IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
K.SOMASHEKAR, T.G.SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA, JJ.
Sri. Rangaswamy @ Ranga S/o Ramakrishnappa - Appellants
Versus
State of Karnataka - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.118, 53, 54 of 2021, 1068 of 2020
Decided on : 04-11-2022
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 120-B, 143, 147, 148, 302 and read with 149 - Offence of Murder - Criminal conspiracy – Rioting, armed with deadly weapons – Unlawful assembly - Charged - All these Criminal Appeals have been filed by the accused/appellant in the respective appeals, seeking to set aside the judgment of conviction rendered by LVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-59), Bengaluru City, in S.C.No.428/2013 dated 28.10.2020 and to thereby acquit the accused/appellant in the respective appeals of the offences leveled against them.
Finding of Court : At a cursory glance of evidence of the witnesses on part of the prosecution and also in the totality of circumstances of case, Court are of opinion that prosecution has failed to establish the guilt against the accused by facilitating positive, cogent and corroborative evidence to probabilise that accused and accused alone have committed the murder of deceased Lingaraju being an RTI Activist as narrated in complaint made by PW-1/ who is none other than wife of deceased and also being eye-witnesses to the case of prosecution- When case of prosecution in entirety is found to be doubtful and is full of inconsistencies and when doubt arises in criminal justice delivery system, benefit of doubt shall always accrue in favour of accused persons alone - In instant case, prosecution has failed to establish guilt of accused persons by facilitating worthwhile evidence - Consequently, accused persons, namely appellants, deserve to be acquitted. [Para 236]
Result : These Criminal Appeals are hereby allowed.
JUDGMENT :
All these Criminal Appeals have been filed by the accused/appellant in the respective appeals, seeking to set aside the judgment of conviction rendered by the LVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-59), Bengaluru City, in S.C.No.428/2013 dated 28.10.2020 and to thereby acquit the accused/appellant in the respective appeals of the offences leveled against them. Since all these appeals arising out of the same judgment in S.C.No.428/2013, they are heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The appeal in Crl.A.No.118/2021 has been preferred by appellants/Accused Nos.1 to 3 namely, Rangaswamy @ Ranga/Accused No.1, R. Shankar/Accused No.2 and Raghavendra @ Raghu/Accused No.3, challenging the judgment of conviction dated 28.10.2020 and order of sentence dated 29.10.2020 rendered by the Trial Court in S.C.No.428/2013. By the said judgment, the Trial Court has convicted the present appellants/Accused Nos.1 to 3 for offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 143, 147, 148, 302 and read with Section 149 of the IPC. Apart from the same, Accused No.1 has been convicted for offences punishable under Section 150 read with Section 149 of the IPC. Further, Accused No.3 has been convicted also for offences punishable under Section 506-B read with Section 149 of the IPC. They have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offences punishable under Section 120-B read with Section 149 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-each along with default clause; further to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 143 read with Section 149 of the IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-each along with default clause; further to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 147 read with Section 149 of the IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-each along with default clause; further to undergo simple imprisonment for two years for the offence punishable under Section 148 read with Section 149 of the IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-each with default clause; Accused No.1 was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 150 read with Section 149 of the IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-along with default clause; Accused No.3 was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 506-B read with Section 149 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-along with default clause; and Accused Nos.1 to 3 were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-along with default clause. All the sentences of imprisonment were to run concurrently with a further direction that the entire fine amount was to be remitted to the State.
3. The appeal in Crl.A.No.53/2021 is preferred by appellants/Accused Nos.4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 11 challenging the judgment of conviction dated 28.10.2020 and order of sentence dated 29.10.2020 rendered by the Trial Court in S.C.No.428/2013. By the said judgment, the Trial Court has convicted all the appellants/Accused Nos.4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 11 for offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 143, 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC. Apart from these, Accused Nos.4, 5 and 7 were also convicted for offences under Section 109 read with Section 149 IPC and Accused Nos.4, 5, 7, 9 and 11 were further convicted for offences punishable under Section 150 read with Section 149 of the IPC. All the said accused have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the aforesaid offences and to pay fine as stated in the operative portion of the judgment in S.C.No.428/2013 along with default clause. All the sentences of imprisonment were to run concurrently with a further direction that the entire fine amount was to be remitted to the State.
4. The appeal in Crl.A.No.54/2021 pertains to one C. Govindaraju/Accused No.8 chal
Point of Law : Prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused persons by facilitating worthwhile evidence. [Para 236]
Circumstantial evidence can support convictions for conspiracy and murder, even if witnesses turn hostile, provided the overall evidence points consistently to the guilt of the accused.
Acquittal - There cannot be any straight-jacket formula to apply readily for the cases in appeals arising out of acquittal recorded by the trial Court. Whether the view taken by the trial Court is a ....
(1) Purpose of conducting a Test Identification Parade is that persons who claim to have seen offender at the time of occurrence identify them from amongst other individuals without tutoring or aid f....
Eyewitness testimony, even from an interested witness, can sustain a conviction if corroborated by credible evidence and circumstances.
The court emphasized that circumstantial evidence must establish a complete and unbroken chain of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in capital cases.
The conviction based on unreliable witness testimony and unproven motive and conspiracy led to the overturning of the judgment, highlighting the necessity for credible evidence in criminal cases.
The judgment underscores the importance of corroborative evidence, caution in relying on a chance witness, and the impact of lapses in the investigation on the prosecution's case.
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.