Back
2019 Supreme(Kar) 34
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
K.N. PHANEENDRA, K. SOMASHEKAR, JJ.
H.M. HALASWAMY - Appellant
Vs.
STATE OF KARNATAKA - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1176 of 2012
Decided on : 11-01-2019
Advocate Appeared:
Sunil Kumar S, Chandrashekar R.P., C.H. Hanumantharaya, B.M. Nagaveena, K.S. Girijamma, Vijayakumar Majage, Adv.
Headnote:
In a murder case, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses was inconsistent and contradictory, and the trial court failed to consider the available evidence while deciding the merits of the case. The conviction was based on circumstantial evidence, but the prosecution failed to prove the motive and intention of the accused to commit the murder. The court held that the accused were entitled to the benefit of the doubt and acquitted them of the charges.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, Roopa, was found murdered in her house. The prosecution alleged that the accused, Halaswamy, the husband of the deceased, and Sharadamma, the mother-in-law of the deceased, had hatched a conspiracy to eliminate Roopa so that Halaswamy could marry another woman. The prosecution also alleged that the accused, Nagaraja, a small contractor, was hired by Halaswamy and Sharadamma to commit the murder. The accused were convicted of murder, conspiracy, and other offenses by the trial court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was inconsistent and contradictory. The court also found that the trial court failed to consider the available evidence while deciding the merits of the case. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the motive and intention of the accused to commit the murder. The court also held that the accused were entitled to the benefit of the doubt.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. 2. Whether the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was consistent and reliable. 3. Whether the trial court considered the available evidence while deciding the merits of the case. 4. Whether the prosecution proved the motive and intention of the accused to commit the murder.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The court found that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was inconsistent and contradictory, and the trial court failed to consider the available evidence while deciding the merits of the case. The court also held that the prosecution failed to prove the motive and intention of the accused to commit the murder. The court held that the accused were entitled to the benefit of the doubt and acquitted them of the charges.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and acquitted the accused of the charges.
K Somashekar, J.
This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere in S.C.No.112/2010 dated 14.09.2012 wherein accused Nos.2 and 4 were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 109, 120-B read with Section 34 IPC and they were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- each, in default to pay fine amount, to undergo R.I for two years, for the offence under Section 302 IPC. Further, under Section 201 r/w Section 34 of IPC, they were sentenced to undergo R.I for three years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default to undergo RI for one year. Further, under Section 120-B read with Section 34 of IPC, accused Nos.2 and 4 were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- each and in default to undergo R.I. for two years.
2. The factual matrix of the appeal is as under:
It is stated in the theory of prosecution that accused No.2 - Halaswamy is the husband of deceased Roopa, accused No.4 - Smt.Sharadamma is the mother of accused No.2 and mother-in-law of deceased Roopa. Accused No.1 Nagaraja is stated to be working as a small contractor in connection with works of the office of accused no.2 - Halaswamy who was working as Engineer in Zilla Panchayat at the relevant point of time. It is further stated that accused Nos.1 and 2 were in good terms with each other and as a result of the contract work said to have been allotted by accused No.2, accused No.1 was under his obligation. It is further alleged that accused No.2 - Halaswamy was addicted with bad habits and it appears that there was some matrimonial dispute between accused No.2 and deceased Roopa. Accused Nos.2 and 4 were hatching a plan to go for second marriage for accused No.2 Halswamy and they were in search of bride and to clear their way for second marriage, they made a conspiracy with each other and took assistance of accused No.1 Nagaraj to kill deceased Roopa. In pursuance of their common intention they entrusted the said work to accused No.1 and in pursuance of such plan, on 01.06.2010 between 10.30 a.m. to 11.30 a.m. while deceased Roopa was alone in the house and taking bath, at that time accused No.1 by using alternative door lock key of the house of deceased from accused No.4 - Sharadamma, entered the house and committed murder of deceased - Roopa by putting cloth on her face and throttling her and robbed the golden ornaments belonging to her. It is further alleged that immediately CW.1 - Karibasamma the maid servant working in the house of deceased - Roopa came to the house for attending her routine work and inspite of she pressing the calling-bell the door was not opened and by that time she noticed that accused No.4 - Smt. Sharadamma was sitting in front of adjacent house and on her enquiry accused No.4 misled PW.1 - Karibasamma asking her to bring the mobile from inside the house by stating that some person of dark complexion ran away from the house of deceased and in the meantime, CW.2 Smt.Savithramma, mother of the deceased and CW.3 Kumari Anitha their relatives came to the house of the deceased and by entering into the house, they noticed deceased Roopa was murdered in front of the bath room. Immediately, they tried to give first-aid to her and noticed that she has lost her breath. It is further alleged that accused No.4 - Sharadamma being mother-in-law of the deceased and residing in the adjacent house of her another son had given a complaint to Vidyanagar police station against unknown persons. Based upon her complaint, CW.51 PSI of Vidyanagar Police station registered a case against unknown persons in Cr.No.112/2010 for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 192 of IPC and as per the instructions of their superiors handed over further investigation to CW.52.
3. It is further alleged that CW.52 circle Inspector of Police of City Central Circle, Davanagere has took up further
