Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Raghunatha And Another – Appellants
Versus
The State Of Karnataka – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1729 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(Criminal) No. 6112 of 2022)
Decided On : 21-03-2024
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 304 Part-I – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Conviction and sentence – Circumstantial evidence – It is necessary for prosecution that circumstances from which conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established – Suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take place of proof beyond reasonable doubt – Accused cannot be convicted on the ground of suspicion, no matter how strong it is – Accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt – Where prosecution proves that deceased was last seen in company of appellants and death of deceased has occurred soon thereafter, burden would shift upon appellants – However, for that, initially prosecution will have to discharge burden – Merely because appellants were seen nearby place where crime occurred and accused No. 1 was holding chopper, it cannot be said that deceased was last seen in company of appellants – This will be nothing but basing finding of conviction on conjectures and surmises – Impugned Judgment passed by High Court quashed and set aside. (Paras 8, 9, 13 and 19)
Facts of the case:
Trial court convicted appellants for offences punishable under Sections 120-B and 302 read with 34 of the IPC and were awarded a sentence of life imprisonment. High Court, vide impugned judgment, partly allowed appeal and modified conviction to Section 304 Part-I of IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for 10 years. Further, High Court imposed a fine of Rs. 75,000/- on each of appellants and directed a sum of Rs. 1,40,000/- of fine amount to be paid to wife of deceased.
Findings of Court:
Appellants are acquitted of all charges charged with and are directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
(B.R. Gavai, J.) :
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal challenges the judgement dated 14th July, 2021, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Criminal Appeal No. 1389 of 2019, thereby partly allowing the appeal filed by the appellants, namely, Raghunatha (Accused No. 1) and Manjunatha (Accused No. 2) and modifying the order of conviction and sentence awarded to them by the Court of III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kolar (sitting at K.G.F.) (hereinafter referred to as “trial court”) in S.C. No. 276 of 2014 on 17th June, 2019.
3. Shorn of details, brief facts leading to present appeal are as under:
3.1. On 7th July 2014, upon complaint being lodged by Sri R. Lokanathan (PW-1), Kaamasamudram police registered Crime No. 44/2014 for offence punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) against unknown persons.
3.2. The prosecution case, in a nutshell, is that complainant and his father-Ramu (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) were running a fertilizer shop and were also involved in agriculture and money lending business. There were misunderstandings in the business run by complainant and accused No.1 on account of which the accused No. 1 bore enmity with the complainant due to loss suffered in the business. Following which, the appellants hatched a conspiracy to murder the deceased. On 7th July 2014, deceased left the house at about 6:45 am on a ‘TVS Moped’ to go to Tholampalli for recovery of loan amount from Ahmed (PW-12). The appellants were waiting on Bisanathamm- Tholampalli road and attempted to assault the deceased with a chopper from backside. When the deceased tried to escape, he fell down, after which accused No.1 caught hold of the deceased while accused No.2 assaulted him on the head with the chopper and murdered him.
3.3. At about 8 am, complainant’s uncle-Babu (PW-6) came and informed the complainant that a TVS Moped was found lying between Bisanathamm-Tholampalli road and took the complainant to the said spot. Complainant identified the Moped and found the deceased lying in prone position in the mud with bleeding injuries on his head. Deceased was not conscious; however, he was alive and his hands were shaking. Thereafter, the complainant and Babu (PW-6) took the deceased to KGF Hospital, where the doctor declared him dead.
3.4. The appellants came to be arrested on 23rd July, 2014. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellants for offences punishable under Sections 120-B and 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. Since the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Judge, the same was committed to the Sessions Judge vide order dated 10th December, 2014.
3.5. On 6th May 2015, charges were framed against the appellants for offences punishable under Sections 120-B and 302 of IPC. Thereafter, on 11th June 2019, altered charges were framed under Sections 120-B and 302 read with 34 of IPC.
3.6. The appellants denied the charges and claimed to be tried. Prosecution examined 23 witnesses and 20 exhibits to bring home the guilt of the appellants.
3.7. At the conclusion of trial, the learned trial court found that the prosecution had succeeded in proving that the appellants had committed the murder of the deceased. Therefore, the learned trial court convicted the appellants for offences punishable under Sections 120-B and 302 read with 34 of the IPC and were awarded a sentence of life imprisonment. Further, a fine of Rs. 7,500/- for each offence was imposed on both the appellants and out of the said fine amount, Rs. 25,000/- was to be paid as compensation to the complainant.
3.8. Being aggrieved thereby, the appellants preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1389 of 2019 before the High Court. The High Court, vide impugned judgment, partly allowed the appeal and modified the conviction to Section 304 Part-I of IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for 10 years. Further, the High Court imposed a fine of
Accused cannot be convicted on the ground of suspicion, no matter how strong it is – Accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
(1) Section 106 of Evidence Act does not directly operate against either a husband or wife staying under same roof and being last person seen with deceased.(2) In a case of circumstantial evidence, m....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the 'last seen together theory' and the reliance on circumstantial evidence, medical evidence, and recovery evidence to establis....
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, especially in circumstantial evidence cases, where inconsistencies can lead to acquittal.
The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and in cases relying on circumstantial evidence, the evidence must form a complete chain that excludes any reasonable do....
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....
In a murder conviction based on circumstantial evidence, multiple corroborative factors, including the last seen theory and absence of alternative explanations, can establish guilt beyond reasonable ....
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must provide a complete and unbroken chain of evidence that conclusively points to the guilt of the accused, failing which the accu....
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
