In cases of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances unerringly pointing to the accused's guilt. Where such a chain is complete, and the accused fails to explain incriminating evidence like blood-stained clothing, the absence of a strong motive does not invalidate a conviction for murder.

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF CR.P.C. (SECTION 415(2) OF BNSS, 2023) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 04.10.2024 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOTE IN SESSIONS CASE NO. 12/2023 AND ACQUIT THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED OF THE OFFENCES UNDER SECTION 302 OF IPC AND ETC.

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 07.04.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI

CAV JUDGMENT

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

This Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed in S.C. No. 12/2023 for the offences punishable under Section 302 of IPC questioning the imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of ₹5,000/- and prayed this Court to set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence.

2. The factual matrix of case of prosecution is that the accused and deceased Chandrappa were known to each other, the husband of PW3, i.e. deceased was addicted to consumption of alcohol, he used to consume alcohol everyday. The deceased did not turn up to house on 08.12.2022 but he left the house stating that he is going near Bilagi cross and when he did not turn up, PW3 and children went to sleep. But on 09.12.2022 at about 08.00 a.m. PW11 made a phone call that a body is lying in Modi plot at Bilgi cross and asked her to come to the said place, she went to the place and identified that the said body is of her husband, she lodged the complaint stating that her husband was murdered by someone else. Hence case is registered and investigation is conducted. The accused was arrested and after the completion of the investigation the charge sheet was filed; after filing of the charge sheet case was registered as C.C. No. 7/2023; thereafter the matter was committed to the Sessions Court and the same is numbered as S.C. No. 12/2023; the accused was secured, he did not plead guilty and claims the trial, hence prosecution relies upon the evidence PWs 1 to 13, got marked documents as per Exs.P.1 to P.40 so also MOs 01 to 11.

3. The charges levelled against the accused is that on 08.02.2022 at 11.30 p.m. in the open space of property bearing No. 319/1 belonging to one Sivaganga situated at Badagandi Village, when deceased Chandrappa insisted the accused to offer him liquor, the accused getting enraged by it, assaulted him with a big sized stone on his head and committed the murder. The trial judge having considered the evidence of PWs1 to 13 and documentary evidence, since the accused also denied incriminating evidence under Section 313 of CrPC, appreciated both the case of prosecution and also the defence and comes to the conclusion that accused only committed the murder of the deceased and convicted him and sentenced for the offence referred above. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, the present appeal is filed before this Court.

4. The main contention of the counsel appearing for the appellant-accused is that the case is rested upon circumstantial evidence. He further contended that the trial judge committed an error in not considering the material contradictions and discrepancies in the oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the punishment imposed on the appellant is on higher side. The trial judge committed an error in rely