Nazru Khan @ Nazru Vs the State by Tunganagar… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2026)

Nazru Khan @ Nazru Vs the State by Tunganagar… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeals allowed; judgment dated 17.04.2018 and order on sentence dated 26.04.2018 in S.C.No.268/2014 set aside; appellants/accused Nos.1 to 4 acquitted of offences under Section 302 and 397 of IPC; fine amount, if any, deposited to be refunded to the accused; rest of the trial court's order not disturbed

Issue for consideration

Whether the death of Sharana Basava was homicidal — caused in the course of the armed robbery — or merely accidental, as contended by the appellants +3 more

Court's answer

Death held homicidal: an accused assaulted the rider on the face with a club causing loss of control, crash and death; even assuming the accused intended only robbery, an act done with knowledge that the bodily injury is likely to cause death, or which is imminently dangerous and must in all probability cause death, falls within the definition in Section 300 IPC as culpable homicide amounting to murder; the plea of accidental death is rejected.

Ratio / Principle

The testimony of sole eyewitness PW3 suffers from contradictions and improvements — his complaint Ex.P8 referred only to two face-covered assailants and nowhere mentioned four accused, and he improved from two to four accused in deposition — and is not safe to convict on; conviction resting on it cannot stand.

Key takeaways

Had the incident occurred as narrated by PW3 (one accused near the trench on a phone, another with a long, a third with a club on the deceased, a fourth assaulting PW3), he would certainly have mentioned four accused and their descriptions when lodging the complaint; instead he first stated there were only two accused and later improved the version to four.ratio¶122
Test Identification Parade vitiated by unexplained delay: arrest on 13.10.2009, requisition filed before the Court on 29.10.2009, and parade conducted only on 21.11.2009 (1 month 8 days after arrest) with no explanation for the delay and nothing to show the identity of the accused was concealed when they were taken to and produced before the Court.ratio¶151

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru (Division Bench: Mohammad Nawaz and Venkatesh Naik T., JJ.; judgment per Mohammad Nawaz, J.), 25-03-2026 — CRL.A No.1098/2018 c/w CRL.A Nos.880 & 1188/2018 under S.374(2) Cr.P.C. Accused Nos.1-4 (Abid Khan, Khalandar @ Munna, Mujahid and Nazru Khan @ Nazru), convicted by the II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Shivamogga in S.C.No.268/2014 (Crime No.328/2009, Tunganagar P.S.) under Ss.302 and 397 r/w S.34 IPC for the 27-08-2009 incident on Yaraganalu Forest Road — in which SKS Micro Finance manager Sharana Basava died after being struck with a club while carrying Rs.1,16,655/- and four Nokia phones — were ACQUITTED; the conviction (17-4-2018) and sentence (26-4-2018) were set aside and any fine deposited ordered refunded. Held: (i) death was homicidal — even if the intention was only robbery, an act causing bodily injury known to be likely, or imminently dangerous, to cause death falls within the definition in S.300 IPC as culpable homicide amounting to murder; nevertheless (ii) the sole eyewitness PW3 was not safe to convict on — his complaint Ex.P8 named only two masked assailants and never four, and in deposition he improved from two to four accused; (iii) the Test Identification Parade (21-11-2009) was not in accordance with law — unexplained delay of 1 month 8 days after the 13-10-2009 arrests and 29-10-2009 requisition, faces of suspects not covered leaving eyes, and PW3-versus-PW31 contradiction on the number of parades (four vs two) — making identification doubtful (relying on Umesh Chandra v. State of Uttarakhand, (2021) 17 SCC 616: TIP merely corroborative, onus on prosecution to prove it was held according to law; and Satrughana alias Satrughana Parida v. State of Orissa, 1995 Supp.(4) SCC 448: unexplained delay destroys the value of identification evidence); (iv) conspiracy unproved — PWs.9 to 21, 23 and 25, said to have overheard it at PW13's house, all turned hostile and denied their police statements; (v) recoveries unestablished — cash recovery alone insufficient, three of four stolen phones never recovered and the recovered phone not identified by PW7/PW8, no bloodstains on the club and 'long' (relying on Parvat Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2020) 4 SCC 33: conviction on sole witness only where testimony trustworthy and free of material contradictions). Rest of the trial court's order left undisturbed.

Issues for consideration

4 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the death of Sharana Basava was homicidal — caused in the course of the armed robbery — or merely accidental, as contended by the appellants¶98
The court held
Death held homicidal: an accused assaulted the rider on the face with a club causing loss of control, crash and death; even assuming the accused intended only robbery, an act done with knowledge that the bodily injury is likely to cause death, or which is imminently dangerous and must in all probability cause death, falls within the definition in Section 300 IPC as culpable homicide amounting to murder; the plea of accidental death is rejected.ratio¶102
2.
Whether the evidence of the sole eyewitness PW3 (Malappa), who did not mention four accused in the complaint Ex.P8 and whose deposition shows contradictions, omissions and improvements, is reliable to convict accused Nos.1 to 4¶122
The court held
The testimony of sole eyewitness PW3 suffers from contradictions and improvements — his complaint Ex.P8 referred only to two face-covered assailants and nowhere mentioned four accused, and he improved from two to four accused in deposition — and is not safe to convict on; conviction resting on it cannot stand.ratio¶175
3.
Whether the Test Identification Parade was conducted in accordance with law and whether PW3's identification of the four accused therein is credible¶151
The court held
Test Identification Parade vitiated by unexplained delay: arrest on 13.10.2009, requisition filed before the Court on 29.10.2009, and parade conducted only on 21.11.2009 (1 month 8 days after arrest) with no explanation for the delay and nothing to show the identity of the accused was concealed when they were taken to and produced before the Court.ratio¶151
4.
Whether the prosecution proved the conspiracy among the four accused and the recovery of incriminating articles (cash, mobile phones, club and long) at their instance¶154
The court held
Conspiracy not proved: the witnesses examined by the prosecution (PWs.9 to 21, 23 and 25) to prove conspiracy, who allegedly overheard it at PW13's house, all turned hostile, did not support the prosecution and denied having given statements to the police (Exs.P18 to 29, 31 and 41).ratio¶154