Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 1600
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
B. Veerappa, K. Natarajan, JJ.
Gulnaz - Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 586 of 2015
Decided On : 15-10-2020
Nanjunda Gowda M R, Advocate, Vijayakumar Majage, Advocate
The impermissibility of imposing a sentence lesser than life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.
Headnote:
Criminal Appeal - Conviction and Sentence - Indian Penal Code - Sections 302, 201 r/w 34 - Motive, Homicidal Death, Extra Judicial Confession, Recovery of Rope - The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the circumstances beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of Accused No.2. The judgment also highlighted the impermissibility of imposing a sentence lesser than life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased was found dead in a sump tank, and the prosecution alleged that Accused No.1 and Accused No.2 had committed the murder. However, the prosecution's evidence, including motive, extra judicial confession, and recovery of rope, was found to be unconvincing. The court noted that the prosecution failed to connect all the circumstances relied upon to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of Accused No.2.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of Accused No.2 beyond all reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of Accused No.2.
Issues: The main issue was whether the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court against Accused No.2 for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC called for interference.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the circumstances beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of Accused No.2.
Final Decision: The appeal filed by Accused No.2 was allowed, and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court against Accused No.2 in S.C. No.54/2013 was set aside. Accused No.2 was acquitted for the said offences.
JUDGMENT
K Natarajan, J. - This appeal is filed by the Accused No.2 against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16/22.4.2015 passed in S.C. No.54/2013 by the II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Chickballapur (sitting at Chintamani) {hereinafter referred to as the Trial Court } for having convicted her for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code ( IPC for short) and sentencing her to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and Simple Imprisonment for 3 years with fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC with default sentence.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint of PW.1 (son of the deceased and Accused No.2), Shidlaghatta Town Police registered a case against the Accused No.1 Aslam and present appellant (Accused No.2) for the above said offences. It is alleged by the complainant PW.1 in his complaint filed as per Ex.P1 that his parents (the deceased and Accused No.2) along with himself and his wife, son and brother were staying in the house. The Accused No.1 was doing silk handloom work in the house of the deceased and used to sleep in their house and speak with Accused No.2 leniently and the intimacy developed between them and the deceased after coming to know of the fact, removed the Accused No.1 from work. Subsequently, on the request made by Accused No.1, the deceased permitted him to work and stay in his house with a warning to be careful in future. When things stood thus, on 21.1.2013 at about 4.30 a.m. when he was sleeping in the house, his son came and informed him that his father was found dead in the sump tank in front of their house. Immediately, he went there and saw the dead body of his father and then, he suspected that the Accused No.1 and his mother (Accused No.2) having illicit intimacy, they might have committed the murder of his father and thrown the dead body in the sump tank in order to destroy the evidence. Based upon the complaint, the Police registered the case and during the investigation, they arrested Accused Nos.1 and 2; recorded their voluntary statements; seized MO.1 rope alleged to have been used by the accused for strangulation and to commit murder of the deceased; and recorded the statements of the witnesses. After completion of the investigation, the CPI, Shidlaghatta filed the charge sheet against the accused. The learned JMFC after taking cognizance, committed the case to the Court of Sessions. Accordingly, the Trial Court after securing the presence of the accused, framed the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC r/w Section 34 of IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution, in all, examined 24 witnesses as per PWs.1 to 24, got marked 18 documents as per Ex.P1 to P18 and 6 material objects as per MOs.1 to 6. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been recorded. The incriminating evidence appeared against the accused, was read over and explained to the accused. The case of the Accused Nos.1 and 2 was one of total denial, but not chosen to lead any defence evidence on their behalf. After hearing the arguments, the learned Trial Judge found the Accused Nos.1 and 2 guilty and convicted them for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 r/w 34 of IPC and imposed sentence of seven years with fine of Rs.10,000/- as against Accused No.1 and life imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- against Accused No.2 for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and three years Simple Imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- and default sentence against Accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence under Section 201 of IPC as stated supra.
5. Being
