Back
2023 Supreme(Kar) 567
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH
H.P.SANDESH, RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR, JJ.
Sanju S/o. Gyanoba Pawar – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Karnataka – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.100297 of 2019
Decided on : 24-11-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :SRI. K.S.Patil, Advocate
For the Respondent: SRI. M.B.GUNDWADE
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a complete chain of evidence and conclusive circumstances pointing towards the guilt of the accused in a case based on circumstantial evidence.
Headnote:
IPC - Murder, Assault, and Illicit Relationship - Section 279, 304A, 302, 201, and 313 - Summary of Acts and Sections
Fact of the Case:
The case involved an incident where the accused, in an alleged act of murder, caused an accident and assaulted the deceased persons. The accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, while another accused was acquitted. The main contention in the appeal was that the Trial Court failed to arrive at a proper conclusion on the evidence placed on record, overlooked hostility of the witnesses, and committed errors in convicting the appellant.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the evidence, including the motive, chain of events, and medical evidence, conclusively pointed towards the guilt of the accused. The Court held that the circumstances were consistent only with the hypothesis of the accused's guilt and totally inconsistent with his innocence. The Court confirmed the conviction and dismissed the appeal.
Issues: The main issues were whether the Trial Court committed an error in convicting and sentencing the appellant and whether the same required interference.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Raj Kumar, which emphasized the need for a complete chain of evidence and conclusive circumstances pointing towards the guilt of the accused. The Court found that the evidence led by the prosecution established a complete chain of events, leading to the guilt of the accused.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, the judgment and conviction passed against the appellant were confirmed, and the accused was directed to surrender before the Trial Court within 15 days to undergo the sentence. The bail bond executed by the appellant was cancelled.
JUDGMENT :
The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is:
(a) At the first instance case was registered for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 304A of IPC when PW.8 lodged a complaint alleging that an accident has taken place on 28.3.2018 between the motorcycle and a Cruiser Trax as per the information received through PW.12. During the course of investigation, it was emerged that, it was not an accident and it was a murder by causing the accident and assault on the deceased persons. Hence, further complaint was given on 20.04.2018 stating that, one Venkatesh Yadwad examined as PW.14 came and informed that, on 28.3.2018 at 2.15 p.m., his employee PW.15 was sitting in front of the hut. At that time both deceased came on a motorcycle and a trax vehicle came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle. As a result, both rider and pillion rider fell down. The trax stopped at a distance. This accused got down from the trax, assaulted the deceased persons on their heads with a club. Thereafter, accused No.2 came there and took away Sanju-accused No.1 on his motorcycle.
(b) Police conducted investigation and filed the charge sheet making an accusation that, deceased Jyothiba was having illicit relationship with wife of accused No.1. Both of them were caught red-handed in the bathroom previously. The deceased was beaten by accused No.1. Due to this enmity and motive caused the accident and killed both the deceased and filed the charge sheet alleging offences under Section 302 and also Section 201 of CPC.
(c) The Trial Court after having received the records, issued summons against accused persons. They appeared through counsel. They have denied the charges and claimed to be tried. Prosecution examined in all 27 witnesses, out of 39 witnesses cited in the charge sheet, and got marked the documents Exs.P1 to P66 and MOs.1 to 3. The accused statement was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Accused have not led any defence evidence.
2. The Trial Court having considered the material on record came to the conclusion that, charges have been proved against accused No.1 and charges have not been proved against accused No.2. Accordingly, answered point No.1 in the affirmative and point No.2 in the negative. Convicted accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Accused No.2 was acquitted. On hearing the accused and his counsel, as well as the State, accused No.1 is sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and ordered to pay fine of Rs.50,000/-. In default of payment of fine amount, accused No.1 is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. It is also ordered to pay compensation of Rs.45,000/-out of Rs.50,000/-to the wife and child of deceased Jyothiba. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence, accused No.1 has filed this appeal.
3. The main contention in the appeal is that, the Sessions Court failed to arrive at proper conclusion on the evidence placed on record. The Court below over looked hostility of the witnesses thereby caused material injustice to the appellant. Trial Court has over looked the inconsistencies and admissions of the prosecution witnesses. The counsel would also vehemently contend that, as per the prosecution PWs.12, 13, 14 and 15 are the witnesses to the incident and all of them have turned hostile. Nothing is elicited in their cross examination and absolutely no material insofar as oral evidence is concerned.
4. The reasons assigned by the Trial Court in paragraphs No.19 and 20 are far-fetched and the Court traversed beyond the scope of charge sheet and evidence on record, as witnesses have turned hostile. The Trial Court has formed the opinion without any cogent basis. The Trial Court failed to take note of the admissions given by PW3 with regard to recovery, as he could not depose about the contents of panchanama. More so, he is also a close relative of the complainant.
