Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
SURAJ GOVINDARAJ, G. BASAVARAJA, JJ.
Shivappa @ Shivanand Hittanagi, S/o. Vittal Hittanagi - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Karnataka, Represented by Its Public Prosecutor - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 100187 of 2017 (C)
Decided On : 04-11-2022
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 302, 201 and 404 - Indian Evidence Act - Section 27 – Offence of Murder - Causing disappearance of evidence - Dishonest misappropriation of property – Charged - Case of prosecution is based on conjectures - There is nothing on record to establish as to how Investigating Officer connected accused to the crime - Accused has been arrested on basis of instructions issued by Circle Police Inspector without any basis - Even as per post-mortem report and evidence of doctor, who has conducted post-mortem, body of deceased was decomposed - Hence, he submits that allegation that deceased went missing and complaint had been filed that at 1330 hrs body has been found in a decomposed state, and animals having eaten body would indicate that death of deceased had occurred much earlier and not as claimed by prosecution - That alleged seizure of the gold Boramal chain of deceased is made contrary to mandate under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act - Seizure of this Boramal chain, based on which accused has been convicted is also contrary to principles of Indian Evidence Act - Allegation is that the body of the deceased was lying for nearly two days without anybody knowing about it, which is not acceptable since the location where body was lying is close to a temple as also close to a house of farmer and very close to the National Highway, no body could have been lying there decomposed emanating foul smell for such a long period of time - Whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.
Finding of Court : Insofar as recovery of goats are concerned, PW20, who is stated to be videographer, who has videographed the recovery, has stated that, when he visited PW4, he had shown them 10-12 sheep and police seized all the 10-12 sheep - If accused had stolen six goats and sold them, the question of 10-12 goats being seized as per deposition of PW20 would not arise - This statement made by Pw20 has been accepted by the prosecution since PW20 has not been treated as hostile let alone been cross-examined - Evidence of PW20 does not inspire any confidence in seizure of goats as claimed to have been made by Investigating Officer - As observed above, the accused was arrested by PW22 on the instructions given by Circle Inspector of Police – PW23 - Arrest having been made on , there is nothing on record to show as to how Circle Police Inspector came to the conclusion that accused is required to be arrested - There is no evidence on record as to on what basis the Investigating Officer approached PW2 and PW3 to ascertain how goats have been transported - There is also nothing on record to indicate as to how the Investigating Officer has approached PW5 and PW6 to ascertain the sale of gold Boramal chain. [42 and 45]
Result : Appeal is allowed.
JUDGMENT :
1. The appellant is accused who has been convicted by the Principal Sessions Judge, Belagavi vide judgment dated 01.06.2017 in Sessions Case No.115/2014 for offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 404 of the IPC.
2. The appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for offences punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and to pay fine of Rs.50,000 , to undergo imprisonment for seven years for offence punishable under Section 201 of the IPC and to undergo imprisonment for three years for offence punishable under Section 404 of the IPC, that all sentences running concurrently.
3. The facts of the case are that:
3.1. A missing complaint was filed on 04.02.2014 at 2200 hours, a further complaint came to be filed by the son of the deceased on 05.02.2014 at 1530 hours that an offence under Section 302 had been committed.
3.2. In furtherance of the same, a case came to be registered by the Yamakanamaradi Police Station in Crime No.46/2014. The Circle Police Inspector, Hukkeri Circle having completed his investigation laid a charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Section 302, 201 and 404 of the IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
3.3. The prosecution in all lead evidence of 23 witnesses and marked more than 38 documents. 08 material objects were also marked by the prosecution. The accused did not lead any evidence.
3.4. Upon the trial being completed, the trial Court put across the incriminating evidence against the accused. The accused denied all such incriminating evidence in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. It is after hearing the counsel that the above order of conviction and sentence came to be passed, which is impugned herein.
4. Sri. K.L. Patil, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that:
4.1. The entire case of the prosecution is without any basis. The prosecution has been unable to establish beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused is involved in the offences alleged.
4.2. The case of the prosecution is based on conjectures. There is nothing on record to establish as to how the Investigating Officer connected the accused to the crime. The accused has been arrested on the basis of the instructions issued by the Circle Police Inspector without any basis.
4.3. Even as per the post-mortem report and the evidence of the doctor, who has conducted the post-mortem, the body of the deceased was decomposed. Hence, he submits that the allegation that the deceased went missing from 03.02.2014 and the complaint had been filed on 05.02.2014 that at 1330 hrs the body has been found in a decomposed state, and animals having eaten the body would indicate that the death of the deceased had occurred much earlier and not on 03.02.2014 or 04.02.2014 as claimed by the prosecution.
4.4. That the alleged seizure of the gold Boramal chain of the deceased is made contrary to the mandate under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The seizure of this Boramal chain, based on which the accused has been convicted is also contrary to the principles of Indian Evidence Act.
4.5. The allegation is that the body of the deceased was lying for nearly two days without anybody knowing about it, which is not acceptable since the location where the body was lying is close to a temple as also close to a house of the farmer and very close to the National Highway, no body could have been lying there decomposed emanating foul smell for such a long period of time.
4.6. That allegedly a stone weighing 25-30 kilos has been dropped on the head of the deceased crushing her head, which could not have been done by the accused. There is no analysis made on the said stone to verify if the fingerprints of the accused were present on the said stone. The slight build of the accused would indicate that he could not have lifted the said stone and dropped it on the head of the deceased.
4.7. The investigation which has been carried out is lopsided inasmuch as the investigation is carried out onl
Point of Law : There is no evidence on record as to on what basis the Investigating Officer approached PW2 and PW3 to ascertain how the goats have been transported. There is also nothing on record to....
The judgment emphasizes the requirement for a complete chain of evidence in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the inadmissibility of confessions, and the need to connect recovered material obje....
(1) Where case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, chain of evidence must be so far complete, such that every hypothesis is excluded but one proposed to be proved and such circumstances must s....
In cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances and a motive for the crime to secure a conviction.
The prosecution must establish each link of the chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt in a case based on circumstantial evidence.
In a criminal case, the prosecution must prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Circumstantial evidence is not sufficient to prove guilt unless it excludes every possible hypothesis e....
Motive assumes great significance where a conviction is sought to be predicated on circumstantial evidence alone.
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
