IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Aravind Kumar, Sachin Shankar Magadum, JJ.
Prathap - Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 633 of 2014, 572 of 2014, 597 of 2014, 630 of 2014
Decided On : 07-10-2020
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction based on evidence of murder. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. circumstantial evidence linking accused and victim. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. defense arguments against prosecution evidence. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. court confirms reliance on circumstantial evidence. (Para 14 , 15 , 17 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. appeal allowed, convictions set aside. (Para 59) |
JUDGMENT
Aravind Kumar, J. - These appeals have been preferred by accused Nos.1 to 5 in S.C.No.62/2013, challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.06.2014 whereunder appellants-accused Nos.1 to 5 have been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3 02 and 201 read with section 120-B and Section 3 4 IPC after trial by sentencing them to life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 3 02 read with Section 3 4 IPC, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each; to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 120-B IPC, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 201 read with Section 3 4 IPC, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each.
2. The gist of the prosecution case:
Dead body of Sri Dilip Kumar who is the son of the complainant was found on 14.02.2013 lying near the bridge of Kalsapura with injuries on head and other parts of the body. It was suspected somebody had murdered said person with some motive and had thrown the dead body at the said place and a motor bike was found near the halla. On registration of complaint lodged by mother of deceased, FIR was registered and investigation was commenced. It is the case of prosecution that accused No.5 and deceased were in love and marriage of accused No.5 had been fixed with accused No.1 and on account of deceased inviting accused No.5 to marry him, she was disturbed and felt humiliated. It is also the case of prosecution that accused Nos.1 and 5 thought deceased may become hindrance after their marriage and may create problems during marriage and as such, accused Nos.1 to 4 conspired with accused No.5 to eliminate deceased Dilip Kumar. In pursuance of conspiracy between accused Nos.1 to 4, accused No.5 had called the deceased Sri Dileep Kumar on 13.02.2013 over mobile phone to meet her near Basaveshwara temple on Belur-Halebeedu road, on the pretext they can go out together for celebrating Valentines Day and pursuant to said call, deceased came near Basaveshwara temple on his motor bike and as per the conspiracy, accused Nos.1 to 4 in furtherance of their common intention had come in a Scorpio vehicle and accused No.1 got down from the said vehicle and picked up a quarrel with the deceased and assaulted Dileep Kumar on his head with a car Jack M.O.16, as a result, deceased sustained grievous head injuries and fell down. It is further alleged that accused Nos.1 to 4 had put the deceased in the Scorpio car, went near Halebeedu and also took the motor bike of the deceased and on the way, they purchased two towels from the cloth shop M/s.Panduranga Cloth Emporium, owned by P.W.4, for using the said towel to prevent blood oozing out from the head of the deceased and they had proceeded further towards Kalasapura. It is further case of the prosecution that deceased had succumbed to the said head injury and accused Nos.1 to 4 removed the dead body from the vehicle and laid it on the road near Jodisetuve and ran over the Scorpio vehicle on his head to depict the death was due to a road traffic accident and thereby attempted to destroy the evidence. It was also alleged that motorbike of the deceased was dropped in the ditch below the Jodisetuve and accused persons thereafter had disappeared from the scene of offence.
3. The mother of the deceased namely, Smt.Yashodha had lodged a complaint (typed on computer) on 14
ANVAR P.V. vs. P.K. BASHEER AND OTHERS
Ashok Kumar Chatterjee vs. State of M.P
Balwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab
Bhagat Ram vs. State of Punjab
C. Perumal vs. Rajasekaran and Others
Dalip Singh and Others vs. The State of Punjab
Earabhadrappa vs. State of Karnataka
Gulam Sarbar vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
Harpal Singh Alias Chhota vs. State of Punjab
Hukam Singh vs. State of Rajasthan
KHUJJI @ SURENDRA TIWARI vs. STATE of MADHYA PRADESH
KULVINDER SINGH AND ANOTHER vs. STATE of HARYANA
Lakshmi Singh vs. State of Bihar
MALAY KUMAR GANGULY vs. DR. SUKUMAR MUKHERJEE AND OTHERS
MURLIDHAR AND OTHERS vs. STATE of RAJASTHAN
NAGARAJ vs. STATE of KARNATAKA
NARSINBHAI HARIBHAI PRAJAPATI vs. CHHATRASINH AND OTHERS
PADALA VEERAREDDY vs. STATE of ANDHRA PRADESH
PULUKURI KOTAYYA AND OTHERS vs. KING EMPEROR
S. VARADARAJAN vs. STATE of MADRAS
State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Navjot Sandhu
STATE of HARYANA vs. JASBIR SINGH & ANOTHER
STATE of U.P. vs. ARUN KUMAR GUPTA
SUKHVINDER SINGH AND OTHERS vs. STATE of PUNJAB
TOMASO BRUNO & ANOTHER vs. STATE of UTTAR PRADESH
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.