The State of Karnataka v. Zhareppa S/O Manikappa Warwatti and Anr.

Karnataka HC26 Jun 2025CRL.A/200061/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

State appeal against acquittal; S.378(1) & (3) Cr.P.C.; Sections 302 r/w 34 IPC; murder; head injury; alcohol consumption; chest pain history; absence of MLC intimation; delayed FIR/complaint; genesis of incident doubtful; inconsistent eyewitnesses; PW.14 interested witness (employer of deceased); no intention or knowledge; acquittal not perverse; benefit of doubt; High Court of Karnataka Kalaburagi Bench; Bidar; Bagdal Police Station; deceased Anil Kumar; accused Zhareppa and Vijay Kumar; criminal appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None; the appeal against the acquittal was dismissed and the acquittal of accused Nos.1 and 2 stands. ¶Order

The State of Karnataka Vs Zhareppa S/O… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the appeal against the acquittal was dismissed and the acquittal of accused Nos.1 and 2 stands.

¶Order

Issue for consideration

Whether the State's appeal against the judgment of acquittal in S.C.No.120/2014 (offence punishable under Sections 302 r/w 34 IPC) deserved to be allowed and the accused convicted. +2 more

¶1

Court's answer

The deceased sustained certain external injuries; the cause of death was on account of head injury; and he was under the influence of alcohol when examined by Doctor PW.20.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

Since no history of assault was furnished to the hospitals (the history recorded was of chest pain), no MLC intimation was sent by either hospital, and the written complaint was lodged only after the victim died, a reasonable doubt arises as to the genesis of the incident as projected by the prosecution.

¶23

Key takeaways

As PWs.7, 8, 9, 12 and 13 did not state that the accused assaulted or kicked the deceased after he fell down, the evidence of PW.1 and PW.14 that they saw the accused assaulting the deceased on his chest etc. and causing injuries to his left eye and head is difficult to accept.ratio¶30
There was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased in which they pushed each other; the deceased, who had consumed alcohol, probably fell down and sustained the injuries noticed in the post-mortem report; the accused had neither intention nor knowledge that by pushing the deceased would sustain such injuries resulting in his death.ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Appeal No.200061 of 2015 (State appeal under Section 378(1) & (3) Cr.P.C.) against the judgment of acquittal dated 13.01.2015 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bidar, in Special Case No.120/2014, whereby accused Nos.1 and 2 were acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 302 r/w 34 IPC. Death was due to shock and hemorrhage from head injury; the deceased had consumed alcohol. No history of assault was furnished to the hospitals (history recorded was chest pain), no MLC intimation was sent, and the complaint was lodged only after the victim's death, raising a reasonable doubt on the genesis of the incident. Eyewitness accounts were inconsistent: PWs.7, 8, 9, 12 and 13 did not state that the accused assaulted or kicked the deceased, making the versions of PW.1 and PW.14 difficult to accept. The Court held the accused had neither intention nor knowledge that pushing would cause fatal injuries, found the trial Court's reasons neither illegal nor perverse, and dismissed the appeal.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3426-DB CRL.A No. 200061 of 2015

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶5

KALABURAGI BENCH

¶6

DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶9

AND

¶10

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K S HEMALEKHA

¶11

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200061 OF 2015

¶12

BETWEEN:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH THE POLICE, BAGDAL POLICE STATION.

¶14

…APPELLANT

¶15

(BY SRI. SIDDALING P. PATIL, ADDL. SPP)

¶16

AND:

¶17

ZHAREPPA

¶18

Digitally signed by BASALINGAPPA SHIVARAJ DHUTTARGAON Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶19

S/O MANIKAPPA WARWATTI, AGED 29 YEARS, OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE, R/O. VILLAGE BAGDAL, TQ & DIST. BIDAR.

¶20

VIJAY KUMAR S/O MANIKAPPA WARVATTI, AGED 26 YEARS, OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE, R/O. BAGDAL, TQ. BIDAR.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. NANDAKISHORE BOOB, ADVOCATE)

¶23

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:3426-DB CRL.A No. 200061 of 2015

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION

¶26

378(1) & (3) OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED:13.01.2015 PASSED BY THE ADDL. DISTRICT &

¶27

SESSIONS JUDGE AT BIDAR IN SPECIAL CASE NO.120/2014 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302 R/W 34 OF IPC WHEREIN THE HON'BLE COURT WAS PLEASED TO ACQUIT THE ACCUSED; SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 13.01.2015 PASSED IN SESSIONS CASE NO.120/2014 BY THE ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BIDAR, ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED/ RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302 R/W 34 OF IPC.

¶28

AND CONVICT AND SENTENCE THE ACCUSED/RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302 R/W 34 OF IPC, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶29

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ AND HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K S HEMALEKHA

¶31

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3426-DB CRL.A No. 200061 of 2015

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶35

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)

¶36

The State is in appeal, questioning the judgment of acquittal passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, at Bidar, in S.C.No.120/2014, whereby the respondents / accused Nos.1 and 2 are acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶37

We have heard the learned Additional SPP appearing for the State and the learned counsel appearing for respondents / accused Nos.1 and 2. Perused the evidence and material on record.

¶38

The prosecution has alleged that, on 03.01.2014 at about 7.30 p.m., near tea-stall of one Mukesh Kambar at Bagdal village, accused Nos.1 and 2 picked up quarrel with deceased – Anil Kumar and assaulted him on his chest and abdomen with hands and

¶39

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:3426-DB CRL.A No. 200061 of 2015

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

kicked him, on account of which he sustained fatal injuries and died in the hospital on 04.01.2014 at 03.15 a.m.

¶42

A written complaint was lodged by PW.1, brother of the deceased – Anil Kumar, as per Ex.P1 at Bagdal Police Station. PW.18 – P.S.I., based on the said complaint, registered a case against accused Nos.1 and 2 and prepared the FIR – Ex.P1 and forwarded it to the jurisdictional Magistrate.

¶43

PW.21 – C.P.I., Rural Circle Bidar, took over the investigation and conducted inquest panchanama as per Ex.P4 and also spot mahazar as per Ex.P2. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. The dead body was subjected to post-mortem examination by the Doctor – PW.19. The articles collected during the investigation were sent for FSL examination and on completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed.

¶44

The learned Sessions Judge framed charges against the accused for the offence punishable under

¶45

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:3426-DB CRL.A No. 200061 of 2015

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC, for which the

¶48

accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶49

In order to establish the guilt of the accused,

¶50

the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 22 and got marked Ex.P1 to P18 and M.Os.1 to 5.

¶51

The defence of the accused was one of total

¶52

denial, however, they did not choose to lead any evidence on their behalf.

¶53

The learned Sessions Judge vide impugned judgment held that, the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused and acquitted them of the charged offence.

¶54

The learned Additional SPP has contended that,

¶55

the prosecution has adduced cogent evidence to establish the charges leveled against the accused, by examining the eye-witnesses and therefore, the trial Court was not

¶56

justified in recording an order of acquittal. He contended that PWs.1, 7 to 9, 12 to 14 have deposed having seen

¶57

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:3426-DB CRL.A No. 200061 of 2015

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

both the accused, not only quarrelling with the deceased, but also assaulting him. The victim was shifted to the hospital immediately after the incident, but he died in the hospital, while undergoing treatment. He has therefore contended that, even if there was no intention on the part of the accused to commit murder, there is sufficient material to show that the accused had a knowledge that the injuries caused to the deceased was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature, to cause his death. He further contended that, the injuries noticed in the post-mortem report clearly shows that there was nexus between the incident and the death of the deceased and therefore, the learned Sessions Judge has committed a grave error in acquitting the accused.

¶60

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents / accused Nos.1 and 2 has contended that, the prosecution has suppressed the material facts and the genesis of the incident. He contended that the deceased was admitted to the hospital with a history of

¶61

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:3426-DB CRL.A No. 200061 of 2015

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

chest pain and nowhere it is stated that there was any such incident of assault, which resulted in deceased sustaining injuries. The cause of death is on account of head injury, whereas the witnesses have not stated that the accused have assaulted the deceased on his head. He further contended that the deceased had consumed alcohol, which is evident from the record and therefore, he falling down under the influence of alcohol and sustaining injuries to his head noticed in the post-mortem report is not ruled out. He contended that the accused are falsely implicated and the trial Court having appreciated the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in the right perspective, has acquitted the accused after giving cogent and valid reasons. He submitted that this being an appeal preferred against the judgment of acquittal, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is further strengthened and therefore, sought to dismiss the appeal.

¶64

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:3426-DB CRL.A No. 200061 of 2015

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

It is the case of the prosecution that on

¶67

03.01.2014 at about 7:30 p.m., near the tea-stall of one

¶68

Mukesh Kambar at Bagdal village, the accused picked up quarrel with deceased Anil Kumar, pushed him to the ground and assaulted with hands and kicked with legs, due to which he suffered fatal head injuries and later died in the hospital while undergoing treatment, on 04.01.2014 at 03:15 a.m.

¶69

The complaint as per Ex.P1 is lodged by the

¶70

brother of the deceased, who is examined as PW.1. In Ex.P1, PW.1 has stated that on 03.01.2014, his deceased

¶71

brother had been to the funeral ceremony of one of their relative by name Sundramma and after returning home, he took bath and went to a hotel situated near Hanuman Mandir, at about 7:30 p.m., and he followed him. When he reached the hotel, he saw both accused Nos.1 and 2 abusing and fisting the deceased on his chest and assaulting him. His brother fell down and sustained injuries near his left eye and back of his head, at that

¶72

9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:3426-DB CRL.A No. 200061 of 2015

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

time, he along with Gundappa (PW.8), Mallappa (PW.9) and Hanumanth (PW.7) pacified the quarrel and shifted his brother in an auto to CHC Mannaekhelli Government Hospital for treatment, as he was complaining of chest pain. The doctor present there advised them to take him to District Hospital, Bidar and therefore, they shifted him to the said Hospital. However, he died at about 03.15 a.m., on 04.01.2014.

¶75

According to prosecution, PWs.1, 7 to 9, 12 to 14 are the eye-witnesses, who were present at the spot and witnessed the incident.

¶76

Before discussing the evidence of the witnesses,

¶77

it is relevant to see as to what was the information furnished to the Hospital at the time of admission of the victim and also the cause of death.

¶78

As per PM report – Ex.P.12 issued by PW.19, death was on account of shock and hemorrhage due to head injury.

¶79

10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:3426-DB CRL.A No. 200061 of 2015

¶80

HC-KAR

¶81

The following injuries are noticed :-

¶82

I. Lacerated injury measuring ½ inch x ¼ inch on left eyebrow, perhaps on the medial aspect.

¶83

II. Contused abrasion measuring ½ inch x ¼ inch on the occipital region.

¶84

III. Lacerated injuries measuring ½ inch x ¼ inch on left elbow joint.

¶85

PW.19 has stated that the above injuries were ante mortem in nature. In the cross-examination, he has stated that the injuries could be caused on account of accidental fall on the hard surface from moving motorcycle. Further, normal course of consumption of alcohol leads to high B.P. that would lead to heart-attack, but in the instant case, no such symptoms were found. He has stated that if a person is pushed on the ground, such injuries could be caused.

¶86

Contention of learned counsel for the

¶87

respondents was that the deceased had consumed alcohol at the time of incident and he fell down on the ground and

¶88

11 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:3426-DB CRL.A No. 200061 of 2015

¶89

HC-KAR

¶90

sustained head injury, which might have led to his death. Attention of the Court was drawn to Ex.P.13 i.e., the casesheet pertaining to the District Hospital, Bidar. A perusal of Ex.P.13 goes to show that the deceased had consumed alcohol at around 02.00 p.m. Further, PW.20 who treated him at BRIMS, at Bidar, in his cross-examination has stated that the deceased was under the influence of alcohol and he had noticed alcoholic smell from his mouth.

¶91

From the above evidence on record, it can be safely gathered that the deceased sustained certain external injuries and the cause of death was on account of head injury sustained by him. Further, he was under the influence of alcohol, when he was examined by the Doctor – PW.20.

¶92

The incident took place at about 7.30 p.m., on 03.01.2014. According to prosecution, immediately after the incident, the deceased was shifted to Mannaekhelli Government Hospital, in an auto-rickshaw. PW.10, auto-

¶93

12 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:3426-DB CRL.A No. 200061 of 2015

¶94

HC-KAR

¶95

rickshaw driver has deposed that at about 12.30 a.m., as

¶96

per the request of PW.1, he took Anil Kumar i.e., the deceased to CHC Mannaekhelli, where treatment was provided to him and then he was taken to Government Hospital, Bidar in an ambulance.

¶97

The prosecution has not placed any records pertaining to Mannaekhelli Hospital to show as to what was the earliest information given to the Doctor in the said Hospital, when the victim was taken to the said hospital. In a case of this nature, the Hospital Authorities are bound to inform the Police when any person is brought to the Hospital with a history of assault and to send MLC intimation. No such intimation was sent. Further, a perusal of Ex.P.13 i.e., the case-sheet pertaining to District Hospital, Bidar, shows, at 01.56 a.m. on 04.01.2014, the victim was admitted in the said Hospital, however, there is no mention of any history furnished to the said Hospital stating that the deceased sustained injuries on account of the assault. On the other hand, history furnished was of

¶98

13 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:3426-DB CRL.A No. 200061 of 2015

¶99

HC-KAR

¶100

chest pain. Even no MLC intimation was sent from the said Hospital to the jurisdictional Police. Admittedly, a written complaint was lodged at about 09.30 a.m., on 04.01.2014, obviously, after Anil Kumar died in the hospital at about 03.15 a.m.

¶101

As per Ex.P.1, it is PW.1 along with PWs.7, 8 and 9 shifted the victim to the hospital. If there was any incident as alleged by the prosecution had taken place, wherein the accused had assaulted the deceased and inflicted injuries as stated by the witnesses, nothing prevented them to inform the hospital Authority while furnishing history, at the time of admission of the victim. Hence, a reasonable doubt arises in the mind of the Court as to the genesis of the incident as projected by the prosecution and in this background, it is necessary to examine the evidence of the eye-witnesses.

¶102

PW.1 has deposed that both accused Nos.1 and 2 picked up quarrel with his brother Anil Kumar, abused

¶103

14 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:3426-DB CRL.A No. 200061 of 2015

¶104

HC-KAR

¶105

him in filthy language as to why he obstructed a lorry loaded with sugarcane and accused No.2 caught hold his shirt collar and accused No.1 fisted with hands on his chest, stomach and left side of the eyebrow, on account of which his brother fell on the ground and both the accused sat on his body and assaulted him with hands. The other eye-witnesses namely PWs.7, 8, 9, 12, 13 and 14 have given different versions with regard to the incident. PW.7 has stated that he saw the quarrel between accused and deceased and they were pushing each other. He along with CWs.14 and 15 intervened and pacified the quarrel. He has stated that he has not witnessed deceased falling on the ground and accused Nos.1 and 2 assaulting him.

¶106

Similar is the evidence of PWs.8 and 9. They

¶107

have also stated that they saw accused Nos.1, 2 and deceased quarrelling and pushing each other and not witnessed accused Nos.1 and 2 assaulting the deceased.

¶108

15 -

¶109

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3426-DB CRL.A No. 200061 of 2015

¶110

HC-KAR

¶111

PW.12 has stated that the accused and

¶112

deceased were pushing and assaulting each other with hands, on account of which Anil Kumar fell on the ground and he noticed injuries on his eyebrow and head. He has also not stated that after the deceased fell down, accused have assaulted him.

¶113

PW.13 has also stated that he saw the accused and deceased quarrelling and pushing each other. He has specifically stated that he has not witnessed the deceased falling on the ground or accused Nos.1 and 2 assaulting him with hands.

¶114

According to PW.14, he saw the deceased and accused Nos.1 and 2 quarrelling and pushing each other, on account of which the deceased fell on the ground and accused Nos.1 and 2 assaulted him with hands on his chest, left side of the eyebrow and he sustained injuries on the head. After the deceased fell on the ground, accused Nos.1 and 2 kicked the deceased with their legs. The said

¶115

16 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:3426-DB CRL.A No. 200061 of 2015

¶116

HC-KAR

¶117

evidence of PW.14 is totally contrary to the evidence of other eye-witnesses examined by the prosecution.

¶118

It is relevant to see that, when the name of CWs.8, 9 and 10 were specifically mentioned in Ex.P1, the name of PW.14 is missing. In the cross examination, he has admitted that he was working as a driver and he owned a Maxi cab and deceased was working as a conductor in the said Maxi cab for about 11 years and since he was a servant, he had good relationship with him.

¶119

In view of the evidence of PWs.7, 8, 9, 12 and 13, the evidence of PW.1 and PW.14 that they saw the accused kicking the deceased with their legs and assaulting him with the hands on his chest, left side of his eyebrow etc., is hard to believe. All the witnesses, according to prosecution were present at the spot when the incident took place. When PWs.7 to 9, 12 and 13 have not specifically stated that the accused have assaulted the deceased with hands and kicked him when he fell down

¶120

17 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:3426-DB CRL.A No. 200061 of 2015

¶121

HC-KAR

¶122

and caused injuries to his eyebrow and head, the evidence of PW.1 and PW.14 that, they saw the accused assaulting the deceased on his chest etc., and caused injuries to his left eye and head, is difficult to accept.

¶123

From the evidence of PW.20, it is crystal clear that the deceased had consumed alcohol. From the evidence and material on record, it can be seen that there was a quarrel between the accused as well as the deceased and in the said quarrel they pushed each other. Probably the deceased who had consumed alcohol, fell down and sustained injuries, as noticed in the postmortem report. It cannot be said that there was any intention on the part of the accused or they had knowledge that by pushing, the deceased would sustain such injuries which are noticed in the post-mortem report, resulting in his death.

¶124

The learned Sessions Judge having appreciated

¶125

the evidence and material on record has come to the

¶126

18 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:3426-DB CRL.A No. 200061 of 2015

¶127

HC-KAR

¶128

conclusion that there could be exchange of words between the accused and deceased, that led to pushing each other and therefore, no intention on the part of the accused could be gathered to hold that they had an intention to commit the murder and even otherwise, the accused could not be attributable of voluntarily causing injury to the deceased.

¶129

We find that the reasons assigned by the trial Court are not illegal or perverse, so as to reverse the said findings. No interference is called for in the appeal. Hence, the following:

¶130

ORDER

¶131

The appeal is dismissed.

¶132

Sd/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE

¶133

Sd/(K S HEMALEKHA) JUDGE

¶134

MCR, AT, KJJ/MCR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35

The State of Karnataka v. Zhareppa S/O Manikappa Warwatti and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Karnataka v. Zhareppa S/O Manikappa Warwatti and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.S. Hiremath S/O Shivabasayya Vs G. Kumar Naik IAS and Ors.

S.V. Mathpati Vs Dr. Rajaneesh Goel and Ors.

Basappa Vs Land Tribunal and Ors.

Goudappa Vs v Rashmi Mahesh

Neelakantharayagouda Vs Uma Mahadevan

Revansiddayya Vs Aaddaru Srinivasulu and Ors.