IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF APRIL, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100668 OF 2025 BETWEEN:

PARASHURAM GANAPATRAO PISE, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC. CLERK IN BANK, R/O. PLOT NO.31, S.K. NAGAR, TALIKOTI, MUDEBIHAL, DIST. VIJAYAPURA.

- APPELLANT (BY SRI. P.P. HEGDE, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VIJAY KRISHNAPPA NAIK, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH CAMP P.S, BELAGAVI, R/BY. ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD.

- RESPONDENT VINAYAKA (BY SRI. M.B. GUNDAWADE, ADDITIONAL SPP)

B V THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 415 (2) OF Digitally sign ed by BNSS, 2023, PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION VINAYAKA B V Date: 2026.04.24 AND SENTENCE DATED 13.10.2025 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE 10:12:53 +0530 UNDER SECTION 302 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 PASSED IN SESSIONS CASE NO. 260/2020 BY THE LEARNED V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI & ETC.

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 17.04.2026, 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 appeal is filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentencing the accused for imprisonment of life with fine of ₹50,000/- and in default liable to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a term of 3 years and prayed this Court to set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence.

2. The factual matrix of case of prosecution is that accused is the husband of deceased Smt.Kavitha; both of them were staying in a rented house in Flat No. 123 of Athawadkar Layout in Vijayanagara, Belagavi. On 13.02.2022 at about 01.00 p.m. to 04.30 p.m. the accused picked up quarrel with the deceased with respect to taking care of two kids. When the quarrel reached the peak, accused with an intention to take away the life of the wife, squeezed her neck with hands. As a result, she lost her life. Hence case has been registered and Police have investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet. The accused did not plead guilty and claims trial. Hence prosecution examined PW1 to PW23; Exhibits P1 to P68 and MO1 to MO8 are marked. On closure of the evidence of Prosecution, the accused was also subjected to statement u/S 313 CrPC but he denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against him. However, he has filed written statement but did not choose to lead any defence evidence. The trial judge, having considered the material available on record, comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt; that the death was homicidal and death was on account of throttling. The trial Court convicted the accused believing the case of prosecution and sentenced. Hence the present appeal is filed before this court.

3. The main contention of the counsel appearing for the appellant is that the prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of the daughter, who has been examined before the trial Court as PW12, and her evidence cannot be believed since she was 6½ years old at the time of the incident. He admits that there is a clear admission on the part of the daughter that she is staying along with her grandparents and she used to give evidence in their terms. He also submits that the material available on record is insufficient to come to a conclusion that it is a case of 302 IPC. The accused in his statement u/S 313 CrPC that his wife has called him as a result of she having severe stomach ache. Hence, the accused with the permission of the employer went to the house. The counsel also admits that the material does not disclose the ingredients of the offence of 302 IPC and it fails to prove the case of murder. The counsel would