IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
K.SOMASHEKAR, T.G.SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA, JJ.
Ashok S/o Gangegowda – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No.590 of 2017
Decided on : 14-09-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 201 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 209, 313, 233, 374(2) - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 8 and 106 - Murder Offence – Appeal Against Conviction - It is stated that mother of accused used to abuse and quarrel with accused and his wife on ground that she was not doing household chores properly and was visiting her parental home frequently - Accused was not able to tolerate act of his mother - Hence, it is stated that he is said to have hatched a criminal conspiracy to get rid of his mother who was always picking up a quarrel with his wife - While accused, his wife and his mother were present in house, in absence of his father who is examined as PW-4, accused is said to have slapped his mother on her left cheek very harshly - Immediately, blood started oozing from her left ear as a result of which she fell down on mat and succumbed to head injuries. [Para 15]
Finding of the Court: In view of that reason, it is alleged that accused had slapped Jayalakshmi on her cheek forcefully, which incident which took place in his house - As a result of that, she died - But entire case of prosecution even on a close scrutiny of evidence, it is seen that there is no evidence forthcoming to prove guilt of accused - Despite of which Trial Court had convicted accused relating to offences under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC, 1860 - Whereas in instant case, accused was in incarceration from date of his arrest and it is almost all 7 years, 10 months and 14 days - In given peculiar facts and circumstances of case and so also in view of ratio of reliance stated supra, Court is of opinion that period of sentence which appellant/accused has undergone since from date of his arrest till this date, amounts to service of sentence, which would meet ends of justice - Accused though was convicted for offences under Section 302 of IPC inclusive of Section 201 of IPC, but there is no evidence forthcoming on part of prosecution for disappearance of evidence in order to screen himself from legal punishment - Offences even under Section 302 IPC absolutely is not forthcoming - Hence, in peculiar facts and circumstances of case even dwelling in detail through evidence as well as concept of Section 304 Part I and Part II of IPC relating to reduction of sentence, which is also very remote chances but period for which he has undergone sentence during course of trial since from date of his arrest, that period shall be suffice in order to meet ends of justice - In view of reasons and findings, Court is of opinion that Trial Court has misdirected and misinterpreted evidence facilitated by prosecution and has failed to establish guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
K. Somashekar, J.
This appeal is filed challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the Court of the IV Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Shimoga sitting at Bhadravathi in S.C.No.94/2015 dated 02/04.02.2017. By the aforesaid judgment, the Trial Court had convicted the accused/appellant herein for offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC with default clause and to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 4 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC along with default clause. Both the sentences were to run concurrently.
2. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence urging various grounds seeking intervention of the judgment of conviction rendered by the Trial Court and consequently to set aside the judgment of conviction rendered by the Trial Court and consequent upon setting aside the said judgment, to acquit the accused of the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC as reflected in the operative portion of the order.
3. Heard the learned counsel Shri Umesh P.B. for the appellant and so also the learned Addl. SPP for the State and perused the judgment of conviction rendered by the Trial Court in S.C.No.94/2015 inclusive of the material documents which were got marked at Exhibits P1 to P42 inclusive of MO-1 to MO-8.
4. The factual matrix of this appeal is as under:
It transpires from the case of the prosecution that the appellant/accused and PW-1/Hemavathi fell in love with each other and got married against the wishes of the parents of the appellant. Hence, it is stated that the parents of the appellant were not happy with the marriage of accused with PW-1/Hemavathi. It is stated that after their marriage, appellant/accused started residing along with his wife and son in the house of his parents at Dasarakallahalli village, Bhadravathi Taluk. However, it is stated that the mother of the accused Jayalakshmi used to abuse and quarrel with the accused and his wife on the ground that she was not doing household chores properly and was visiting her parental home frequently. Saying so, deceased is said to have frequently picked up a quarrel with the wife of the accused being her daughter-in-law. The accused was not able to tolerate the act of his mother Jayalakshmi. Hence, it is stated that he is said to have hatched a criminal conspiracy to get rid of his mother who was always picking up a quarrel with his wife. On 26.10.2014 at around 11.00 p.m., while the accused, his wife Hemavathi and his mother Jayalakshmi were present in the house, in the absence of his father namely Gangegowda who is examined as PW-4, accused Ashoka is said to have slapped his mother Jayalakshmi on her left cheek very harshly. Immediately, blood started oozing from her left ear as a result of which she fell down on the mat and succumbed to head injuries. Subsequent to the death of his mother, the accused with an intention to cause disappearance of evidence in order to screen himself from legal punishment, had wrapped the dead body of his mother with means of a mat, bed sheet, pillow and took the same in a power tiller bearing Reg.No.KA-14/TA-0365 and Trailer No.0366 by putting fresh grass on the dead body and is said to have thrown her body into the Bhadra river by standing near the old bridge at Bhadravathi in Shimoga District. In pursuance of the act of the accused, on filing of a complaint by Hemavathi as per Exhibit P1, the criminal law was set into motion by recording an FIR as per Exhibit P36. In the FIR, offences under Sections 302 and 201 were lugged against the accused. Subsequent to setting the criminal law into motion, the I.O. had taken up the case for investigation and conducted thorough investigation and laid the charge-sheet against the accused. PW-16/Manjunatha being the PSI, re
Ediga Anamma vs. State of A.P. ((1974) 4 SCC 443 K 1974 SCC (Cri) 479)
Hanumant v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1952 SC 343)
Ram Singh vs. Sonia ((2007) 3 SCC 1 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 1)
Ramgopal v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1972 SC 656)
Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra ((1973) 2 SCC 793
Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma vs State (NCT Of Delhi) ((2010) 6 SCC 1)
State of Maharashtra vs. Kondiba Tukaram Shirke ((1976) 3 SCC 775 : 1976 SCC (Cri) 514
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra ((1984) 4 SCC 116)
Tufail (Alias) Simmi v. State of Uttar Pradesh ((1969) 3 SCC 198))
SupremeToday
Section 3 of the Evidence Act defines “evidence”, broadly divided into oral and documentary. “Evidence” under the Act is the means, factor or material, lending a degree of probability through a logic....
The judgment establishes that a conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence requires a clear and conclusive chain of evidence, and that extra-judicial confessions must be corroborated by relia....
Reliance can be based on solitary statement of a witness if court comes to conclusion that said statement is true and correct version of case of prosecution.
Conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence requires a complete and coherent chain of events that excludes all reasonable hypotheses of innocence.
In order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the gui....
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.