Back
K. SOMASHEKAR, T. G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
Kiran Sebastiyan @ Kiran S/o Rajashekarappa – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge at Tumkuru in SC.No.16/2016 dated 11.01.2017 whereby convicted the accused for the offence punishable under section 302 IPC, 1860 and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-which is reflected in the operative portion of the order. Whereas the appellant is seeking to consider the grounds urged in this appeal and to set aside the judgment of conviction rendered by the trial court in so far as the offence under Section 302 IPC and consequently, to acquit the accused.
2. Heard the learned counsel Sri Veeranna G Tigadi for the appellant/accused and the learned Additional SPP for the State. Perused the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the trial court in SC No.16/2016.
3. The factual matrix of the appeal are as under:
On 17.08.2015 complainant namely Jayashankar filed a complaint before the New Extension Police Station, Tumakuru alleging that his daughter – Thejaswini was suffering from mental ill health and accused had come to his house and said that, he had fallen in love with her and was interested to marry his daughter. But c
Section 304 Part II IPC relates to punishment but without any intention to cause death.
(1) Section 106 of Evidence Act does not directly operate against either a husband or wife staying under same roof and being last person seen with deceased.(2) In a case of circumstantial evidence, m....
Point of Law : It is suffice to hold that said period of incarceration undergone by appellants shall be termed as service of sentence and the same will meet the ends of justice. [Para 44]
Section 304 of IPC, 1860 which reads as Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
In a murder conviction based on circumstantial evidence, multiple corroborative factors, including the last seen theory and absence of alternative explanations, can establish guilt beyond reasonable ....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for cogent and unerring circumstantial evidence to establish guilt in cases based on such evidence, and the burden on the prosec....
The sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, the reliability of witness testimonies, and the application of the Last Seen Together Theory were central to the judgment. The court emphasized the need fo....
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, especially in circumstantial evidence cases, where inconsistencies can lead to acquittal.
The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and in cases relying on circumstantial evidence, the evidence must form a complete chain that excludes any reasonable do....
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
