Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT KALABURAGI BENCH
H.B. PRABHAKARA SASTRY, ANIL B. KATTI, JJ.
Siddappa S/o. Sharanappa Samagar – Appellant
Versus
The State of Karnataka – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.200104 of 2017
Decided on : 22-09-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 and 304 (II) - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 106 and 114 - Murder Offence – Appeal Against Conviction - Whether prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubts that accused, in his house within limits of complainant Police Station, has committed murder of his wife and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Whether Judgment of conviction and Order on sentence under appeal warrants any interference at hands of this Court. [Para 39.]
Finding of the Court: Sessions Judge's Court, in order to strengthen its reasoning for conviction of accused, has presumed a possibility on its own and attempted to show that accused would have failed even if he had taken such a plea also - Since it was nobody's case that alleged robbery or attempt to robbery had taken place, Sessions Judge's Court ought not to have presumed such a possibility and given its observation on same - Thus, prosecution which primarily ought to have discharged its burden of establishing that accused and deceased were living together, more particularly, on date of incident, as such, certain facts were exclusively to knowledge of accused, ought not to have expected accused to explain circumstances which had led to murder of his wife Meenaxi - Thus, application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act and expecting accused to discharge alleged burden was totally uncalled for, in facts and circumstance of present case - However, Sessions Judge's Court, even after noticing that, except official witnesses, all other material and important witnesses, including parents of deceased, mother of accused, son of accused and all alleged eye witnesses have not supported its case even to a smallest extent, has still erroneously invoked Section 106 of Evidence Act and held accused guilty of alleged offence - Since said finding of Sessions Judge's Court, now having been proved to be erroneous and since it has to be necessarily held that prosecution has failed to prove alleged guilt against accused, judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by Sessions Judge's Court under appeal deserves to be reversed and accused deserves to be acquitted of alleged offence.
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
The present appellant, who is accused in Sessions Case No.39/2016, in the Court of the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Vijayapura, (hereinafter referred to as `the Sessions Judge’s Court’ for brevity), has in this appeal challenged the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 30-12-2016, convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as `the IPC’ for brevity) and sentencing him accordingly.
2. The summary of the case of the prosecution in the Session's Judge's Court is that, the deceased Meenaxi is the wife of present accused Siddappa Sharanappa Samagaar and they were the residents of Tenihalli Village since seven to eight years prior to the incident. The accused was suspecting the illicit relationship of his wife Meenaxi with one Annappa Gurappa Namdar of the same Village. In this regard, on several occasions, both the accused and his wife had altercations, still, the deceased continued her illicit relationship with the said Annappa Gurappa Namdar. On the date 20-04-2015, in the night at about 11:30 p.m., the deceased Meenaxi and the accused, in a room in their house, had a quarrel about the alleged illicit relationship of Meenaxi with Annappa Namdar. In the said quarrel, the accused, with an intention to commit the murder of his wife, took a sugar cane cutting chopper (mentioned as 'koyata' in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses) and assaulted his wife Meenaxi several times on her left cheek, left ear, face, head and other parts of the body, thus inflicted multiple injuries upon her, to which multiple injuries, deceased Meenaxi succumbed to the same on the spot. Thus, the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.
3. Since the accused pleaded not guilty, in order to prove the allegations made against the accused, the prosecution got examined in all twenty two (22) witnesses from PW-1 to PW-22, got marked documents from Exhibits P-1 to P-35 and Material Objects from MO-1 to MO-10. Neither any witnesses were examined nor any documents were got marked from the side of the accused.
4. After hearing both side, the learned Sessions Judge’s Court by its impugned judgment, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him accordingly. It is against the said judgment of conviction and order on sentence, the accused has preferred this appeal.
5. The complainant – State is being represented by the learned Additional Government Advocate.
6. The records from the Sessions Judge’s Court were called for and the same are placed before this Court.
7. Perused the materials placed before this Court, including the memorandum of appeal, impugned Judgment and the records from the Sessions Judge’s Court.
8. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to as per their rank before the Sessions Judge’s Court.
9. After hearing the learned counsels from both side, the points that arise for our consideration in this appeal are:
[ii] Whether the Judgment of conviction and Order on sentence under appeal warrants any interference at the hands of this Court?
10. Among the twenty two(22) witnesses examined by the prosecution from PW-1 to PW-22, except the official witnesses, all other witnesses including the alleged eye witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution.
11. The prosecution examined the complainant in the case, i.e. Shankar Chaabukasavaara as PW-1 (CW-1). The said witness, in his examination-in-chief has stated that, the deceased is his daughter and the accused is the husband of t
Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, reads as "Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge – When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that....
The judgment establishes the principle that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The application of Section 106 of t....
Section 106 of the Evidence Act reads Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge – When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.
Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain conclusively proving guilt; failure to provide plausible explanations by the accused strengthens the case for conviction.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act and the distinction between intention and knowledge in determining the nature of the offe....
Circumstantial evidence can establish guilt in murder cases, especially when the accused fails to explain their presence at the crime scene.
The burden of proof under Section 106 of the Evidence Act places a duty on the accused to offer a plausible explanation for the circumstances of the crime, especially in cases of circumstantial evide....
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
