Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ.
R. Sreenivasa – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 859 of 2011
Decided On : 06-09-2023
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302 – Murder – Life sentence – Circumstantial evidence – There is major discrepancy in charge framed by Court and statement of witnesses – Deceased’s wife has testified that relations between parties were cordial and has not hinted at animosity – Burden on accused would kick in only when last seen theory is established – In instant case, that itself is in doubt – ‘Last seen’ theory can be invoked only when same stands proved beyond reasonable doubt – There is a long time-gap between alleged last seen and recovery of body – In absence of other corroborative pieces of evidence, it cannot be said that chain of circumstances is so complete that only inference that could be drawn is guilt of appellant – It would be unsafe to sustain conviction of appellant on such evidence, where chain is clearly incomplete – Presumption of innocence is in favour of accused and when doubts emanate, benefit accrues to accused and not prosecution – Impugned Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by High Court set aside. (Paras 13, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19)
Facts of the case:
Present criminal appeal, under The Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970, is directed against the Final Judgment and Order dated 20.10.2010 in Crl. A. No.1952/2005 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, whereby High Court was pleased to allow the appeal filed by State qua the sole appellant.
Findings of Court:
Impugned Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by High Court is set aside. Appellant is discharged from the liability of his bail bonds.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present criminal appeal, under The Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970, is directed against the Final Judgment and Order dated 20.10.2010 in Crl. Appeal No. 1952/2005 (hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Judgment”) passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as the “High Court”), whereby the High Court was pleased to allow the appeal filed by the State qua the sole appellant.
THE FACTUAL PRISM:
3. The appellant was a co-accused along with one other. Upon trial, both were acquitted. However, in appeal before the High Court preferred by the State of Karnataka, the appellant has been convicted under Section 3021 [Punishment for murder - Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine] of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the “IPC”) and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.
4. According to the prosecution story, on 03.01.2002 at about 4:30 P.M. an unidentified dead body of a male was found by the Complainant (PW1) in his field leading to institution of complaint with police. Later, the body was identified to be that of one Krishnappa. The allegation is that Accused No. 1 (appellant herein) along with Accused No. 2 with a common intention killed the deceased. The motive statedly being that the deceased had developed illicit intimacy with the appellant’s sister. It is alleged that both accused had further tried to destroy evidence by setting fire to the dead body by pouring petrol. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses including the Complainant/PW1 and one of the attestors to the inquest.
5. Upon trial, the Principal Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore by Judgment and Order dated 09.06.2005 acquitted the accused of offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC, holding that the prosecution had failed to prove that the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused and had also failed to prove the extra-judicial confession.
6. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 09.06.2005, the State of Karnataka filed Criminal Appeal No. 1952 of 2005 before the High Court. The High Court vide the Impugned Judgment reversed the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court qua the appellant whereas the appeal against the co-accused-Accused No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as “A2”) was dismissed. The same is under challenge in the present appeal by the appellant.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT:
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the ground for acquittal by the Trial Court is based on evidence and the reasons given are cogent for holding that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused under Sections 302 and 2012 [Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender: Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false, if a capital offence - shall, if the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine; if punishable with imprisonment for life - and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; if punishable with less than ten years' imprisonment - and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term not extending to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provid
(1) Circumstantial evidence – ‘Last seen’ theory can be invoked only when same stands proved beyond reasonable doubt.(2) When two views are possible, one favouring accused is to be leaned on.
Murder and disappearance of evidence – Whenever any doubt emanates in mind of Court, benefit shall accrue to accused and not prosecution – Conviction only on the basis of last seen together cannot be....
Conviction for murder can be sustained based on circumstantial evidence and the last seen theory, particularly when the accused fails to explain crucial circumstances.
The sufficiency of circumstantial evidence and the last seen theory in establishing the guilt of the accused.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases, especially when relying on circumstantial evidence, which requires stringent adherence to established evidentiary standards....
Circumstantial evidence must establish foundational facts beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction; the prosecution failed to prove the last seen theory and weapon recovery.
The conviction under Section 302 IPC was upheld based on circumstantial evidence, particularly the last seen theory, and the appellant's failure to explain his actions during the time of the murder.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
