.

¶109

16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:18346-DB CRL.A No. 100460 of 2025

¶110

HC-KAR

¶111

The prosecution has treated PW-1 as a hostile witness and subjected him to cross-examination. Nevertheless, no material admission supportive of the prosecution case has been elicited from his mouth. The prosecution contends that since the accused is the paternal uncle of PW-1, he has turned hostile to support and protect the accused. In support of this contention, the prosecution relies upon the complaint, the further statement dated 12.01.2019, and the statement of PW-1 recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., all of which are marked as Exs.P-1 to P-3 respectively.

¶112

This Court has carefully examined the contents of Exs. P1 to P3. In the complaint it is stated that on going to the house of the accused, PW-1 had found the accused sitting in the first room, weeping and holding the deceased, who was dead. It is further stated that when PW-1 attempted to enquire with the accused, he ran away from the spot. The complaint further records the information gathered by PW-1 from PW-3 and about the things noticed/observed by PW-1 at the place. The further statement of PW-1 recorded on 12.01.2019 mentions that the facts narrated therein were based on the information allegedly

¶113

17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:18346-DB CRL.A No. 100460 of 2025

¶114

HC-KAR

¶115

revealed by the accused when he was brought to the place of crime. Whereas, the statement of PW-1 recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. contains a mention that the police, upon visiting the spot, had opined that the accused might have poisoned the deceased. Thus, the statement of PW-1 recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. gives an impression that the story of forcible administration of the pesticide to the deceased by the accused surfaced only after the police visited the spot. In the above circumstances, it is to be held that PW-1 has deposed before the Court only regarding the facts within his knowledge.

¶116

The prosecution has examined the mother of the deceased and the wife of the accused namely Smt. Mangala as PW-2. In her deposition, PW-2 stated that upon making an enquiry, PW-3 informed her that the accused had administered poison to the deceased. A similar version is reflected in the deposition of PW-12 - Smt. Parvati, the mother of PW-2. A careful perusal of the evidence of PW-3 reveals that first of all PW-3 has not made any such statement before the court. The prosecution has produced the statements of PW-2 and PW-12 recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at

¶117

18 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:18346-DB CRL.A No. 100460 of 2025

¶118

HC-KAR

¶119

Ex.P4 and Ex.P19 respectively. Significantly, these statements recorded on 29.01.2019, are silent regarding any information allegedly received from PW-3.

¶120

It is also borne out from the record and the depositions of PW-2 and PW-12 that they had reached the scene of occurrence only around 11:00 p.m. on 09.01.2019 or thereafter. If at all PW-3 had indeed possessed such vital information, it would be natural for her to disclose the same forthwith to PW-1 or to other persons present at the place of occurrence. The absence of any such disclosure at the earliest opportunity militates against the veracity of the version put forth by PW-2 and PW-12. Consequently, their statements, being inconsistent with the other evidence on record, do not inspire confidence to be safely relied upon.

¶121

The definite case of the prosecution is that the accused, being enraged by the conduct of his children who expressed their desire to go with their mother before the counseling and having been fed up over incurring all his earnings on the medical treatment of the deceased, formed an intention to eliminate her, and in furtherance of the said

¶122

19 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:18346-DB CRL.A No. 100460 of 2025

¶123

HC-KAR

¶124

intention, he allegedly administered pesticide to the deceased forcibly.

¶125

In the present case, it is not in dispute that the deceased was suffering from a congenital heart ailment. The document produced by the defense at Ex.D-1 reveals that the deceased had undergone a VSD closure surgery at the age of three years at the Jayadeva Institute of Cardiovascular Sciences and Research, Bengaluru. Although PW-2 has stated in her evidence that the deceased had completely recovered after the surgery, the materials on record coupled with the admissions elicited from the witnesses and the suggestions put to the accused during cross-examination, indicate that the deceased continued to remain under regular medical follow-up. It is further an admitted position that the accused had borne all the expenses incurred towards the medical treatment of the deceased for nearly 8 years without any grumble. The admissions of the prosecution witnesses go to show that due to marital discord though PW-2 was living separately from accused for about 9 months, the accused was looking after his minor children by keeping them with him. In the above said circumstances, this

¶126

20 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:18346-DB CRL.A No. 100460 of 2025

¶127

HC-KAR

¶128

Court holds that the prosecution has not adduced sufficient evidence on record to prove alleged motive for the accused to commit the murder of the deceased.

¶129

The impugned judgment reveals that the learned Trial Court has proceeded to hold the accused guilty of committing the murder of the deceased more on the basis of conjectures and surmises rather than on any cogent and reliable evidence establishing his involvement in the alleged crime. The conviction appears to rest substantially on the purported voluntary statement of the accused marked as Ex.P32 and the seizure mahazar marked as Ex.P14, wherein the Trial Court has concluded that the pesticide bottle marked as M.O.4 was recovered at the instance of the accused. However, a plain reading of Ex.P14 discloses that though it contains a reference to the Investigating Officer having recovered a 250 ml pesticide bottle bearing the label "Karate Syngenta" from the place allegedly shown by the accused, there is no indication whatsoever that any residue or leftover pesticide was found in the said bottle allegedly recovered at the instance of the accused.

¶130

21 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:18346-DB CRL.A No. 100460 of 2025

¶131

HC-KAR

¶132

The reasons assigned by the learned Trial Court indicate that it has drawn an adverse inference against the accused on the ground that he failed to offer any explanation as to how the pesticide bottle marked as M.O.4 came to be found outside the cowshed, lying under a tree, when he had himself stated that he had kept it inside the cowshed. The Trial Court further held that there was no possibility of the deceased having accessed M.O-4 from the cowshed and consumed the same, particularly in the absence of any evidence to show that the accused had informed the deceased about the presence of the pesticide therein. A bare reading of this reasoning, however, reveals that such a conclusion has been reached purely on assumptions and conjectures rather than on the basis of any substantive evidence available on record.

¶133

Moreover, the contents of Ex.P13 make it apparent that the Trial Court has not taken into consideration all relevant aspects before arriving at such a finding. Ex.P13, being the spot mahazar drawn on 10.01.2019 at the scene of the incident, clearly records that the Investigating Officer had seized a packet containing pesticide powder bearing the label ‘Deltnion

¶134

22 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:18346-DB CRL.A No. 100460 of 2025

¶135

HC-KAR

¶136

Malathion DP’ found lying beneath a TV table, allegedly used by the accused for committing the offence. If the contents of Ex.P13 are to be accepted as true, there was no justifiable reason for the Trial Court to conclude that the deceased had no occasion to become aware of the pesticide or to exclude the possibility of her access to it.

¶137

The Trial Court has observed that the accused was well aware that the pesticide in question was of a poisonous nature and, therefore, was required to be kept securely and out of the reach of children so as to avoid any possibility of accidental consumption. No exception can be taken to this observation of the Trial Court. However, proceeding on the basis of this premise, the Trial Court has further concluded that such awareness on the part of the accused necessarily implies that he must have himself taken out the said pesticide and administered it to the deceased. This conclusion, in the considered view of this Court, is unsustainable, as it is founded not on any direct or circumstantial evidence but merely on inference unsupported by the material on record.

¶138

23 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:18346-DB CRL.A No. 100460 of 2025

¶139

HC-KAR

¶140

The Trial Court has also drawn an adverse inference against the accused on the ground that he raised a false plea that he was not present in the house at the relevant point of time, and that he did not make any complaint or petition to the police regarding the alleged consumption of poison by the deceased, and that such conduct of the accused raises a suspicion against him. During the course of arguments, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor has sought to support the impugned judgment by contending that the accused failed to substantiate the plea of alibi raised by him during the trial of the case.

¶141

It is true that during the course of his evidence, the accused has deposed that he was not present in his house at the relevant point of time, as he had been to the residence of one Sri Shekhar Krishnagouda for the purpose of seeking financial assistance. It is also correct that the accused has not chosen to examine the said Sri Shekhar Krishnagouda in support of his version. However, it is a well-settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the burden cast upon the accused to substantiate his defence is not of the same rigorous standard as

¶142

24 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:18346-DB CRL.A No. 100460 of 2025

¶143

HC-KAR

¶144

that placed upon the prosecution. The accused is only required to establish the probability of his defence and is not bound to prove his case beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, mere non-examination of Sri Shekhar Krishnagouda, by itself, cannot be held as fatal to the defence version, especially when the explanation offered by the accused appears probable and consistent with the surrounding circumstances.

¶145

Admittedly, the incident in question occurred on 09.01.2019 at about 4:30 p.m. The accused, being the father of the deceased and the sole earning member of the family, cannot

¶146

be reasonably expected to remain present in the house throughout the day. Therefore, the mere assertion of the accused that he was not in the house at the relevant point of time cannot, by itself, be a ground to doubt or discard his version. On the contrary, the burden squarely lay upon the prosecution to adduce cogent and convincing evidence to establish that the accused was indeed present in the house at the time when the deceased allegedly consumed or was administered poison. It is only upon such foundational proof being adduced by the prosecution that the question of the

¶147

25 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:18346-DB CRL.A No. 100460 of 2025

¶148

HC-KAR

¶149

accused offering an explanation would arise. Unless and until the prosecution discharges its primary burden of proving the presence and guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the absence of an explanation from the accused cannot be held against him.

¶150

It is also pertinent to note that as per Ex.P9, the place of occurrence is situated at a distance of about 35 kilo metres from the concerned Police Station. The statement of PW1 reveals that upon his arrival at the scene, the accused was found in a state of grief within the house. It is further seen that PW-1 proceeded to the Police Station and lodged the complaint only around midnight, i.e., at about 01:00 hours, although the incident had taken place at approximately 4:30 p.m. Having regard to the above factual circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the mere conduct of the accused, as noticed by the witnesses, cannot form a legitimate basis for drawing any adverse inference against him.

¶151

In the present case, the trial Court has recorded a finding that even according to the version of the accused, the smell of the poison/pesticide in question was extremely pungent

¶152

26 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:18346-DB CRL.A No. 100460 of 2025

¶153

HC-KAR

¶154

and unbearable. On that basis, the trial Court opined that it would be highly improbable for a child aged about 11 years to voluntarily consume such a substance and thereby commit suicide. The trial Court further observed that an eleven-year-old child would not ordinarily possess the requisite knowledge, understanding, or intent to resort to suicide by consuming a poisonous substance, and consequently, ruled out the possibility of suicide. However, in the considered view of this Court, the reasoning so assigned by the trial Court does not appear to be sustainable. These observations, standing by themselves, cannot form a valid or sufficient basis to hold the accused guilty of the alleged offences. Upon a comprehensive evaluation of the material on record, this Court finds that the prosecution has utterly failed to establish the accusation of forcible administration of pesticide by the accused.

¶155

It is crucial to note that though PW-3 stated that the accused called her from school and when she came home, she saw the deceased vomiting. But, PW-3 has not whispered anything about the information gathered from the deceased. Thus, it seems the deceased did not tell PW-3 that the accused

¶156

27 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:18346-DB CRL.A No. 100460 of 2025

¶157

HC-KAR

¶158

had forced her to consume the pesticide. Thus, aforesaid factual aspects, when examined in their proper perspective, unmistakably reveal the failure of the prosecution in establishing its case beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence adduced falls short of the degree of conviction required to substantiate the accusation leveled against the accused. Moreover, the facts and surrounding circumstances of the case do not exclude the plausible hypothesis of the deceased having committed suicide. It is a well settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that when two views are reasonably possible on the evidence on record, the one favourable to the accused must be adopted. In the light of a careful and anxious consideration of the entire material placed on record by the prosecution, we are of the considered view that the evidence relied upon to fasten the guilt of the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is far from convincing.

¶159

The prosecution has also invoked Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused on the allegation that he had wiped out the vomit of the deceased with the intention of destroying the evidence of the crime. First of all, there is no

¶160

28 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:18346-DB CRL.A No. 100460 of 2025

¶161

HC-KAR

¶162

reliable or cogent evidence on record to establish that it was the accused who had in fact cleaned or removed the vomit from the place of occurrence. Even assuming that the accused had done so, this Court finds no material to infer that such an act was committed with a deliberate intention to cause the disappearance of evidence or to screen him from legal punishment. The mere act of cleaning or removing the vomit or dirt within one’s own household cannot by itself be construed as conduct motivated by a criminal design. To attribute such intention in the absence of any supporting evidence would indeed be unwarranted and speculative.

¶163

Similarly, the prosecution has invoked Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused on the allegation that he had assaulted the deceased and PW-3 with a broomstick. It is the contention of the prosecution that the testimony of PW-3, when read in conjunction with the medical evidence on record, establishes this accusation. It is true that as per the medical evidence, certain simple injuries such as minor abrasions were noted during the medical examination of both the deceased and PW-3. However, it remains undisputed that the deceased and

¶164

29 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:18346-DB CRL.A No. 100460 of 2025

¶165

HC-KAR

¶166

PW-3 were school going children at the relevant point of time, and the nature of the injuries recorded could very well have been sustained in the ordinary course of daily activities. In these circumstances, and in the absence of convincing and reliable evidence to connect the accused with the alleged acts of assault, this Court finds that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused under Sections 201 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt.

¶167

Finally, though the present case was tried for offences punishable under Sections 302, 324, 323, 498A, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case to invoke the provisions of either Section 357 or Section 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicability of Section 357 Cr.P.C. does not arise since the accused stands acquitted of all the charges framed against him, leaving no scope for awarding any compensation under the said provision. Likewise, Section 357A Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked in the absence of any credible material to establish that the deceased Kumari Nayana, met with her death as a consequence of any offence committed against her. On the contrary, the facts

¶168

30 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:18346-DB CRL.A No. 100460 of 2025

¶169

HC-KAR

¶170

and circumstances emerging from the record do not completely exclude the possibility of the deceased having committed suicide.

¶171

In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the

¶172

following :

¶173

ORDER

¶174

(i) The appeal is allowed.

¶175

(ii) The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.07.2025 passed in S.C. No.5020/2019 by the learned First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karwar sitting at Sirsi, is set aside.

¶176

(iii) Consequently, the accused is acquitted from the charges framed under Sections 302, 323 and 201 of IPC and ordered to be set at liberty forthwith.

¶177

(iv) The office is directed to send a communication to concerned jail authority to release the accused forthwith, if he is not required for any other case.

¶178