Smt. N v Lakshmi Vs State of Karnataka — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2026)

Smt. N v Lakshmi Vs State of Karnataka — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court committed an error in acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120B, 450 read with Section 34 of IPC, in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. +1 more

Court's answer

On re-appreciation of the entire evidence, there is no linking evidence connecting the accused with the offence and there are no eyewitnesses; the projected eyewitness P.W.4 is only a chance witness and not an eyewitness.

Ratio / Principle

P.W.4's claim to have seen accused Rajesh at the spot is doubtful: P.W.15, the Hoysala Head Constable who rushed to the spot within five minutes of receiving the 7:10 p.m. message from the 100 control room, learnt the identity of the deceased from the public and not from P.W.4, showing P.W.4 was not seen at the spot and did not inform the police.

Key takeaways

P.W.3's evidence further undermines P.W.4's version: she did not receive information from her husband that accused Rajesh was present and learnt of it only through the public; likewise the evidence of P.W.15 and P.W.16 shows they had no information from P.W.4.ratio¶30
P.W.4 completely turned hostile in cross-examination: he admitted he did not visit the police station, saw the accused for the first time before the Court, and admitted that the public also did not disclose the name of Rajesh; nothing in his evidence supports the prosecution.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal appeals under Section 372 CrPC (filed under Section 419 BNSS) by the victim-complainant Smt. N.V. Lakshmi (Crl.A.No.1620/2025) and by the State (Crl.A.No.1905/2025) against the acquittal dated 13.06.2025 of four accused (Rajesh @ Raji, Naveen Kumar @ Naveen, Mohan, Yogaraj @ Yogi @ Raju) by the LXVI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in S.C.No.1169/2017 for the murder of Jayaram under Sections 302, 120B, 450 r/w Section 34 IPC. The Division Bench (H.P. Sandesh and Venkatesh Naik T, JJ.; judgment per H.P. Sandesh, J.) re-appreciated the evidence and dismissed both appeals: (i) there is no linking evidence connecting the accused and no eyewitness — the projected eyewitness P.W.4 is only a chance witness who turned hostile, admitted he saw the accused for the first time in Court, and knew nothing of the murder when he called his wife at 8:30 p.m.; (ii) P.W.15 (Hoysala), who reached the spot within five minutes of the 7:10 p.m. control-room message, learnt the deceased's name from the public and not from P.W.4, and P.W.16 learnt of the incident through wireless; (iii) P.W.3 also learnt of Rajesh's involvement only through the public; (iv) the recovery mahazar witnesses turned hostile, the contents of the mahazar were not spoken to by independent witnesses, and the FSL report (Ex.P.38, 'O' group blood of human origin) does not aid the prosecution; (v) the brutality of 20 post-mortem injuries alone cannot sustain conviction without sufficient material connecting the accused. Counsel's reliance on Section 6 Evidence Act (res gestae) and on the hostile-witness principle in Khujji @ Surendra Tiwari v. State of M.P. ((1991) 3 SCC 627) was considered. Acquittal upheld.