Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 994
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU (DHARWAD BENCH)
B.A. Patil, M.G. Uma, JJ.
Monappa @ Muttappa - Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka By Hubballi Rural Police Station - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 100164 of 2016
Decided On : 11-06-2020
K.M. Shiralli, Advocate, V.M. Banakar, Advocate
The burden of proof lies with the prosecution and does not shift to the accused, except in exceptional cases. The prosecution must establish the circumstances before shifting the burden of proof to the accused.
Headnote:
Conviction - Evidence - IPC Section 302 - The court discussed the burden of proof, hearsay evidence, and the application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The judgment was set aside and the accused was acquitted.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC based on the prosecution's case that he murdered his wife. The prosecution's case relied on hearsay evidence and the accused's alleged failure to explain the circumstances of his wife's death.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish that the accused and the deceased were alone at the time of the incident and that the premises were not accessible to any other person. The court also noted that the evidence, including hearsay evidence, did not inspire confidence and did not connect the accused to the alleged crime.
Issues: The main issue was the sufficiency of evidence to convict the accused under Section 302 of IPC. The court also considered the application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act and the burden of proof on the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the burden of proof always lies with the prosecution and does not shift to the accused, except in exceptional cases. The court cited the case of Shambu Nath Mehra vs. State of Ajmer to support this principle. The court also highlighted the need for the prosecution to establish the circumstances before shifting the burden of proof to the accused.
Final Decision: The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court were set aside, and the accused was acquitted of all charges.
JUDGMENT
B.A.Patil, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad sitting at Hubli (hereinafter referred to as the Trial Court) in Sessions Case No.77/2013 dated 27.04.2016, whereunder the accused was convicted and sentenced for an offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.
2. We have heard the learned counsel Shri K.M.Shiralli for the appellant accused and Shri V.M.Banakar, learned Additional S.P.P. for the respondent State.
3. The facts necessary to unfold the prosecution narration may be stated thus;
The complainant filed the complaint stating that about nine years back his elder daughter Smt. Saroja was given in marriage to the accused, who was working as a driver. Out of the said wedlock, they have begotten two children namely Kumari Megha and Kumar Prajwal. It is further alleged that since one year, the accused was suspecting the fidelity of the deceased and was quarrelling, assaulting and abusing her. It is further contended that the said fact was disclosed by the deceased when she came to the house of the complainant about two months back and she had remained with her parents. At that time, the father of the accused came and convinced that every thing would be fine and took deceased Saroja to the house of her husband. It is further alleged that on 16.10.2012 at about 05:00 p.m. the complainant along with his relative one Basavaraj Kuruvinakoppa had been to Kundagol. At that time, his elder brother Holeyappa contacted him over the phone and disclosed that the accused by suspecting the character of Saroja has murdered her and has run away by locking the house and also stated that said fact has been informed to him by the neighbour Smt.Yllavva. Immediately they rushed and when they went near the house of the accused, they noticed that it was locked from out side and as the lock did not open, they opened the cement sheets and peeped into the house and found the dead body of the deceased Saroja in the pooja room and also found injury on head, neck and other parts of the body. When they made an enquiry, Smt. Yallavva, who is the neighbour, informed that about 03:00 p.m. the accused had picked up quarrel and started beating the deceased and she pacified the matter. But at about 03:30 p.m., the accused came out of the house and claimed that he has murdered Smt.Saroja by assaulting with pick axe and he locked the door of the house by leaving his son Prajwal and ran away. On the basis of the complaint, a case was registered in Crime No.241/2012 and thereafter, after investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the accused.
4. The learned Magistrate after following the procedure has committed the case. The Trial Court took cognizance and secured the presence of the accused. After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused, the charge was prepared, read over and explained to the accused. Accused pleaded not guilty. He claims to be tried. As such, the trial was fixed.
5. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined 16 witnesses, got marked 27 documents and 12 material objects. Thereafter, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. by putting incriminating materials as against him. He denied the same. He has filed his written statement and the same was placed on record. After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused, the Trial Court found the accused guilty and convicted. Challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment, the accused is before this Court.
6. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the appellant accused is that the judgment of conviction and sentence is contrary to law, evidence, facts and probabilities of this case. The Trial Court gravely erred in convicting the accused only on the evidence of interested witnesses, though the prosecution failed to connect the accused
