SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(Kar) 69

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S.N.SATYANARAYANA, H.P.SANDESH, JJ.
State By Police Circle Inspector - Appellant
Versus
Safvan Hussain @ Rajik – Respondent
Crl.A.No.828 of 2013
Decided on : 28-02-2020

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sri. Vinayaka V.S., adv
For the Respondent: Sri. Sirajin Basha, Sri. K.N. Balaraj, Sri. N.S. Sampangi Ramaiah, Adv

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, Sections 363, 392, 302, 201, 34 - Appeal by complainant-State challenging acquittal of accused for multiple serious charges, including murder - Circumstantial evidence; failure of prosecution to prove case at trial despite multiple witness testimonies; assessments of credibility and reliability questioned by the Court - Court ruled that circumstances established include recoveries of incriminating articles and eyewitness identifications must be considered - Appeals allowed, conviction and sentences upheld for accused. (Paras 1-157).

(B) Criminal Procedure - Section 313 - Duty of the Court to ensure the accused is informed of incriminating evidence is emphasized; failure in initial trial process deemed prejudicial. (Paras 17-18)

Table of Content
1. establishes context of the appeal and factual background. (Para 1 , 2)
2. details factual events leading to the complaint. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. sets the stage for the prosecution's arguments. (Para 6 , 7)
4. prosecution argues errors in trial court's judgment. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
5. discussion on witness testimonies and their reliability. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
6. counterarguments by defense on witness credibility. (Para 14 , 15 , 16)
7. details the court’s considerations on evidence. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
8. focus on eyewitness identifications. (Para 21 , 22 , 23)
9. legal impact of witness statements and evidence. (Para 24 , 25 , 26)
10. assessment of material evidence and discrepancies. (Para 27 , 28 , 29)
11. evaluation of procedural legality in evidence collection. (Para 30 , 31 , 32)
12. court's analysis of witness errors and their implications. (Para 33 , 34 , 35)
13. evidence of police actions and their legal standing. (Para 36 , 37 , 38)
14. concludes by reiterating evidence reliability. (Para 39 , 40 , 41)
15. final court decision based on all evidence. (Para 42 , 43 , 44)

JUDGMENT :

This appeal is filed by the complainant-State challenging the judgment and order of acquittal dated 15.03.2013 passed in S.C.No.29/2009 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 363 , 392, 302, 201 and 75 read with Section 34 of INDIAN PENAL CODE .

The brief facts of the case:-

2. The factual matrix of the case is that one Praveen Shetty was appointed as a driver of Innova car bearing registration No.KA-20N-5557 belonging to one Shantharama Shetty, who has been examined as P.W.3. It is the further case of the prosecution that on 9.11.2008 at about 8.00 p.m., the said Praveen Shetty took the Innova car without informing the owner and he did not return. Hence, the owner Shantharama Shetty and his Manager by name Jeevandhar tried to contact the said driver through mobile phone, but they did not get any connection. Hence, P.W.3 - Shantharama Shetty gave instructions to his Manager P.W.1 to verify whether he has been to his native place i.e., Theerthahalli and on verification, it was found that he was not there in his village also. Hence, the complaint was lodged by P.W.1 to Mulki police at the instance of P.W.3 stating that the driver had stolen the car and hence, the case in crime No.100/2008 was registered for the offence punishable under Section 381 of IPC at the First instance.

3. It is the further case of the prosecution that on 12.11.2008, when P.W.2 - Lokesh Shetty, who was the Sub-Contractor residing at Kodikere, Kulai Village went near the granite quarry pond to wash his face along with three other persons, found one dead body with its hand up and so many flies were sitting on it. Then immediately, he telephoned the Surathkal police and they came to the spot. The Police Sub Inspector - P.W.24, who came to spot recorded the statement of P.W.1 and converted the said Crime No.100/2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 363 , 379, 302 and 201 of IPC and sent a requisition to the Court in terms of Ex.P.76. Then he drawn mahazar in the presence of panchas and seized the clothes and other materials found on the dead body. He also recorded the statements of Shekhar Poojary and Lokesh Shetty and body was subjected to inquest and thereafter, sent the dead body for postmortem. He has also drawn panchanama as per Ex.P4. Thereafter, the accused persons were apprehended and their voluntary statements were recorded and recoveries were made at the instance of the accused persons including Zen car which was used to rob the Innova car. The said Innova car and the weapons which were used to cause threat were also recovered.

4. The Investigating Officer completed the investigation and filed a charge sheet against the accused persons for the above offences. Accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 were secured and taken to judicial custody. Accused No.2 was absconded and hence, sp

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top