IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
K.SOMASHEKAR, RAJESH RAI K, JJ.
Harish, S/o Doddegowda – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1234 of 2017 C/w Criminal Appeal No. 836 of 2017
Decided on : 18-07-2023
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 120(B), 201, 309, 34 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 357(2), 313 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 27 - Murder offence – Criminal conspiracy - Appeal against conviction - Accused No.2 had illicit affair and same was opposed by her husband in order to eliminate deceased, himself and accused No.2 hatched a conspiracy and accordingly, while deceased was working, accused No.1 assaulted him with wooden rod and committed his murder – Prosecution failed to prove his guilt by leading any cogent evidence. [Para 41]
Finding of the Court: Accused No.3 involved in crime by way of facilitating/assisting accused No.1 to shift dead body by an auto rickshaw from place where accused No.1 murdered deceased to place where accused No.1 buried dead body of deceased - Ownership of auto rickshaw was not proved and more over, there is no such evidence deposed before Court about shifting of dead body by accused No.3 along with accused No.1 - Accused No.3 cannot be convicted for offences charged against him - Both crime and criminal tests have been satisfied against accused but, rarest rare test is concerned, prosecution failed to prove same by leading cogent evidence that crime was committed in a barbaric manner and hence instant case would not fall under category of rarest of rare case - Judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed is hereby modified in respect of accused No.1 for offence punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
Result: Criminal Appeal allowed-in-part.
JUDGMENT :
These appeals filed by the convicted accused Nos.1 and 3 are directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed in S.C.No.215/2012 dated 25.04.2017 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 120(B), 201 r/w Section 34 of IPC wherein, accused No.1 was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-for the offence punishable under Section 120(B) r/w Section 34 of IPC in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo further simple imprisonment of three months. Further, accused No.1 was directed to undergo imprisonment for life i.e., till his last breath and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo imprisonment for a period of 2 years for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC. Accused Nos.1 and 3 were directed to undergo rigours imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-each in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo three months simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 201 r/w Section 34 of IPC. It is also ordered that accused No.1 shall pay sum of Rs.3,00,000/-to both the children of deceased under the provisions of 357 Cr.P.C., in default, they are entitled to recover the said amount from accused No.1 under Section 357(2) of Cr.P.C. Further, it directed to run the entire sentence concurrently.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 29.03.2012, one Radha/accused No.2, who is the wife of the deceased-D.R.Kumar in this case, lodged a complaint before the respondent-police alleging that on 16.02.2012 around 9.00 p.m., her husband-D.R.Kumar had been to the field near Chollemarada village and from that relevant point of time, her husband was not returned to the home and was missing. Based on the said complaint, FIR has been registered for man missing in Crime No.44/2012. During the course of investigation, the respondent-police arrested accused No.1 on 13.06.2012 and recorded his voluntary statement as per Ex.P43 wherein, accused No.1 revealed that he and accused No.2 i.e., wife of deceased had illicit affair and the same was opposed by her husband i.e., the deceased and as such, in order to eliminate the deceased, himself and accused No.2 hatched a conspiracy and accordingly, on 16.02.2012 at about 8.00 p.m., while the deceased was working near Chachatanna Village road in Sy.No.121, accused No.1 assaulted him with the wooden rod (MO.5) on his head and thereby, the deceased fell down and at that time, accused No.1 kicked on his neck and chest and committed his murder. Thereafter, he called his brother accused No.3 to bring the goods auto rickshaw bearing registration No.KA-18-A-526 and they both shifted the dead body in the said auto from Devappanahalli village to the land of Rathnamma bearing Sy.No.155 and buried the dead body of the deceased in the pit which already dugged in the JCB. Later, accused No.2 gave the missing complaint that her husband was missing from 29.03.2012 in order to mislead the investigation. Based on the same, the dead body of the deceased recovered by exhumation proceedings vide Ex.P7-Mahazar and subsequently, another FIR was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 120 (B), 302, 201, r/w Section 34 IPC against accused Nos.1 to 3 based on the suo moto complaint lodged by the Deputy Superintendent of police as per Ex.P35. Later, the respondent-police investigated the matter, drew up the spot mahazar as per Ex.P7, conducted the inquest proceedings over the dead body as per Ex.P27 and after recording the statement of witnesses, the investigation officer laid the charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence punishable under Sections 120(B), 302, 201 r/w Section 34 IPC before the committal Court. On committal of the case to the Sessions Court, the learned Sessions Judge framed the charges against the accused and read o
Dharam Deo Yadav vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2014) 5 SCC 509
State of Rajasthan vs. Kashim Ram reported in (2006) 12 SCC 254
Sunil Clifford Daniel vs. State of Punjab reported in (2012) 11 SCC 205
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116
Swamy Shraddananda vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2007) 12 SCC 288
Union of India vs. V.Sriharan Alias Murugan and others reported in 2016 (7) SCC 1
Sections 26 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reads Confession by accused while in custody of police not to be proved against him.
Point of Law : Offence of Murder – Conviction set aside – Circumstantial evidence - In order to sustain conviction, circumstantial evidence must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other ....
Point of Law : Motive assumes great significance where a conviction is sought to be predicated on circumstantial evidence alone and its absence can tilt scales in favour of the accused where all the ....
Circumstantial evidence, including recovery of crucial items, must be coherent and consistently point to guilt to meet the burden of proof required for conviction in murder cases.
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.
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 prosecution must prove guilt beyond all reasonable doubt; circumstantial evidence needs to establish a complete chain of events without gaps for a conviction.
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.