Back
2015 Supreme(Kar) 598
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
ANAND BYRAREDDY AND S.SUJATHA, JJ.
Smt.Kanchan and Ors. – Appellant
Vs.
Ravindranath and Ors. – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2839/2012 CONNECTED WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.2761/2012, 2766/2012, 2791/2012, 2793/2012, 2794/2012 AND 2537/2013
Decided On : 08.09.2015
For the Appellant :Shri Bahubali A Danawade, Advocate, Shri S.N.Pattar, Advocate for Shri Vishwanath V Badiger, Advocates, Shri V.M.Sheelavant, Advocate, Shri Santosh Nargund, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Shri Ravi B. Naik, Senior Advocate for Respondent no.1, Shri Vishwanath V Badiger, Advocate for respondents 3 and 5, Shri S.B.Deyannavar, Advocate Respondent no.4, Shri V.M.Banakar, State Public Prosecutor for respondent no.7.
Circumstantial evidence alone is not sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; it must be strong, cogent, and lead to a clear and convincing conclusion of guilt.
Headnote:
The court acquitted the accused in a murder case due to insufficient evidence and unreliable circumstantial evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, Sheetal, was found dead in a canal with injuries and strangulation marks. The prosecution alleged that accused no. 1, her husband, had an affair with accused no. 6 and conspired with accused nos. 2 to 5 and 7 to kill Sheetal. The accused were allegedly paid to commit the murder and were seen leaving the premises of accused no. 4, where the murder is believed to have taken place, in two cars.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was not sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The court noted that the last seen theory, based on the testimony of two witnesses who saw Sheetal with accused no. 1 at a temple and later saw accused no. 1 leaving the house of accused no. 4 alone, was not conclusive. The court also found that the evidence of a neighbor who claimed to have seen the accused carrying a bundle and placing it in the boot of a car was not reliable as she had not seen Sheetal in the house or heard any sounds of a struggle.
Issues: 1. Whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. 2. Whether the last seen theory and the testimony of the neighbor were reliable evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was not sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The court noted that the last seen theory was not conclusive as it was based on the testimony of only two witnesses and there was no evidence to show that Sheetal was actually taken to the house of accused no. 4 or that she was killed there. The court also found that the evidence of the neighbor was not reliable as she had not seen Sheetal in the house or heard any sounds of a struggle.
Final Decision: The appeals filed by the accused were allowed, and they were acquitted. The court ordered that the accused be set at liberty forthwith and that the amount seized from accused no. 1 be returned to him.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Counsel for the respondents.
2. The appeal in Crl.A No.2839/2012 is filed by the mother of the deceased, seeking enhancement of sentence and challenging the acquittal of accused no.5.
Criminal Appeal No.2793/2012 is filed by accused no.1. Criminal Appeal No.2791/2012 is filed by accused no.2. Criminal Appeal No.2761/2012 is filed by accused no.3. Criminal Appeal 2766/2012 is filed accused no.4. Criminal Appeal No.2537/2013 is filed by the State, challenging the acquittal of accused no.5. And Criminal Appeal No.2794/12 is filed accused no.6
These appeals are heard and disposed of together as they are preferred against the same judgment.
3. The facts of the case, as stated by the prosecution, are to the following effect:
Accused no.1 Ravindranath Chougule, along with his father-in-law, on 13.8.2007, had reported to the Kakati Police Station, that his wife Sheetal was missing since 11.8.2007 from 6p.m. It was his complaint that she was to meet him at the Ganesha temple on Hindalga Road, Belgaum and she was to come by bus. But she never turned up. Inspite of a frantic search, along with his father-in-law and his father in all the known places that she was likely to visit, he could find no trace of Sheetal and therefore, had lodged a missing complaint at 5.15.p.m., on 13.8.2007.
It was reported on the same day i.e., 13.8.2007, that a dead body of a female aged about 30 was found in Kavali Nala on Jamboti road, within the jurisdiction of the Khanapur Police Station. The dead body was found with injuries and it was reported to the Police by PW.4 and some members of the general public. Since accused no.1 and his father-in-law heard about the dead body of the unknown female, on 13.8.2007, they had visited the mortuary where the dead body was kept and identified the dead body as that of Sheetal.
It is only on 22.8.2007 that accused nos.1 and 2 were arrested and on the basis of their voluntary statements to the effect that accused no.1 was having an affair with accused no.6, Reena Tahsildar, who was an unmarried woman, aged about 28 years and since this affair was known to Sheetal and Sheetal was opposing it and since accused no.1 and Sheetal were not getting on well, it was decided that she would be eliminated with the assistance of accused no.2 to 5 and accused no.7, who were alleged to be contract killers. And that he had paid them money in order to do so. It was further alleged that accused no.1 had brought Sheetal to the house of accused no.4 , where the other accused were present, except accused no.6, and that he had left her in the house of accused no.4 on the pretext that he would return soon. It transpires that she was murdered some time during the night of 11.8.2007 and that on the next day, i.e.,12.8.2007, accused no.2 to 5 and 7 were believed to have transported a dead body in the Honda City car, which was being used by accused no.7 and the car was seen leaving the premises of accused no.4, followed by a Maruti Car driven by accused no.2.
It was the further case of the prosecution that she had been raped and killed by smothering her with a pillow and also by strangulation and the dead body had been taken to the canal area as aforesaid. The dead body was dumped there and a plastic bag containing clothes of herself and her children and a vanity bag of the deceased were thrown into the road side bushes, about 3 kilometres away from the spot and they had also removed the jewellery on the body of Sheetal. It was the said jewellery, namely, a ring that was seized from accused no.3 and who is also said to have lead the investigation officer to the plastic bag containing the clothes of the deceased and her children. A ring set with a white stone was recovered from accused no.5 and further the vanity bag belonging to the deceased was said to have been recovered at the instance of accused no.4 who had indicated the spot where it was thrown away.
It was further sough
