Sri Kemparaju Vs the State of Karnataka — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2026)

Sri Kemparaju Vs the State of Karnataka — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Crl.A.No.263/2021 allowed-in-part: trial judgment/order dated 18.07.2018 modified; accused No.1 acquitted under Section 498A IPC while his Section 302 IPC conviction is confirmed. Crl.A.No.1345/2018 allowed: conviction and sentence of accused Nos.3 to 5 (Sections 114 and 498A IPC) set aside and they are acquitted; bail bonds, if any, cancelled; any fine deposited by accused Nos.3 to 5 to be refunded on proper identification.

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial Court committed an error in convicting accused Nos.3 to 5 for the offences punishable under Sections 114 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code? +2 more

Court's answer

Trial Court erred in convicting accused Nos.3 to 5 for the offences punishable under Sections 114 and 498A IPC; Point No.1 answered in the affirmative.

Ratio / Principle

Evidence against accused Nos.3 to 5 consists solely of PW1's omnibus statement that they were instigating accused No.1 over the phone, with no specific instance spoken of; PW6 categorically stated accused Nos.3 and 4 were not visiting the house and only accused No.5 visited occasionally.

Key takeaways

Except for PW1's telephonic-instigation allegation, no evidence such as call detail records or any other supporting material was collected to substantiate instigation against accused Nos.3 to 5; PW9, the father of the deceased, made no allegations against them.ratio¶109
Invoking Sections 498A and 114 IPC requires cogent material establishing cruelty or instigation; accused Nos.3 to 5 (already married and living separately) were shown to have subjected the deceased to neither mental nor physical cruelty.ratio¶113
Medical evidence of the doctor (PW11) clearly shows the deceased sustained 13 injuries.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru (DB: H.P.Sandesh & Venkatesh Naik T, JJ.; judgment per Sandesh J.), 06-02-2026, in Crl.A.No.263/2021 (accused No.1) c/w Crl.A.No.1345/2018 (accused Nos.3-5), appeals under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against conviction dated 18-07-2018 by the VIII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural, in S.C.No.90/2016 c/w S.C.No.156/2016 arising from the killing of accused No.1's wife on 22-12-2015 (narrated in the prosecution account as a machete blow to the head, elsewhere consistently a sickle, MO1); accused No.2 died during trial and his case abated. POINT 1 - Convictions of accused Nos.3-5 under Sections 114 & 498A IPC set aside; appeal allowed. The only evidence was PW1's omnibus claim of telephonic instigation, unsupported by call-detail records or other material and by no specific instance; PW9 (the deceased's father) made no allegations against them; PW6 stated accused Nos.3-4 never visited the house and No.5 only occasionally; the three were already married and living separately; the Court stressed that cogent material of cruelty or instigation is a prerequisite for Sections 498A/114 IPC. Bail bonds cancelled; deposited fine refundable. POINT 2 - Section 302 IPC conviction of accused No.1 CONFIRMED on the circumstantial chain: PW5/PW6 saw him leave the house with the bloodstained sickle and throw it into a bush; recovery deposed by panch PW4 (single-line cross only); MO1-MO4 seized under mahazar Ex.P2 (PW3 unchallenged); FSL report Ex.P20 (invoked under Section 293 CrPC) showed extensive human bloodstains of group 'B' on his shirt/baniyan (MO9/MO10); no explanation under Section 313 CrPC or under the Section 106 Evidence-Act duty although the killing was inside his house at 05:30-06:00 a.m. with the defence itself fixing death between 05:30 and 06:30 a.m.; half-kilometre recovery distance held immaterial; cross of PW5/PW6 elicited nothing. HOWEVER, the Section 498A IPC conviction was erroneous: no witness deposed to prior mental cruelty or assault and there were no cruelty allegations across the 2005-2015 marriage; accused No.1 acquitted of Section 498A; appeal allowed-in-part and judgment modified.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:7080-DB CRL.A No. 263 of 2021 C/W CRL.A No. 1345 of 2018

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.263 OF 2021 (C)

C/W

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1345 OF 2018 (C)

IN CRL.A No.263/2021

BETWEEN:

SRI KEMPARAJU AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS S/O. THAMMAIAH RESIDENT OF THIPPAGONDANA HALLI THYAMAGONDLU HOBLI NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL-562 130.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI DHANANJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY NELAMANGALA POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR BENGALURU - 562 157.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, H.C.G.P.)

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF THE CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:7080-DB CRL.A No. 263 of 2021 C/W CRL.A No. 1345 of 2018

HC-KAR

CONVICTION DATED 18-7-2018 PASSED BY THE VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU IN SESSIONS CASE NO.90 OF 2016 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NO.1 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302 AND 498A OF IPC.

IN CRL.A NO.1345/2018

BETWEEN:

SMT. LAKSHMAMMA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS W/O. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA RESIDENT OF YAMAPURA VILLAGE THYAMAGONDLU HOBLI NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU-562 127.

SMT. BHAGYAMMA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS W/O. CHIKKARAMAIAH RESIDENT OF HABBUTHANAHALLI VILLAGE GUBBI TALUK

TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 107.

SMT. MANJULA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS W/O. KRISHNAPPA RESIDING AT ANCHEPALYA VILLAGE BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-560 073.

...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI H.L. JAYARAMU, ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY NELAMANGALA RURAL POLICE REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:7080-DB CRL.A No. 263 of 2021 C/W CRL.A No. 1345 of 2018

HC-KAR

HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001.

...RESPONDENT

(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, H.C.G.P.)

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 18-7-2018 PASSED BY THE VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU IN SESSIONS CASE NO.90 OF 2016 C/W SESSIONS CASE NO.156 OF 2016 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NO.3, 4 AND 5 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 114 AND 498A OF IPC.

THESE CRIMINAL APPEALS, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)

Heard Sri Dhananjay Kumar, learned counsel for appellant/accused No.1, Sri H.L. Jayaramu, learned counsel for

the appellants/accused Nos.3 to 5 and Smt. Rashmi Patel, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:7080-DB CRL.A No. 263 of 2021 C/W CRL.A No. 1345 of 2018

HC-KAR

Crl.A.No.263/2021 is filed by accused No.1

challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.07.2018 passed in S.C.No.90/2016 c/w S.C.No.156/2016 by learned VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, whereby accused No.1 was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for further period of two years and simple imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 9 months.

Crl.A.No.1345/2018 is filed by accused Nos.3 to 5 challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.07.2018 passed in S.C.No.90/2016 c/w S.C.No.156/2016 by learned VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, whereby accused Nos.3 to 5 were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for

seven years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 114 IPC, in default to undergo further

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:7080-DB CRL.A No. 263 of 2021 C/W CRL.A No. 1345 of 2018

HC-KAR

simple imprisonment for further period of two years and simple imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC, in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for 6 months.

The factual matrix of the prosecution case is that accused No.1 married the deceased about 10 years ago, and they have an 8-year-old daughter named Nandita. Accused No.2 had sold his land and divided the sale proceeds among his daughters, accused Nos.3 to 5. He also gave the deceased, Bagyamma, a sum of Rs.50,000/-, which she kept in a fixed deposit (FD). Accused No.1 was pressuring the deceased to withdraw the said amount and hand it over to him. In this regard, all the accused persons were physically and mentally harassing the deceased. It is further alleged that accused Nos.1 to 5 were discussing, in the house of accused Nos.1 and 2 at Thippagondanahalli about transfer of land in the name of accused No.2 to accused Nos.3 to 5. The deceased objected to the proposal of giving any share to the daughters. Consequently, she was subjected to ill-treatment. A panchayat was conducted, during which the accused were advised not to

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:7080-DB CRL.A No. 263 of 2021 C/W CRL.A No. 1345 of 2018

HC-KAR

harass the deceased, and the deceased was also pacified. Despite this, accused Nos.2 to 5 allegedly instigated accused No.1 to do away with the deceased, stating that there would be no trouble if she died.

On 22.12.2015 at about 5:00 a.m., in the kitchen, accused No.1 assaulted the deceased on the head with a machete and also struck her on the face with his hands, resulting in her death. Subsequently, a case was registered, the police investigated the matter, recorded the statements of witnesses, and filed the charge sheet. The accused did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried.

The prosecution examined witnesses PWs.1 to 13 and marked documents as Exs.P1 to P20. The prosecution also marked Material Objects (MOs) 1 to 10, which included the sickle, the victim’s clothes, pillow cover, bed sheet, and the blood-stained baniyan and shirt of accused No.1, marked as MOs.9 and 10. Accused No.1 adduced defence evidence by examining DWs.1 to 3 and did not mark any documents on his behalf.

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:7080-DB CRL.A No. 263 of 2021 C/W CRL.A No. 1345 of 2018

HC-KAR

The trial Court, having considered the oral and

documentary evidence available on record, convicted accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498A of IPC. The trial Court also convicted accused Nos.3 to 5 for the offences punishable under Sections 114 and 498A of IPC. Accused No.2 died during the pendency of the trial, and therefore, the case against him stood abated.

The learned counsel appearing for accused No.1 contended that the Sessions Judge committed an error in holding that the prosecution had proved the case against accused No.1. The counsel vehemently argued that the incident took place in the year 2015 and that the couple had lived together for about 10 years since their marriage in 2005, during which there were no serious disputes between them.

The learned counsel further submitted that the

allegation is that the injuries to the head were caused by the use of a sickle. It was contended that when PW1 came to the house of the deceased, he noticed the sickle at the spot.

However, this version is contrary to the evidence of PW5 and PW6, who deposed that the sickle was seized from a bush in

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:7080-DB CRL.A No. 263 of 2021 C/W CRL.A No. 1345 of 2018

HC-KAR

the presence of panch witnesses. The learned counsel submitted that the alleged recovery of the sickle is doubtful and has not been properly proved. It was contended that the evidence of PW5 and PW6 is contradictory. Both witnesses stated that they had seen the accused throwing the sickle; however, according to the Investigating Officer, the place of recovery was about half a kilometre away from the place of the incident. There are material contradictions in the evidence of PW5 and PW6 with regard to the recovery of the sickle, particularly when they claim to have witnessed the accused throwing it.

The learned counsel further contended that the prosecution has not led any convincing evidence to establish any enmity or motive on the part of the accused to take the life of the deceased. There is no direct eyewitness to the incident, and PW5 and PW6 are only circumstantial witnesses. It was argued that the prosecution has failed to establish each link in the chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt.

The learned counsel appearing for accused Nos.3 to 5 vehemently contended that, in the first instance, the

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:7080-DB CRL.A No. 263 of 2021 C/W CRL.A No. 1345 of 2018

HC-KAR

charge sheet was filed only against accused No.1, and subsequently, a split-up charge sheet was filed against accused Nos.2 to 5. It was argued that there is no proximate or credible material to implicate accused Nos.3 to 5 in the alleged offence, only PW1 has stated that accused Nos.3 to 5 instigated accused No.1 over the phone; however, no mobile phone was seized, nor was any supporting material collected by the prosecution to substantiate such an allegation.

It was further contended that PW9, the father of the deceased, did not make any specific allegations against accused Nos.3 to 5. PW5 deposed that only accused Nos.1 and 2 were subjecting the deceased to harassment. PW6 also categorically stated that accused Nos.3 and 4 were not visiting

the house and that only accused No.5 used to visit occasionally. Therefore, it was argued that there is no material placed before the Court to connect accused Nos.3 to 5 with the commission of the crime.

Smt. Rashmi Patel, learned High Court

Government Pleader, appearing for the State, submitted that PW1 has specifically spoken against accused Nos.3 to 5.

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:7080-DB CRL.A No. 263 of 2021 C/W CRL.A No. 1345 of 2018

HC-KAR

Though PW9 has not made any allegations against them, the material available on record clearly indicates that the deceased had objected to the proposal of giving a share in the property to accused Nos.3 to 5. It was contended that when the father attempted to transfer a share in the property in favour of the daughters, disputes arose between the parties. Therefore, there was a motive, and accused Nos.3 to 5 instigated accused No.1 to take away the life of the deceased.

The learned HCGP further vehemently contended that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is clear and cogent. PW1 has deposed that accused No.1 was subjecting the deceased to ill-treatment. On receiving information from PW5 and PW6, PW1 rushed to the spot and found the dead body of the deceased. PW10 has spoken about the panchayat proceedings. With regard to the recovery, PW4, the panch witness, has categorically deposed about the same, and there has been no effective cross-examination, except for a single line of cross-examination.

The learned HCGP further submitted that the evidence of PW5 and PW6 is clear and consistent, as both

11 - NC: 2026:KHC:7080-DB CRL.A No. 263 of 2021 C/W CRL.A No. 1345 of 2018

HC-KAR

witnesses have deposed that they saw the accused leaving the house in the early morning at about 5:30 a.m., carrying a sickle, which was stained with blood. Their evidence, according to the prosecution, clearly establishes that the accused alone committed the murder.

It was contended that the trial Court, after taking into consideration all these factors, rightly convicted the accused. The prosecution also emphasized that the incident took place inside the house of the accused, and no explanation was offered by him as to how the murder occurred within his house, which is an additional circumstance against him. The trial Court, upon considering the material on record, accepted the case of the prosecution. It observed that the only discrepancy was in the evidence of PW1, who stated that he found the sickle at the spot. However, the spot mahazar does not disclose the presence of the sickle at the scene of occurrence. The trial Court held that this minor discrepancy in the evidence of PW1 cannot be treated as fatal to the prosecution case. Accordingly, it concluded that the prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.

12 - NC: 2026:KHC:7080-DB CRL.A No. 263 of 2021 C/W CRL.A No. 1345 of 2018

HC-KAR

Having heard the learned counsel appearing

for accused No.1, the learned counsel appearing for accused Nos.3 to 5, and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State, and upon giving our anxious consideration to the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the following points arise for consideration before this Court:

1. Whether the trial Court committed an error in convicting accused Nos.3 to 5 for the offences punishable under Sections 114 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code?

2. Whether the trial Court committed an error in convicting accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code?

3. Whether the impugned judgment and order of conviction call for interference by this Court?

Reg. Point No.1

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants/accused Nos.3 to 5 and the learned HCGP appearing

for the respondent–State, it is not in dispute that the marriage between accused No.1 and the deceased took place in the year 2005. The incident occurred in the year 2015, and they had

13 - NC: 2026:KHC:7080-DB CRL.A No. 263 of 2021 C/W CRL.A No. 1345 of 2018

HC-KAR

lived together for about 10 years, particularly along with accused No.2 and his wife.

It has emerged in the evidence that PW6 has categorically stated that accused Nos.3 and 4 were not visiting the house and that only accused No.5 used to visit occasionally. The evidence against accused Nos.3 to 5 consists solely of an omnibus statement made by PW1 that they were instigating accused No.1 over the phone. However, no material has been collected to substantiate the allegation of instigation against accused Nos.3 to 5. Even PW1 has not spoken about any specific instance of instigation by accused Nos.3 to 5 to accused No.1.

The learned counsel for the appellants has also brought to the notice of this Court that PW9, the father of the deceased, has not made any allegations against accused Nos.3 to 5. Upon considering the material on record, it is evident that except for the statement of PW1 alleging that accused Nos.3 to 5 were instigating accused No.1 over the phone, no evidence has been collected, such as call detail records or any other supporting material.

14 -

NC: 2026:KHC:7080-DB CRL.A No. 263 of 2021 C/W CRL.A No. 1345 of 2018

HC-KAR

Further, it is not in dispute that accused Nos.3 to 5 were already married and living separately. In order to invoke Section 498A as well as Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, there must be cogent material before the Court establishing cruelty or instigation. In the present case, there is no material to show that accused Nos.3 to 5 subjected the deceased to either mental or physical cruelty.

In the absence of substantive evidence against accused Nos.3 to 5, we are of the considered view that the trial Court committed an error in appreciating the evidence on record and in convicting them. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered in the affirmative, holding that the trial Court erred in convicting accused Nos.3 to 5 for the offences punishable under Sections 114 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

Reg. Point No.2

The case of the prosecution is that accused No.1 committed the murder by using a sickle. The medical evidence given by the doctor clearly shows that the deceased sustained 13 injuries. The Post-Mortem report (Ex.P6) clearly

15 - NC: 2026:KHC:7080-DB CRL.A No. 263 of 2021 C/W CRL.A No. 1345 of 2018

HC-KAR

discloses the nature of the injuries. The doctor was examined as PW11, and even during the course of cross-examination, it was suggested that the death might have occurred between 05:30 a.m. and 06:30 a.m. In such circumstances, there is no dispute with regard to the time of death.

Now, coming to the role of accused No.1. The evidence of PWs.5 and 6 clearly indicates that the accused was seen proceeding from the house with a sickle, and they have also deposed that he threw the same into a bush. It is not in dispute that the said sickle was recovered from the bush, and PW4 has categorically deposed regarding the recovery. There is no effective cross-examination on this aspect. Only a single line of cross-examination was made with regard to the recovery. The only suggestion put to PW4 was that MO9 and MO10 belong to accused No.1 and even the seizure of MO1 (the sickle), which has already been marked, has not been disputed. In such circumstances, there is no dispute with regard to the seizure.

The other witnesses are PW2 and PW3. PW2 did not support the case and was partly cross-examined by the

16 - NC: 2026:KHC:7080-DB CRL.A No. 263 of 2021 C/W CRL.A No. 1345 of 2018

HC-KAR

learned Public Prosecutor with regard to Ex.P2 treating as hostile. However, the evidence of PW3 is very clear. He has categorically deposed that the mahazar, Ex.P2, was drawn and that MO1 to MO4 were seized under the said mahazar. His evidence has not been disputed and he has not been crossexamined on this aspect. Therefore, the recovery of MO1 to MO4 stands proved by the prosecution.

The other evidence before the Court pertains to the seizure of the clothes of the accused, namely the shirt and baniyan, which are marked as MO9 and MO10. The Investigating Officer has spoken about the seizure of these articles. The FSL report has been marked as Ex.P20 by invoking Section 293 of the Cr.P.C. The report clearly states that MO9 and MO10 were found to contain extensive bloodstains, and the method of analysis is also detailed in Ex.P20. The opinion of the FSL is clear that blood was detected, particularly on MO9 and MO10 belonging to the accused cloth. When such being the case, the document having been marked on 18.06.2018

was not disputed by the defence at the time of marking. Further, there is no explanation offered by the accused

17 -

NC: 2026:KHC:7080-DB CRL.A No. 263 of 2021 C/W CRL.A No. 1345 of 2018

HC-KAR

regarding the presence of bloodstains on his clothes. He ought to have provided an explanation in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., but no such explanation has been given.

The incident took place inside the house of the accused. The accused has not offered any explanation as required under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, though he was bound to explain the circumstances, as the occurrence was within his exclusive knowledge. The incident occurred in

the early morning between 05:30 a.m. and 06:00 a.m., at an odd hour, and therefore there was no possibility of any third person entering the house.

The bloodstains found on the clothes of the deceased as well as on MO9 and MO10 (the clothes of the accused) were of human origin and belonged to blood group ‘B’. The evidence of PW5 and PW6 clearly establishes that they last

seen the accused coming out of the house. No doubt, the learned counsel for the accused would vehemently contend that the place of recovery of the sickle was at a distance of half a kilometre. However, PW5 and PW6 have categorically deposed before the Court that the accused went carrying the sickle, and

18 - NC: 2026:KHC:7080-DB CRL.A No. 263 of 2021 C/W CRL.A No. 1345 of 2018

HC-KAR

the said sickle was found to be bloodstained. The distance of half a kilometre is not significant in the facts and circumstances of the case. In the cross-examination of PW5 and PW6, nothing has been elicited to discredit or disbelieve their evidence. It is also important to note that in the cross-examination of these two witnesses, nothing has been elicited to show that there was any enmity between them and the accused or that they were falsely deposing against him.

Having considered all the materials available on record, namely the evidence of PW1, PW9, PW5 and PW6, the medical evidence of PW11, the recovery witnesses, the evidence of PW3 with regard to the seizure of the articles at the spot under Ex.P2, and the evidence of PW4 regarding the recovery of the sickle at the instance of the accused from the bush, it is clear that the prosecution case stands proved. The evidence of PW4 has not been disputed. Similarly, the evidence of PW3 has also not been challenged by the defence.

Further, the time of occurrence suggested by the defence itself, namely between 05:30 a.m. and 06:00 a.m., goes against the accused. On an overall consideration of all

19 - NC: 2026:KHC:7080-DB CRL.A No. 263 of 2021 C/W CRL.A No. 1345 of 2018

HC-KAR

these materials on record, the role of accused No.1 has been clearly established by the prosecution witnesses, and it is evident that accused No.1 alone committed the murder of his wife.

With regard to the offence under Section 498A IPC, no witness has spoken about the accused subjecting the deceased to mental cruelty or assault on any prior occasion. In such circumstances, the trial Court failed to take note of this material aspect and committed an error in invoking Section 498A IPC. There must be positive and cogent evidence before the Court to establish that the deceased was subjected to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A.

However, there is no discussion in the

judgment regarding the basis for invoking Section 498A, nor is there any evidence on record to show that the deceased was subjected to cruelty. The material on record indicates that the accused and the deceased lived together, along with the parents of the accused, for about 10 years. There are no allegations of cruelty during the period of marriage from 2005 to 2015, except for the present incident of murder. Therefore,

20 - NC: 2026:KHC:7080-DB CRL.A No. 263 of 2021 C/W CRL.A No. 1345 of 2018

HC-KAR

the trial Court committed an error in convicting the accused for

the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC. Consequently, accused No.1 is entitled for acquittal for the said offence, and the point is answered accordingly.

In view of the discussions made above, we

pass the following order.

ORDER

Crl.A.No.263/2021 filed by the appellant/accused No.1 is allowed-in-part . The judgment and order dated 18.07.2018 passed in S.C.No.90/2016 c/w S.C.No.156/2016 by learned VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru is modified.

Accused No.1 is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC. However, the offence punishable under Section 302 is confirmed.

Crl.A. No.1345/2018 is allowed . The conviction and sentence passed against accused Nos.3 to 5 are hereby set aside, and they are acquitted of the charges levelled against them.

Bail bond executed by accused Nos.3 to 5, if any, stand cancelled.

21 -

NC: 2026:KHC:7080-DB CRL.A No. 263 of 2021 C/W CRL.A No. 1345 of 2018

HC-KAR

If any fine amount has been deposited by accused Nos.3 to 5, the same shall be refunded to them on proper identification.

Sd/-

(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

Sd/(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE

AM

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.07.2018 in S.C.No.90/2016 c/w S.C.No.156/2016: accused No.1 sentenced to life imprisonment + Rs.20,000/- fine under S.302 IPC (default 2 years SI) and 3 years SI + Rs.10,000/- fine under S.498-A IPC (default 9 months); accused Nos.3 to 5 sentenced to 7 years SI + Rs.5,000/- fine under S.114 IPC (default 2 years SI) and 2 years SI + Rs.5,000/- fine under S.498-A IPC (default 6 months)¶54
VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru · 18.07.2018
Prior proceeding
Marriage between accused No.1 and the deceased took place in 2005 (noted by the Court as not in dispute)¶104
Prior proceeding
The couple lived together for about 10 years, particularly along with accused No.2 and his wife; the incident occurred in 2015¶107
Prior proceeding
On 22.12.2015 at about 5:00 a.m. accused No.1 assaulted the deceased in the kitchen (head injury with a machete as narrated, and blows to the face), causing death; case registered, police investigated, recorded witness statements and filed the charge sheet; accused claimed trial¶64
Prior proceeding
Charge sheet initially filed only against accused No.1; a split-up charge sheet was subsequently filed against accused Nos.2 to 5 (as pointed out by counsel)¶81
Prior proceeding
At trial the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 13 and marked documents Exs.P1 to P20¶65
Prior proceeding
Material Objects MOs 1 to 10 marked, including the sickle, the victim's clothes, pillow cover, bed sheet and the blood-stained baniyan and shirt of accused No.1¶65
Prior proceeding
Accused No.1 adduced defence evidence by examining DWs.1 to 3 and marked no documents¶65
Prior proceeding
Trial Court convicted accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498A of IPC¶69
Prior proceeding
Trial Court also convicted accused Nos.3 to 5 for the offences punishable under Sections 114 and 498A of IPC¶69
Prior proceeding
Accused No.2 died during the pendency of the trial and the case against him stood abated¶69