IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21^ST 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.115/2021 BETWEEN: NAGARAJU S/O SRIRAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT NO.145, ASHRAYA HOUSE HOSABALU NAGAR SINGAPURA VILLAGE VIDYARANAYAPURA BENGALURU-560097 … APPELLANT (BY SRI VEERANNA G TIGADI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY VIDYARANAYAPURA POLICE STATION BENGALURU DISTRICT REP. BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR … RESPONDENT (BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP)

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 372(2)

OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 15.10.2019 AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 21.10.2019 PASSED IN S.C.NO.1227/2015 ON THE FILE OF LXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU AND ETC.

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 13.02.2026 THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

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

CAV JUDGMENT

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

This appeal is filed praying this Court to set aside the judgment of conviction dated 15.10.2019 and order of sentence dated 21.10.2019 passed in S.C.No.1227/2015 on the file of LXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru and consequently, acquit the appellant/accused for the charges levelled against him.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent/State.

3. The factual matrix of case of the prosecution is that one Manjula, the daughter of PW1, got married to one Anand and he died about 2½ years back due to electric shock. Thereafter, the accused got introduced himself to the said Manjula and assured PW1 that he would marry her daughter Manjula and took her to his house No.145 of Singapura village and both of them were residing in that house from last 4 months of the alleged incident. The accused subjected the deceased for cruelty and hence she came back to her mother’s house. On 29.07.2015, the accused took the deceased forcefully to his house even though PW1 did not agree to send her back. On the next day, though PW1 tried to contact the accused, he did not respond to the call. On the next day i.e., on 31.07.2015, accused called PW1 and told that the said Manjula is no more. Hence, PW1 and her another daughter went to the spot and found the dead body of her daughter Manjula and accused was also present in that house. Hence, PW1 gave the complaint against the accused and case was registered against him.

4. Based on the complaint, accused was arrested, spot mahazar and inquest mahazar were drawn, post mortem was conducted and pillow was recovered at the instance of the accused in the presence of panch witnesses. The witnesses' evidence was also recorded and after completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused. The accused did not plead guilty and claims for trial. Hence, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses as PW1 to PW14 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P20 and seized the material objects at MO1 and MO2. The accused was subjected to 313 statement and he did not adduce any defence evidence.

5. The Trial Court having heard the arguments of the prosecution as well as defence counsel comes to the conclusion that case is rest upon the circumstances evidence and all the circumstances goes against the accused and held that accused has committed the murder of Smt. Manjula and guilt has been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, convicted the accused and imposed sentenced against him for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.

6. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, the present appeal is filed by the accused/appellant before this Court.

7. The main contention of the counsel appearing for the appellant in this appeal is that the case is rest upon the circumstantial evidence. The counsel would contend that in