Delay In Filing Complaint Not Grounds For Acquittal; Karnataka High Court Upholds Conviction Of Man For Son-In-Law's Murder
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Karnataka Division Bench of Justice H.P. Sandesh and Justice Venkatesh Naik T has held that a delay in lodging a complaint cannot, by itself, serve as grounds to acquit an accused in a murder case, noting that when an incident occurs within a family, the immediate priority of the victim's relatives is to seek medical attention rather than approach the police. The court accordingly dismissed the appeal of a man convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by the trial court for fatally assaulting his son-in-law with a wooden log on the abdomen, from the injuries of which the victim died during treatment at hospital.
The appeal arose from a conviction recorded by the Sessions Court for the offence of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused challenged the judgment of conviction and sentence imposing life imprisonment with a fine. The prosecution case was that on the night of 6 August 2017, the deceased and his wife were sleeping in their house along with their children when the accused entered the house and assaulted the deceased with a wooden log on the stomach. The injured was immediately shifted to Mc.Gann Hospital, Shivamogga, and later transferred to Wenlock Hospital, Mangaluru, for further treatment. Despite medical intervention, he succumbed to the injuries on 9 August 2017.
Following the death, a complaint was lodged and a criminal case was registered. The investigation resulted in filing of a charge sheet, after which the matter was committed to the Sessions Court for trial. During the trial, the prosecution examined twenty-three witnesses and relied upon documentary evidence and material objects including the alleged weapon used in the assault. The defence also marked a document in support of its case.
The prosecution primarily relied upon the testimony of the deceased’s wife as an eye-witness and other witnesses who arrived at the scene after hearing the commotion. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances during examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and contested the prosecution evidence.
While assessing the testimony of other witnesses, the Court observed that “PW7, who is the wife of the accused, has deposed that upon hearing the screaming, she rushed to the spot and noticed the accused moving away from the place of occurrence.” The Court also recorded that “on enquiry, she came to know from Shivakumar that the accused had assaulted him.”
The Court considered the relationship between the witnesses and the accused and stated that “PW3 is none other than the daughter of the accused and PW7 is none other than his wife, and they are also neighbours.” It further observed that “nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of these two material witnesses, namely PW3 and PW7.”
Regarding the evidence of other witnesses who reached the scene, the Court recorded that “PW13 and PW22 are circumstantial witnesses… on hearing the screaming at night, they went to the house of Netra and noticed that the accused run away from the spot.” The Court also noted that these witnesses “came to know about the incident through PW3.”
On the question of delay in lodging the complaint, the Court observed that "However, the Court has to take note of the fact that the accused is none other than the father of PW3 and the husband of PW7. The first priority of the family members was to shift the injured to the hospital. Immediately after the incident, the injured was taken to Mc.Gann Hospital, Shivamogga, and thereafter shifted to Wenlock Hospital, Mangaluru. The complaint was lodged immediately after the death of Shivakumar. The mere delay in lodging the complaint, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, cannot be a ground to acquit the accused. Normally, when an incident takes place among family members, the immediate concern would be to save the injured rather than to approach the police station.”
While considering the medical evidence, the Court recorded that “the cause of death was due to complications arising from injuries to the intestine and liver (abdominal injuries), secondary to blunt force trauma.” The Court concluded that “the medical evidence also clearly establishes that it is a case of homicidal death.”
After reviewing the evidence and circumstances, the Court observed that “the evidence of PW3 and PW7, coupled with the testimony of the circumstantial witnesses, clearly points out that it is the accused who committed the murder.” It further recorded that “none of the witnesses has any animosity against the appellant so as to falsely depose against him.”
The Court directed that “the appeal is dismissed. The Registry is directed to pay amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the Amicus Curiae for the able assistance rendered. The Registry shall pay the said Amicus Curiae fee forthwith.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Sri N.S. Sampangi Ramaiah, Advocate (Amicus Curiae)
For the Respondents: Smt. Rashmi Patel, High Court Government Pleader
Case Title: Manjappa v. State of Karnataka
Neutral Citation: NC: 2026: KHC:12254-DB
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 968 of 2021
Bench: Justice H.P. Sandesh and Justice Venkatesh Naik T
