Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 2741
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
K.S.MUDAGAL, M.G.S. KAMAL, JJ.
Sri C.M. Venkateshappa, S/o. Late Doddamuniyappa – Appellant
Versus
State By Vemgal Police, Rep. By State Public Prosecutor – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.412 of 2019 (C)
Decided On : 12-11-2025
For the Appellant :Sri Chandrashekar R.P., Advocate
For the Respondent: Sri Vijayakumar Majage, SPP-II
The court reiterated that eyewitness testimony can sustain a conviction despite familial relationships, emphasizing the primacy of credible direct evidence over questions of motive or circumstantial inconsistencies.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 313 - Appeal against conviction for murder - Accused convicted of murder for stabbing victim multiple times due to refusal to provide ration without a card - Eyewitnesses’ accounts corroborated by medical evidence - Defence of provocation and unsoundness of mind rejected due to lack of evidence - Court held the conviction and sentence sustainable. (Paras 6, 10, 12, 36, 42)
(B) Eyewitness credibility - The court discussed the distinction between related witnesses and interested witnesses and clarified that familial ties do not inherently undermine testimony unless personal gain from conviction is demonstrated. (Paras 18, 19)
(C) Evidence evaluation - The court emphasized the principle that direct evidence from eyewitnesses, if credible, is sufficient to uphold a conviction regardless of motive or forensic inconsistencies. (Paras 34)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was tried for murder of Krishnappa after he was stabbed multiple times due to a dispute over ration supply, resulting in the victim’s death. The appellant claimed to possess a ration card, but the prosecution established the absence of legitimate motive. (Paras 4, 9, 10)
Findings of Court:
Trial court found the prosecution proved the charge against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt through credible eyewitness testimony and supporting medical evidence. (Paras 6, 36)
Issues: Whether the conviction and sentence were sustainable given the claims of provocation and unsoundness of mind; whether the testimonies of eyewitnesses were reliable. (Paras 11, 30)
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed the trial court's reliance on eyewitness accounts and dismissed the criticisms of eyewitness reliability based on familial relationships, stating that motive is less significant when direct evidence is credible. (Paras 10, 34)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the case's factual background. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. challenges to the trial court's findings and arguments by defense. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. court's examination of evidence and witness credibility. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 4. principles regarding intent, provocation, and mental health defenses. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43) |
JUDGMENT :
K.S.MUDAGAL, J.
Challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against him, accused in S.C.No.183/2016 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge (Special Court for POCSO), Kolar has preferred this appeal.
2. Appellant was sole accused in S.C.No.183/2016 before the trial Court. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to henceforth according to their ranks before the trial Court.
3. Accused was tried in S.C.No.183/2016 for the charge for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC on the basis of the charge sheet filed by Vemagal Police in Crime No.265/2016 of their police station. Crime No.265/2016 was registered against the accused on the basis of the complaint/Ex.P1 filed by PW.1/C.N.Gopal.
4. Charge against the accused was that victim Krishnappa was running ration shop in Chaldiganahalli village. Accused without required ration card was insisting the victim to supply him the ration which was declined by the victim. Due to such ill-will, on 10.09.2016 at 8.30 p.m. when the victim was proceeding near racchekatte in Chaldiganahalli village, Kolar Taluk, accused armed with knife/MO.1 accosted and stabbed him on his chest, stomach and waist. Victim succumbed to the injuries when he was being shifted to R.L.Jalappa Hospital, Kolar.
5. The trial Court on hearing the parties, framed the charge against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC . As accused denied charges, trial was conducted. In support of the case of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 21 were examined, Exs.P1 to P24 and MOs.1 to 10 were marked. Accused after his examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., did not adduce any defence evidence. However, during the course of examination of the prosecution witnesses, Ex.D1 xerox copy of a ration card was marked by way of confrontation.
6. The trial Court on hearing the parties by the impugned judgment and order held that the charge against the accused was proved by the evidence of eyewitnesses, their evidence was corroborated by the medical evidence and other evidence. Hence, trial Court convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to pay the fine amount, to undergo imprisonment for two months. Said judgment and order is challenged in this appeal.
7. Heard both side.
Submissions of Sri Chandrashekar R.P., learned Counsel for the accused:
8. The motive alleged for the crime was the insistence of accused to victim to supply ration without a ration card. However, Ex.D1 shows that accused had possessed ration card. Ex.D1 was admitted by the prosecution witnesses. Therefore motive circumstance fails. Trial Court failed to appreciate the documentary evidence and the admission of the witnesses in that regard. There was unexplained delay in registering first information report and delivering the same to the Court. The trial Court failed to consider the same. The independent witnesses did not support the prosecution case. The alleged eyewitnesses were all interested witnesses. They were the persons close to the deceased or the relatives of the deceased or they had animosity against the accused. Therefore they tried to falsely implicate him. Hence, the trial Court was in error in accepting their evidence. Even otherwise, the evidence shows that despite the accused holding ration card, deceased had deprived him of ration. Accused was a poor labourer, as he was not able to get his f
