SRI C.M.VENKATESHAPPA v. STATE BY VEMGAL POLICE
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
The appeal is dismissed
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 313, 374(2)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 84, 300, 302, 304
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 s. 27
Key paragraphs
- Para 99. In support of his submissions, he relies on the following judgments: (i) Atul Thakur v. State of H.P.1 (ii) Arjun v. State of Chhattisgarh2 (iii) Mariappan v. State3 (iv) Hussainbhai Asgarali Lokhandwala v. State of Gujarat4 (v) Dattatraya v. State of Maharashtra5 (vi) Markash…
Judgment
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 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:46043-DB CRL.A No.412/2019 HC-KAR 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 food, under frustration, he has assaulted the victim. But he had no intention to commit murder. Therefore his alleged act falls under Second Part of Section 304 of IPC. The impugned judgment and order is unsustainable and liable to be set aside. Accused is in judicial custody since September
#2016. He has undergone more than 9 years of imprisonment. Therefore reducing the conviction to Second Part of Section 304 of IPC and restricting the sentence to the detention period already undergone by him, he may be released.
#9. In support of his submissions, he relies on the following judgments: (i) Atul Thakur v. State of H.P.1 (ii) Arjun v. State of Chhattisgarh2 (iii) Mariappan v. State3 (iv) Hussainbhai Asgarali Lokhandwala v. State of Gujarat4 (v) Dattatraya v. State of Maharashtra5 (vi) Markash Jajara v. State of Assam6 ORDER The appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE KSR List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The appeal is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 313, 374(2); Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 84, 300, 302, 304; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 27.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Karnataka High Court, on 12 Nov 2025. The bench was K S MUDAGAL, M G S KAMAL.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.
Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.