The State of Karnataka Vs Bharatha H a

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and order of acquittal dated 11.11.2020 passed in Crl.A.No.203/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru.

¶25

Heard the learned SPP-II Vijaykumar Majage, appearing for the appellant/State.

¶26

The factual matrix of case of the prosecution is that the daughter of CW1 – Mylaranaika by name Arathi Bai was given in marriage to one Annappanaika. About 2½ years back, the husband of Arathi Bai died and later, Arathi Bai was living

¶27

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:179-DB CRL.A No. 1797 of 2022

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

with juvenile in conflict with law (hereinafter called JICWL), who is her son and her mother-in-law CW5 Savitribai. Arathi Bai is a drunkard and she used to consume alcohol everyday and used to fell on the road. She was also involved in illegal activity with other men. Though JICWL and CW5 advised Arathi Bai, she did not mend her ways. On 21.11.2015, at about 10.30 a.m., Arathi Bai consumed alcohol and when JICWL questioned, she tried to kick on his private part. Being disgusted, JICWL pushed Arathi Bai and pierced knife into her throat several times. As a result, Arathi Bai died. Later, in order to screen the weapon of offence, JICWL took the knife and hid it beside the stone of Huliyammadevi tank situated at Hosahalli Thandya village. The complainant lodged the complaint to the PSI of Ajjampura Police Station. The respondent police registered the case against JICWL. After investigation, submitted the charge sheet against the JICWL for the offences of Sections 302 and 201 of IPC.

¶30

On receipt of the charge sheet, the Juvenile Justice Board perused the same and took cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC and thereafter

¶31

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:179-DB CRL.A No. 1797 of 2022

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

subjected for trial. As there was sufficient material, the Board, framed the charges and considering the evidence available on record particularly, PW1 to PW15 and documents at Ex.P1 to P32 and material object at MO1 to MO5, convicted the accused. The judgment and order of conviction was challenged before the Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.203/2017.

¶34

The Appellate Court having considered the grounds which have been urged, taken note of that whether the prosecution proves that the JICWL has committed the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt and whether Juvenile Justice Board has properly appreciated the oral land documentary evidence on record and whether the appellant/JICWL proves that judgment of the Juvenile Justice Board is perverse. Having reassessed both the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and held that genesis of the case has not been properly considered by the Trial Court i.e., testimony of PW10, the ASI, who has arrested the JICWL and also considered the material

¶35

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:179-DB CRL.A No. 1797 of 2022

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

on record with regard to the recovery of weapon which was not sent for FSL and no witnesses have supported the case of prosecution and apart from that independent witnesses have also turned hostile and nothing is elicited from the mouth of the witnesses to prove the case of the prosecution. In the absence of any FSL report with regard to the seizure of article with regard to the blood stains is concerned, the Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that the Juvenile Board committed an error in appreciating the evidence available on the record since it was absolutely essential to find out whether MO1-knife had any traces of blood and if so, whether said blood belonged to the deceased. Admittedly, the Investigating Officer has not sent the same to the FSL and not obtained any report and Appellate Court given the reasons for acquitting the appellant/accused in paragraphs 21 and 22 and reversed the judgment of the Trial Court.

¶38

Being aggrieved by the divergent finding of both the

¶39

Courts, the present appeal is filed before this Court.

¶40

The main contention of the learned SPP appearing

¶41

for the appellant/State before this Court is that prosecution has

¶42

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:179-DB CRL.A No. 1797 of 2022

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

examined 15 witnesses. The counsel would vehemently contend that though independent witnesses have turned hostile, there is a recovery and the incident was taken place in the house of JICWL. All these factors were not considered by the Appellate Court. Hence, the very reasoning given by the Appellate Court is erroneous. Thus, interference of this Court is required and prays for admission.

¶45

Having considered the arguments of the learned counsel SPP-II Vijaykumar Majage and also on perusal of the material record particularly, the grounds which have been urged by the learned SPP wherein the SPP vehemently contend that there is a recovery and the incident was taken place in the house of JICWL. When the incident was taken place, accused ought to have explained the same. Having considered the material on record, it discloses that the Appellate Court has considered the material on record in a proper perspective holding that there is no any FSL report with regard to the seizure of the article is concerned. Apart from that there was no any cogent evidence before the Court with regard to the recovery is concerned and recovery witnesses have also turned

¶46

7 -

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC:179-DB CRL.A No. 1797 of 2022

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

hostile and Independent witnesses have also turned hostile. Under such circumstances, we do not find any ground to admit the appeal to come to a conclusion that the matter requires reconsideration as there is no material in the appeal to admit as there is no error on the Appellate Court on re-appreciation of evidence.

¶50