IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH
H.P.SANDESH, RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR, JJ.
Linganagouda @ Santosh, S/o. Martandagouda – Appellant
Versus
The State of Karnataka – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.100190 of 2019 C/w Criminal Appeal No.100284 of 2019
Decided on : 28-11-2023
JUDGMENT :
1. These two appeals are filed by the son of the deceased-victim and the State challenging the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 120-B, 364, 302, 201 and 506 read with Section 149 of IPC and prayed the Court to set aside the judgment passed in Sessions Case No.37/2012 dated 30.03.2019 and convict the accused persons and sentence them for the charges levelled against them.
2. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that one Martandagouda was missing from 11.12.2011, the same was communicated to his son, who was studying Engineering at Laxmeshwar by his mother that the deceased Martandagouda not returned to home from 11.12.2011 onwards. The son of the deceased Linganagouda came to Kurtakoti and made searches and could not trace him. Hence, he lodged the complaint in terms of Ex.P2 with the jurisdictional police on 16.12.2011 at 15.45 hours which was registered as Crime No.277/2011. While lodging the complaint, the description of clothes lost worn by him and mobile IME number of the handset of said Martandagouda was given in the complaint and he was not traced. That on 03.01.2012, the complainant gave further statement vide Ex.P1 at 19.45 hours to the police, he has stated his uncle Virupakshagouda i.e., accused No.1 was trying to sell lands for the purpose of satisfying his bad vices, his father-Martandagouda had objected for the same and had helped one Smt. Seetabai, the sister of Virupakshagouda-accused No.1 in filing a suit for partition against Virupakshagouda. Further, the paternal aunt of his father namely, Renukabai Patil was given lands bearing Sy.Nos.332 and 329, totally measuring an extent of 15 acres. The said Renukabai got married at an old age and she did not have any issues. He has further stated that after the death of Renukabi, it was agreed between her brothers that the said lands should go to the father of Virupakshagouda i.e. Melagirigowda. After the death of Renukabai, Virupakshagoda accused No.1 was trying to get the said lands transferred to his name and was negotiating to sell the same. Hence, the said Martandagouda had also filed suit for partition in respect of land bearing Sy.Nos.332 and 329 and had obtained an order of stay on 07.12.2011. The complainant suspected the role of accused No.1 and the accused No.1 was angry with this development of assisting his sister to file a suit and obtaining an order of stay. Hence, he conspired with accused Nos.2 to 6 and earlier, the accused No.3 was tenant in the lands of the family of Martandagouda and he was having enmity against Martandagouda in removing him from the cultivation and accused No.2, friend of accused No.1, and all of them have joined their hands and within 2 to 3 days of stay obtained by Martandagouda, he went missing and stated about the ill-will. It is also an allegation that said Virupakshagouda within a short span of deceased went missing, has sold the very said land. It is also a motive for committing the murder that Neelavva i.e., accused No.4 was having illicit relationship with the complainant’s father and she was also absconding from the village and heard the rumours that accused No.4 was also missing after the said Martandagouda was missing. Hence, suspected that accused Nos.1, 2, 4 and said Ningappa, in order to eliminate the Martandagouda, conspired each other and on 11.12.2011, abducted him from Kurtakoti and murdered him and disposed off the body. The said accused persons were apprehended and investigation is conducted. It is also an allegation that accused No.5 was having illicit relationship with accused No.6 and deceased also instructed accused No.4 to bring the accused No.6 for his lust and all of them were also having grudge against the deceased. Hence, it is the case of the prosecution that all the accused persons joined their hands and conspired with each other and eliminated the deceased. The police after the inv
PRAKASH CHAND VS. STATE (AIR 1979 SC 400)
STATE OF W.B. VS. MIR MOHAMMAD OMAR AND OTHERS [(2000) 8 SCC 382]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. RAJ KUMAR reported in (2018) 2 SCC 69
AI
The court established that the prosecution proved the conspiracy and murder charges against the accused through credible eyewitness testimony and circumstantial evidence, leading to their conviction.
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of evidence beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction, especially in circumstantial cases.
The accused did not have the intention to kill the deceased, but only the knowledge that their actions could likely cause his death, leading to the alteration of their conviction from Sec. 302 IPC to....
The standards of proof in criminal law necessitate that the prosecution must establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, which was not met due to lack of reliable evidence.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; circumstantial evidence must negate the innocence of the accused, which was not established in this case.
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, all links in the evidence chain must be established beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion is insufficient for 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.