High Court Affirms Conviction of Accused in Bhimraya Murder Case

In a significant legal ruling, the Supreme Court has upheld the High Court’s decision in the Bhimraya Murder Case, affirming the conviction of the accused individuals. The case revolves around the unfortunate demise of Bhimraya, with the mother of the deceased, Kamalamma, playing a crucial role in seeking justice. The court’s judgment sheds light on the complexities of criminal proceedings and the pursuit of truth in the face of adversity.


  • The High Court affirmed the conviction of the appellants-accused under Section 448 read with Section 34 IPC and imposed a sentence of 6 months of rigorous imprisonment on each of them.
  • The appellants-accused along with co-accused No.3 were convicted under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.
  • The trial court found the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt based on the evidence provided by PW-5 (mother of the deceased) and medical evidence.
  • The appeal arose from the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka confirming the conviction of the appellants-accused under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and imposing a sentence of life imprisonment.
  • The High Court also confirmed the conviction and sentence of imprisonment imposed on the appellants and co-accused upon considering oral and documentary evidence.
  • The trial court determined that the delay in registering the FIR did not impair the prosecution’s case.
  • Deceased Bhimraya was threatened by all four accused due to his alleged illicit relationship with the wife of accused No.4.
  • The mother of the deceased, Kamalamma, tried to intervene and stop the accused from harming her son.
  • Accused No.4, Balappa, attacked the deceased with the handle of an axe.
  • Doctor’s opinion suggested that the fatal injury could have been caused by knives.
  • Accused No.1 to 3 were later arrested, with a confession from Accused No.1 leading to the recovery of a dagger hidden in his house.
  • The accused had enmity towards the deceased due to the alleged affair lasting 4-5 years.
  • Witnesses saw the accused attacking the deceased and fleeing the scene
  • Accused No.1 inflicted multiple injuries on the deceased with a dagger, while Accused No.2 and 3 held him down and Accused No.4 incited the attack.
  • The mother of the deceased lodged a complaint which led to the registration of an FIR.
  • Further investigation and recovery of evidence like bloodstained objects were conducted at the scene of the crime.
  • Accused No.1 inflicted additional injuries on the deceased before the charge sheet was filed.
  • The prosecution presented witnesses and evidence to establish the guilt of all four accused.
  • The post-mortem examination confirmed the cause of death as shock and hemorrhage from neck injury.
  • Accused No.4 was alleged to have encouraged the killing of the deceased due to the illicit affair with his wife.

Also Read: High Court Acquittal Case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Jai Prakash


  • Learned senior counsel for the appellants argued against the recovery of a dagger from accused No.1 and other materials, claiming errors in the conviction by the lower courts.
  • Pointed out the delay in lodging the complaint and registering the FIR in the case, raising doubts on the prosecution’s case and the possibility of false implication of the accused.
  • Contested the credibility of PW-5 (Kamalamma) – mother of the deceased, citing discrepancies in her evidence that should not be the basis for conviction.
  • The State counsel argued for the consistency between the testimonies of PW-5 and PW-7 (Hanmanth), which are supported by medical evidence.
  • Accused Nos. 2 to 4 caught hold of Bhimraya’s legs and hands while Accused No. 1 inflicted a chop wound on his neck, resulting in his death.
  • The motive behind the attack was alleged to be the illicit relationship between the deceased and the mother of Accused Nos. 1 to 3 as well as the wife of Accused No. 4.
  • PW-7, the brother of the deceased, witnessed the occurrence and confirmed the overt act of the accused.
  • The evidence of PW-5, the mother of the deceased, was questioned due to discrepancies in her statements about when and how her statement was recorded by the police.
  • The trial court found PW-5 to be a natural witness present in the house at the time of the incident and observed her testimony to be trustworthy despite her varying statements about the police recording her statement.
  • Accused No. 1 stabbed the deceased multiple times with different weapons, leading to his demise.
  • The evidence of Investigating Officers and seizure of weapons from the accused supported the prosecution’s case as per the trial court’s findings.

Also Read: Judgment Review: Supreme Court’s Ruling on the Capital Punishment Appeal


  • 1.1
  • 1.2
  • 1.3
  • 1.4
  • 1.5
  • 1.6
  • 1.7
  • 1.8
  • 1.9
  • 1.1
  • 1.11
  • 1.12
  • 1.13
  • 1.14
  • 1.15
  • 1.16
  • Minor discrepancies on trivial matters that do not affect the core of the case must not lead to rejection of the witness’s evidence.
  • The trial court must assess witness credibility based on the entire evidence presented.
  • The appellate court should not review witness credibility without valid reasons.
  • The FIR indicates the presence of accused Nos.1, 2, and 3 in the attack on the deceased.
  • Serious doubts exist regarding the presence of accused No.4 in the incident.
  • Benefit of doubt given to accused No.4 due to lack of evidence.
  • Conviction of accused No.1 and No.2 upheld based on evidence and balanced reasoning.

Also Read: Compromise Reached: Reddy Satyanarayana vs Narapureddy Sanyasi Rao


  • Accused No.1-Mallikarjun and accused No.2-Ravi’s convictions under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and Section 448 IPC read with Section 24 IPC are confirmed.
  • The sentence of imprisonment imposed on accused No.1 and accused No.2 is confirmed.
  • Conviction of accused No.4 is set aside, and he is acquitted from all charges.


Case Number: Crl.A. No.-001066-001066 / 2009

Click here to read/download original judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *