Back
2017 Supreme(Kar) 1120
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
B.V. NAGARATHNA, B.A. PATIL, JJ.
The State by Mudgai Police Station represented by Addl. State Public Prosecutor Office of the Advocate General, Gulbarga - Appellant
Versus
Mallappa - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 3703 of 2010
Decided On : 02-11-2017
For the Appellant : Prakash Yeli, Addl. SPP.
For the Respondent:M. Sharanabasappa Patil, Ustad Sadat Hussain, Advocates.
The main legal point established is the requirement for the prosecution to establish circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt in cases relying on such evidence.
Headnote:
acquittal - Criminal Law - IPC Section 302, 376, 392 - The court discussed the motive for the alleged offence, the accused's actions before and after the incident, the recovery of incriminating items, and an extra-judicial confession. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the circumstances beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was acquitted of charges under IPC Section 302, 376, and 392 by the trial court. The prosecution's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including the motive for the alleged offence, the accused's actions before and after the incident, the recovery of incriminating items, and an extra-judicial confession.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the circumstances beyond reasonable doubt. It noted discrepancies in the evidence, lack of eye witnesses, and inconsistencies in the recovery of incriminating items. The court also questioned the veracity of the extra-judicial confession, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
Issues: The issues revolved around the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, the credibility of witnesses, and the veracity of the extra-judicial confession.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for cogent and firmly established circumstances in cases based on circumstantial evidence. It highlighted the importance of a complete and unerring chain of events to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The appeal by the State was dismissed, upholding the order of acquittal passed by the trial court.
B.A. PATIL, J.
1. This appeal has been preferred by the State assailing the judgment and order of acquittal, dated 26.4.2010 passed by the Fast Track Court-I, Raichur, in SC.No.62/2009.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 24.1.2009 at about 9.00 a.m., accused/respondent herein went to land bearing Sy.No.152 of Vykarnal Village for bringing jaali leaves for his sheep. When he was cutting the branches of the jaali tree, at that time Leshamma who was present in the land shouted at the accused “asking who he is and that she is fed up of shepherds.” She came near the accused and identified him and dared him to the village. On hearing this accused hurriedly went away from that place. Remembering that he had left his axe in the said place, he came back to take the same. At that time, deceased Leshamma asked the accused as to why he returned and abused him. In response, accused with an oblique intention asked her to sleep with him, for which Leshamma further abused the accused and questioned as to how he could make such a demand for which accused became angry and assaulted Leshamma over her left knee. Out of severe pain she cried saying that she would die and as a result of the assault, she fell down. At that time, the accused disrobed her by pulling her saree and committed the offence of rape on her. Thereafter, he cut her ears along with ear-studs using a sickle and also took away Lingadakai from her person. Assuming that Leshamma is left alive she would disclose the said fact in the village, accused assaulted her on head and left lungs with an axe and caused her death. When PW.18 went near the land, he noticed that Leshamma had fallen down with injuries. He informed the said fact to the relatives and thereafter, he filed a complaint. On the basis of the complaint, a case was registered in Crime No.13/2009 and after completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against the accused for the offence under Section 302 of IPC.
3. Learned JMFC took cognizance and after following the procedure as laid down under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., he committed the case to the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court after taking cognizance, secured the presence of the accused and after hearing him before charge, framed charges for offences punishable under Sections 302, 376 and 392 of the IPC to which the accused pleaded not guilty. As such, the case was set down for trial.
4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution in all examined twenty-two witnesses as PWs.1 to 22 and got marked twenty-one documents as per Exs.P1 to P21 and also got marked Material Objects as per MO.Nos.1 to 14. After closure of the prosecution case, statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., 1973. Accused denied the incriminating materials against him. However, he did not lead any evidence on his behalf. But during the course of cross-examination, he got marked Exs.D1 to D3.
5. The trial Court after hearing learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the accused, passed the impugned judgment acquitting the accused for the offences with which he was charged. Being aggrieved by the same, the State is before this Court in this appeal.
6. We have heard Sri Prakash Yeli, learned Additional SPP appearing for the appellant-State and Sri Sharanabasappa M. Patil, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Ustad Sadat Hussain for respondent-accused and perused the material on record as well as original records.
7. Learned Additional SPP would contend that the entire case rests on circumstantial evidence and that he would demonstrate the case of prosecution by relying upon the following circumstances:
(a) The first circumstance on which the prosecution relies on is, the motive for commission of the alleged offence. When accused asked the deceased Leshamma to come and sleep with him, she refused and scolded him. The accused got furious and thereafter disrobed her by pulling her saree and committed the offence of rape on
