Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
K.SOMASHEKAR, RAJESH RAI K, JJ.
Mohammed Anwar, S/o Abdul Khader – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.1319 of 2016
Decided on : 20-07-2023
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 201, 34 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 26, 27 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 374(2) - Murder offence – Developed illicit intimacy - Appeal against conviction - Accused No.2 revealed that she had developed illicit intimacy with accused No.1 and in order to maintain same, she joined hands with accused No.1 and with assistance of accused Nos.3 to 6, conspired with each other and they caused death of deceased – Prosecution failed to place sufficient and cogent evidence in this case. [Para 29]
Finding of the Court: Prosecution failed to prove all circumstance beyond reasonable doubt - Though prosecution relied on evidence of PW.10 to prove homicidal death of deceased, but at same time, to connect accused for homicidal death of deceased is concerned, prosecution failed to place sufficient and cogent evidence in case – Court is of opinion that learned Sessions Judge committed gross error in convicting appellants/accused for alleged charge of offence under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC by relying on a very weak kind of evidence - It is settled principle of law by Hon’ble Apex Court that suspicion however strong cannot take place of proof - It is required to be held that prosecution has miserably failed to bring home charges leveled against accused Nos.1, 3 to 6 beyond reasonable doubt - Judgment of conviction and order of sentence is hereby set-aside.
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
This appeal by the convicted accused is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.07.2016 passed in S.C.No.91/2013 by Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru, wherein the accused are convicted for the offence punishable under sections 302, 201 r/w 34 IPC and accused Nos.1 and 3 to 6 are sentenced to suffer life imprisonment for the offence punishable under section 302 IPC, so also, they are directed to undergo imprisonment for three years for the offences under section 201 r/w 34 IPC and pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-each, in default of payment of fine, they are further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period for 30 days each.
2. The factual matrix of the prosecution case is that one Siddappa, S/o Sangappa of Bhagavathi village, Bagalkot Taluk & District had married accused No.2 in this case one Renuka @ Kasthuri and about twelve years back, he had gone to Mangaluru and settled there itself along with his wife and a child and every now and then, he used to go to his village and also going back to Mangaluru. But, since three years prior to 22.08.2009, Sidappa i.e., deceased had not come to his village. Therefore, suspecting Siddappa's whereabouts, PW-1 Basappa who is younger brother of Siddappa, lodged a missing complaint before Mangaluru Rural Police station on 22.08.2009 as per Ex-P22, upon which, a man missing FIR in Cr.No.174/2009 was registered as per Ex-P23 and investigation was taken up by one Prakash K-Police Sub-Inspector of the said police station.
3. It is further case of the prosecution that on 22.08.2009, Sub-Inspector of Police deputed PW-22 a police constable by name Sunil Patel to trace out accused No.2 Renuka @ Kasturi. Accordingly, said police constable had been to Nargund of Gadag District and traced Renuka @ Kasturi and produced before the Sub-Inspector of Police-K. Prakash on 23.08.2009. On interrogation of accused No.2 Renuka, it had revealed that she had developed illicit intimacy with accused No.1 Mohammed Anwar and in order to maintain the same, she joined hands with accused No.1 and with the assistance of accused Nos.3 to 6, conspired with each other and they caused the death of deceased Siddappa i.e., the husband of accused No.2 and buried his dead body in Balluru Gudde of Kannuru village, Mangaluru District. Therefore, upon this information given by accused No.2, a suo-moto report was prepared by K. Prakash i.e., Police Sub-Inspector as per Ex-P24 and FIR has been registered in Cr.No.176/2009 under sections 302 and 201 r/w 34 IPC against the accused persons. Thereafter, he investigated the matter and handed over investigation to PW-21 one B.R. Lingappa, who was Circle Inspector of Police of Mangaluru Rural Police Station. Subsequently, on 24.09.2011, PW-21 Circle Inspector of Police took up further investigation from Police Sub-Inspector Prakash and recorded voluntary statement of Renuka i.e., accused No.2 and thereafter she was produced before him and he deputed CW-48 for arrest of other accused persons and on 24.09.2009 at about 1.30 a.m., CW-48 Prakash produced accused Nos.1, 3 to 6 before PW-21 and they were interrogated and their voluntary statements are said to have been recorded at Ex-P26 to Ex-P30.
4. It is further case of the prosecution that on 23.08.2009, Sri. K Prakash Sub-Inspector of Police had submitted requisition to Sub-Divisional Magistrate for exhumation of the dead-body of Siddappa. Accordingly, exhumation proceedings was conducted by PW-11 Prabhulinga Kavalaktti, Sub-Divisional Magistrate in the presence of PW-10 Dr. Raghavendra Babu Y.P., Assistant Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, K.M.C, Mangaluru and they all proceeded to Balluru Gudde of Kannur Village and the place shown by the accused was dug and there they found some bone pieces, hairs, clothes and other articles which are marked as M.O.1 to M.O.4 and bone pieces which are marked as M.O.5 to M.O.14 and same were seized under mahazar Ex-P2
Sections 26 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reads Confession by accused while in custody of police not to be proved against him.
The prosecution must establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, and procedural safeguards for evidence recovery must be strictly adhered to for admissibility.
The admissibility of information provided by the accused while in police custody, and the application of Section 27 of the Evidence Act in determining the evidentiary value of the disclosure statemen....
The court ruled that circumstantial evidence must establish a consistent and unbroken chain linking the accused to the crime, and any reliance on unreliability of recovery evidence warrants the benef....
Circumstantial evidence can establish guilt if it forms a complete chain pointing to the accused, even without direct evidence.
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
