Back
K. SOMASHEKAR, T. G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
Somesha H. M. @ Putta, S/o. H. M. Chandraiah – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka, Rep. By Sub-Inspector Of Police, Hadadi Police Station, Represented By SPP, High Court Of Karnataka – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and order of conviction passed in S.C.No.69/2014 by the Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere dated 03.11.2017/04.11.2017 convicting the accused of the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment of life and pay a fine of Rs.15,000/-, in default he shall undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months. Further, convicting him of the offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days.
2. The appellant herein was accused before trial Court.
3. The case pleaded by the prosecution is that one Ramarao (in short the deceased) was fighting land dispute with one H.M.Chandraiah(A2) who is the father of accused no.1, in respect of Sy.No.5/1A1 of Vaderahalli village of Davanagere. In this connection suit in O.S.No.427/2013 was pending on the file of Additional Civil Judge, Davanagere. There are many criminal complaints filed to the police in this connection. These disputes prompted ill-will between them. In prosecution of ill-will, on 8.
The lack of legal evidence and secondary hypothesis in the prosecution evidence led to the acquittal of the accused.
The conviction for murder was upheld based on substantial eyewitness testimony and evidence of motive, affirming the principle that direct evidence substantiates a guilty verdict beyond reasonable do....
The court affirmed the conviction of the accused for murder, finding sufficient evidence of an unlawful assembly and individual culpability amid claims of inconsistencies in prosecution testimony.
When FIR is delayed, in absence of proper explanation, courts must be on guard and test evidence meticulously to rule out possibility of embellishments in prosecution story.
The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and mere motive or last seen theory is insufficient without corroborative evidence.
Eyewitness testimony, particularly from injured witnesses, is crucial in establishing guilt, even with minor inconsistencies in their accounts.
A conviction for murder can be sustained based on the credible testimony of a single eyewitness, corroborated by medical evidence and circumstantial facts establishing motive.
The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. If there is any doubt as to the guilt of the accused, the accused must be acquitted.
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
