Back
1999 Supreme(Kar) 318
Karnataka High Court
State of Karnataka - Appellant
Versus
Ramappa Aparai Ghasti - Respondent
Decided On : 07-06-99
The main legal principle established is the requirement for unimpeachable evidence, particularly forensic evidence, to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in murder trials.
Headnote:
Acquittal - Murder - [Section 125/94, Indian Penal Code] - The court discussed the evidence of witnesses, the importance of forensic evidence, and the principle of circumstantial evidence. The non-production of the Chemical Analysis report was crucial in establishing the guilt of the accused. The court emphasized the need for unimpeachable evidence to establish guilt beyond doubt.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was acquitted of the charge of assaulting and causing fatal injuries to the deceased. The prosecution's case relied on witness testimony and forensic evidence, but the Chemical Analysis report was not produced. The court appointed an Amicus Curiae to represent the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that while there were witnesses and circumstantial evidence linking the accused to the crime, the non-production of the Chemical Analysis report created reasonable doubt. The court emphasized the need for unimpeachable evidence to establish guilt beyond doubt.
Issues: The key issue was the sufficiency of evidence to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly in the absence of the Chemical Analysis report.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of unimpeachable evidence in murder trials and the need for forensic evidence to establish guilt beyond doubt. The non-production of crucial forensic evidence led to the acquittal of the accused.
Final Decision: The court confirmed the order of acquittal in favor of the accused due to the absence of crucial forensic evidence. The appeal was dismissed, and the accused was directed to be set at liberty if not required in connection with any other offense.
( 1 ) THE State of Karnataka has assailed the acquittal of the respondent who was the accused in Sessions Case No. 125/94 in the Court of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum. The charge against the accused was that on 23-12-1993 at about 19. 30 hours that he had assaulted the deceased-Shantabai with an axe and inflicted fatal injuries on her as a result of which she died. The background to the case as alleged by the prosecution was that Shantabai's husband had died about twelve years earlier and that the accused had been carrying on an illicit affair with her for several years. This was objected to by the sons and later on by Shantabai herself, who insisted that theaccused should stop coming to their house. It is alleged that despite this he kept coming there and that about one month earlier he had been finally told not to come to that place any more. According to the son - P. W. 1 - Anil, he is working in a brick kiln and that his mother used to bring his food to him. He states that on the afternoon of the day of the incident Shantabai told him that the accused had come to the house that he had fought with her and stated that he would come in the evening and see who stops him. She asked Anil to come home a little early in view of this threat. According to Anil, when he was about 20 feet away from the house at about 7. 30 p. m. he heard a cry of his mother from inside the house and he also saw the accused coming out with an axe in his hand had blood stains on his clothes. He rushed inside and found his mother slouching against the wall with serious injuries on her head and neck. He raised an alarm whereupon P. Ws. 2, 3 and other persons from the area came running there. They tried to give some assistance to the mother but they found her dead. The case was reported to the police and it is alleged that in the course of the investigation, pursuant to the statement made by the accused, the police recovered a blood stained axe. The clothes of the accused and the axe were sent for Chemical Analyses. The accused was charge-sheeted and put on trial and the learned Sessions Judge after considering the evidence recorded an order of acquittal. It is against this order of acquittal that the present appeal has been directed.
( 2 ) SINCE the accused was not represented, this Court has appointed Sri. P. M. Nawaz as Amicus Curiae to represent the respondent-accused.
( 3 ) AT the hearing of the appeal, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor has taken us through the entire record of the case. His principal contention is that the son is the most natural witness and that he has deposed to the fact that even though he was not an eye witness to the incident that he saw the accused leaving the house with a blood stained axe and blood stained clothes and that he had identified him as there was a tube light burning there. He has also deposed about the background and the fact that the accused was furious because he had been stopped from coming to the house. In the cross-examination his evidence had hardly been shaken and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor submitted that the learned trial Judge was in error in having held that merely because there is a reference in the complaint to the effect that Anil used to stay at his place of work, that it is doubtful as to whether at all he could have been present. It is further pointed out to us from the evidence of P. W. 2 - Babu that he is a neighbour, that he rushed to the spot on hearing an alarm sounded by P. W. 1 and that he also saw the accused leaving the place with blood stained clothes and the blood stained axe. Again, as far as this witness is concerned, despite the detailed cross-examination, his evidence remained unshaken and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor submitted that this evidence fully corroborates the evidence of P. W. 1. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor has also placed heavy reliance on the evidence of P. W. 3 - Adappa, who
