Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
K.N. Phaneendra, K. Natarajan, JJ.
Simon Benedict @ Kareem Sai @ Moosa – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1848 of 2017
Decided On : 08-03-2019
Circumstantial Evidence - Murder and Robbery - IPC Sections 302, 393 - The court found the accused guilty and convicted him for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 393 of IPC. The prosecution evidence was based on circumstantial evidence, including CC TV footage, recovery of weapon, and blood-stained clothes of the accused. The accused was identified in the CC TV footage by bank officials and the accused's blood-stained clothes matched the blood group of the deceased. The accused's finger print was found at the crime scene, and a blood-stained knife was recovered at the instance of the accused. The court held that the accused was the perpetrator of the crime and dismissed the appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, a security guard at an ATM, was found murdered at the ATM premises. The accused attempted to rob the ATM and murdered the deceased when he tried to prevent the robbery. The accused was arrested and found in possession of incriminating articles, including blood-stained clothes and a knife.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 393 of IPC based on the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution. The court held that the accused was the perpetrator of the crime and dismissed the appeal.
Issues: The main issue was whether the accused was responsible for the murder and robbery at the ATM premises. The court had to consider the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the identification of the accused in the CC TV footage by bank officials, the recovery of blood-stained clothes matching the blood group of the deceased, the matching of the accused's finger print at the crime scene, and the recovery of a blood-stained knife at the instance of the accused to establish the guilt of the accused.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 393 of IPC based on the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution.
K. Natarajan, J.
The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.1590/2011 on the file of the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in which, by judgment dated 01.09.2017, he was found guilty and convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 393 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months; and he was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 393 of IPC, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
2. Heard Sri R. Srinivasa Gowda, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Vijayakumar Majage, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State and perused the records.
3. Before adverting to the arguments urged by the learned counsel for the appellant, it is worth to mention the factual matrix of the prosecution case, which is as follows;
PW.2-Ganesh S/o Chandrappa filed a report to the Subramanyapura Police on 29.09.2011 as per Ex.P.1 alleging that his father Chandrappa was working as a Security Guard in the ATM Unit of Corporation Bank, Uttarahalli main road, since two years prior to the date of incident. On 28.09.2011, at about 9.30 p.m., his father left the house for attending the duty and on 29.09.2011, at about 6.00 a.m., he came to know through others that his father was murdered near the ATM of Corporation Bank. Immediately, he went to the spot and saw the dead body of his father lying in a pool of blood with cut injuries on his neck and other parts of his body. The Police came to the spot, shifted the dead body to the hospital and submitted the report. Based upon the report, the Police registered a case in Crime No.666/2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 393 of IPC and the Police also apprehended the accused within one hour. It appears that, from 29.09.2011, the accused is in judicial custody. It is revealed in the Investigation that the accused attempted to rob the ATM and when the deceased tried to prevent him, the accused is said to have murdered the deceased and after completion of the investigation, charge sheet against the accused came to be filed. The Trial Court, after receiving the records from the Committal Court, secured the presence of the accused from the jail. After hearing the counsels, framed the charges against the accused for the said offence. The accused denied the charges. Therefore, the accused was put on trial. The prosecution in all examined 26 witnesses as PWs.1 to 26, got marked material documents as per Exs.P.1 to P.30 and also the material objects as MOs.1 to 28. After closing of the evidence, the accused was also examined under 313 Cr.P.C. The incriminating evidence against the accused was read over to him. The case of the accused was one of total denial, but not let in any defence evidence. After hearing both side, the Trial Court found the accused guilty of the offence under Sections 302 and 303 of IPC and convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo the imprisonment as stated supra.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant/accused contended that the prosecution evidence is based upon circumstantial evidence, that there is no eyewitness to the incident. The entire evidence of the prosecution rests upon circumstantial evidence, the CC TV footage caught in the ATM camera and the accused was arrested within one hour from the occurrence of the incident, the knife was recovered at the instance of the accused, which was blood stained and the blood stained clothes of the accused were said to be seized. There is no proper connecting evidence to implicate the accused in this case. There are lot of contradictions and omissions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The Trial Court has erred in holding the accused guilty of the said offence. It is also contended tha
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
