SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2004 Supreme(SC) 711

C. T. PONNAPPA – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent


( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties.

( 2 ) THE appellant herein was convicted by the trial court under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life. He was further convicted under S. 25 and S. 30 of the Arms Act, 1959, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and six months respectively. The sentences, however, were ordered to run concurrently. On appeal being preferred, the High Court of Karnataka upheld the convictions and sentences. Hence, this appeal by special leave.

( 3 ) UNDISPUTEDLY, the present case is not a case of direct evidence, but it is a case of circumstantial evidence and in order to convict the accused, the prosecution has relied upon the following circumstances:

(A) Prior to the date of occurrence, there was a partition between the accused and the deceased, who were full brothers, but in spite of partition, a dispute was going on between them over the allocation of shares in the said partition which led to the commission of the present crime at the instance of the appellant. (b) The accused was found present in the house at the time of occurrence wherein the accused and his mother were re





Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top