Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and mere circumstantial evidence without a clear chain connecting the accused to the crime is insufficient for conviction.

JUDGMENT :

B. MURALIDHARA PAI, J.

1. The accused in S.C. No. 5020/2019 on the file of learned I Additional District and Sessions Court, Karwar, sitting at Sirsi, has preferred this appeal assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.07.2025 passed therein, for the offences punishable under Sections 323 , 302, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The facts of the case in nutshell are as under:

2.1 On 10.01.2019 at about 1.00 a.m., one Sri Raghu lodged a complaint before the Yellapur Police, requesting initiation of legal action against the accused on the allegation that the accused had murdered his daughter, Kumari Nayana, on 09.01.2019 between 9.00 a.m. and 3.00 p.m., either by assaulting her or by administering pesticide. In the said complaint, the complainant further narrated that the accused had previously committed certain offences against his wife and daughters prior to the incident dated 09.01.2019.

2.2 Based on the said complaint, Yellapur Police registered a case against the accused in Crime No.10/2019 for the offences under Sections 324 and 302 of IPC and took up investigation.

2.3 PW-6 Sri Dinesh, HC No.744, received the complaint, registered the case and handed over the papers to PW-17 for the investigation in the case. PW-17 Sri Manjunath, Police Inspector of Khanapura, has conducted entire investigation in the case except on 12.1.2019, the day on which he was deputed to provide security for PSI Examination.

2.4 On 12.1.2019 PW-16 Sri Chandrashekar, CPI of Joida, was the Investigating Officer in the case. On that day he said to have recorded voluntary statement of the accused and drawn seized mahazar at the instance of the accused.

2.5 After conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was laid against the accused for offences under Sections 302 , 324, 323, 498A, and 201 of the IPC . The offences being triable by Court of Sessions, the case was committed and then made over to the trial court. The said court framed charges against the accused for the above mentioned offenses, who abjured his guilt and claimed trial.

2.6 The prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses, exhibited 32 documents and 5 material objects to prove its case. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and he was confronted with the allegations as appearing against him in the prosecution case. The accused denied the same and claimed to be innocent. The accused adduced his defense by stepping into witness box as DW-1 and got marked a document as Ex.D1.

2.7 Upon hearing the arguments advanced on both sides and considering the evidence on record, the trial court proceeded to convict and sentence the accused for the offences under Sections 323 , 302 and 201 of the IPC and acquitted him of the charges framed under Sections 498A and 324.

2.8 The accused has preferred this appeal questioning his conviction and order of sentence for the offences under Sections 323 , 302 and 201 of IPC . No one has challenged the acquittal of the accused for the offences under Sections 498A and 324 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Sri Megharaj H. Kabadi, learned Counsel appearing for Sri Raibagi Ganapatsa Ramakrishna, learned Counsel for the Accused, vehemently contended that the conviction of the accused by the trial court is based purely on conjectures and surmises. He submitted that the prosecution case is totally based on circumstantial evidence and that the prosecution could not lead reliable evidence to establish the complete chain of incriminating circumstances required to prove guilt of the accused. He further s