Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ.
Vishwanatha – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Karnataka By The Secretary, Home Department – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.129 of 2012
Decided on : 08-07-2024
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302 and 450 read with Section 34 [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 103(1) and 332(b) read with Section 3(5)] – Murder and house trespass – Common intention – Life sentence – Manner of occurrence is not corroborated by post-mortem report – No TIP was conducted in present case – Identification of accused in Court is acceptable without prior TIP and absence of TIP may not be fatal for prosecution – It would depend on facts of each case – In a case where identity of accused is not known and TIP has not been conducted, court has to see if there was any description of accused either in FIR or in any of statement of witness recorded during investigation – There is none in present case – Identity of appellant remained in doubt – Prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt – Impugned judgment and order set aside as far as it relates to conviction of appellant – Order of acquittal of Trial Court upheld qua appellant. (Paras 14, 16, 18 and 19)
Facts of the case:
Appellant in this Criminal Appeal challenges judgment and order dated 06.06.2009 passed by High Court of Karnataka which has allowed Criminal Appeal of State; thereby reversing order of acquittal of Trial Court, thus convicting the present appellant of offences under Sections 302 and 450 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him, inter alia, to life imprisonment, under Section 302 of IPC.
Findings of Court:
Impugned judgment and order dated 06.06.2009 is set aside as far as it relates to conviction of appellant, and order of acquittal of the Trial Court is upheld qua the appellant. The appellant, who is already on bail, need not surrender. His bail bonds and sureties stand discharged.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.
1. The appellant in this Criminal Appeal challenges judgment and order dated 06.06.2009 passed by the High Court of Karnataka which has allowed the Criminal Appeal of the State; thereby reversing the order of acquittal of the Trial Court, thus convicting the present appellant of offences under Sections 302 and 450 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him, inter alia, to life imprisonment, under Section 302 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution is that Rohini (PW-1) and Rohithaksha (PW-3) were residing with their mother Devaki (deceased; aged 86 y/o) at Kudupu, Mangalore. Devaki was strangulated to death by the present appellant and coaccused Ravikumar. On 26.12.2000 when PW-1, PW-3 and PW-4 (wife of PW-3) were not present in their home, and their 86-year-old mother was alone, the present appellant and the co-accused broke into their house with the intention to commit robbery and killed Devaki. A written complaint was filed before the police at 2:30 p.m. by PW-1 which formed the basis of the FIR which was registered at PS: Mangalore Rural Circle at approximately 3:00 p.m, in which the two accused Ravikumar and the present appellant Vishwanatha were named.
3. In the FIR, it was mentioned that on that fateful day (26.12.2000), she (i.e. PW-1/Complainant), had gone out for some work and when she returned home at about 12:30 in the afternoon, she heard some sound coming from inside her house which alerted her, but she could not enter the room as it was locked from inside. PW-1 then raised an alarm and as a result PW-2, who is a neighbour came for her help. Then both PW-1 and PW-2 managed to peep through the window of the bedroom, where they saw that the accused had twisted a cloth around the neck of the deceased (PW-1’s 86-year-old mother), which they were pulling at the two ends, each holding one end of the rope. PW-1 recognised the first accused as Ravikumar as he was the nephew of PW-4 (the daughter-in-law of the deceased). PW-1 called Ravikumar by name which alerted the two and they escaped.
4. The police submitted its chargesheet on 05.03.2001 against both the accused, who were caught the same day. The case was committed to Sessions and ultimately assigned to the Court of IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Mangalore who framed charges against the accused on 20.09.2001 under sections 450 and 302 read with 34 of IPC. The prosecution examined 18 witnesses and 11 documents as exhibits placed by the prosecution. The Sessions Judge passed its order on 18.12.2001 acquitting both the accused.
5. What weighed with the Sessions Court was the apparent contradictions between the oral testimony and autopsy report. PW-1 and PW-2 who were eye-witnesses to the crime and had identified both the accused and had deposed that the two had committed the murder of Devaki. Dr. Bhaskar Alva, (PW-6) Sr. Specialist in Wedlock District Hospital, Mangalore who conducted the post-mortem of deceased- Devaki on 26.12.2000 had given his opinion that the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of strangulation. The Sessions Court observed that PW-1 and 2 had deposed that cloth was tied around the neck of the deceased which was used to strangulate her, however, PW-6 had deposed there were no ligature marks on the back of the neck of the deceased. Under these circumstances, the Sessions Court discredited the two eye-witnesses, PW-1 and PW-2 and also noted the discrepancies in the deposition of PW-1 as regards the identity of the appellant and consequently his role in the crime.
6. The appeal of the State against this acquittal was allowed by the High Court on 06.06.2009, which reversed the order of acquittal, and found both the accused guilty of offences under Sections 302 and 450 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced them to Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 years and Rigorous Imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs. 5,000/- respectively. The High Court held that the contradictions in the case of prosecution were
Murder – Identification of accused in Court is acceptable without prior TIP and absence of TIP may not be fatal for prosecution.
The absence of a Test Identification Parade (TIP) can prove fatal for the prosecution, especially when the accused is a stranger to the witness, leading to doubt regarding the accused's identity.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of reliable eyewitness identification, the admissibility of recovery evidence, and the obligation to disclose crucial reports in ....
Point of law: Conviction set aside - Real and reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the appellants - Conviction in a criminal trial is required to be certain and not doubtful
Eyewitness testimony, even from an interested witness, can sustain a conviction if corroborated by credible evidence and circumstances.
The appellate court must respect the trial court's credibility assessments unless found to be perverse, while overturning acquittals requires strong evidence and cannot merely rely on the possibility....
The importance of proving guilt beyond all reasonable doubt in cases relying on circumstantial evidence.
Failure of prosecution to prove charge beyond reasonable doubt due to inordinate delay in FIR and weak identification evidence.
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
