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.1528 OF 2021 (C)

BETWEEN:

MR. K.C. PANDIYAN S/O LATE MR. K. CHANDRAN AGED 52 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.5 GOKULAPPA OLD BUILDING

20^TH 'A' CROSS EJIPURA BENGALURU - 560 047 …APPELLANT (BY SRI I.S. PRAMOD CHANDRA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Di gitally signed by STATE OF KARNATAKA ANJALI M BY VIVEK NAGAR POLICE STATION Location:

BENGALURU CITY High Court of Karnataka THROUGH THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTORS HIGH COURT BUILDING DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001.

…RESPONDENT (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ASPP)

* * *

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION

374(2) OF THE CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 8-3-2021 AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 9-3-2021, PASSED BY THE LXIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-65) AT BENGALURU IN SESSIONS CASE NO.493 OF 2014, CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302 OF IPC.

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL ARGUMENTS, 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 I.S. Pramod Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, learned Addl. SPP appearing for the respondent-State.

2. The appellant-accused has filed this appeal praying to set aside the judgment of conviction dated 08-03-2021 and order on sentence dated 09-03-2021, passed by the LXIV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-65) at Bengaluru, in Sessions Case No.493 of 2014, wherein, he has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, along with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months, for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'IPC').

3. The factual matrix of the prosecution case is as follows:

The accused is the father-in-law of the deceased, Suresh Kumar, but his relationship with the deceased was not cordial due to domestic disputes. On 19.04.2013, when the accused attempted to speak with his daughter, the deceased allegedly pushed him and did not permit him to speak with her. Being annoyed by the same, the accused, on that very day at about 10.30 p.m., again went to the house where his daughter PW-1 Geethanjali was residing with her husband, the deceased Suresh Kumar, and picked up a quarrel with his son-in-law. With the intention of causing his death, or with the knowledge that an assault with knife was likely to cause injuries which in all probability would result in death, the accused assaulted Suresh Kumar with knife on his stomach. Due to the said injury, he succumbed on 20.04.2013 at about 02.30 a.m. while undergoing treatment at St. John’s Hospital, Bengaluru. Thereafter, case was registered based on the complaint Ex.P1 lodged by the wife of the deceased, who is also the daughter of the accused. The said complaint narrates the incident and was given at about 05.00 a.m. Based on the same, case was registered in Crime No.126 of 2013 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.

4. Based on the complaint, FIR was registered and forwarded to the Court. Thereafter, the accused was arrested on the next day. During the course of investigation, recovery was made at the instance of the accused, namely the knife and blood-stained clothes. The Investigating Officer also recorded the statements of witnesses. The dead body was subjected to inquest and post-mortem examination. After completion of all the investigation, the charge sheet was filed.

5. On receipt of the charge sheet, cognizance was taken and charges were framed against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. The accused did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence