Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
G Basavaraja, Suraj Govindaraj, JJ.
Basavaraj Mahadevappa Ramaji – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 100121 of 2018
Decided On : 04-11-2022
Criminal Appeal - Conviction under Ss. 120-B, 201 and 302 read with 34 of IPC - Acquittal under Ss. 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - [Ss. 120-B, 201, 302, 364 read with 34 of IPC] - The court analyzed the circumstantial evidence, witness testimonies, and prosecution's case. The accused were convicted based on circumstantial evidence, but the court found that the evidence was not corroborated and witnesses turned hostile. The court emphasized the need for evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt and concluded that there was no evidence to implicate the accused, leading to the setting aside of the conviction and order of sentence.
Fact of the Case:
A complaint was filed alleging the murder of a person, leading to the trial of the accused. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence and witness testimonies to establish the guilt of the accused. However, many witnesses turned hostile, and the evidence was not corroborated.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The circumstantial evidence was not corroborated, and witness testimonies did not support the case of the prosecution. As a result, the court set aside the conviction and order of sentence.
Issues: The key issue was the sufficiency of evidence to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The court also considered the reliability of witness testimonies and the corroboration of circumstantial evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the principle that the guilt of the accused must be established beyond reasonable doubt. It highlighted the need for corroborated evidence and reliable witness testimonies to support the prosecution's case.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence were set aside. The accused were acquitted due to the lack of sufficient evidence to establish their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
SURAJ GOVINDARAJ, J. - The above appeals are filed by the accused, who have been convicted in Spl.SC.ST.No.33/2014 by the II Additional District and Sessions and Special Judge, Dharwad (for short, 'trial Court') vide judgement dtd. 24/3/2018.
2. Criminal Appeal No.100121/2018 has been filed by accused Nos.5 and 6, Criminal Appeal No.100131/2018 has been filed by accused Nos.7 and 8, Criminal Appeal No.100207/2018 has been filed by accused Nos.1, 3, 4 and 10 and Criminal Appeal No.100216/2018 has been filed by accused No.9.
3. By way of aforesaid judgement, the trial Court found accused No.1 and 3 to 10 guilty of offence under Ss. 120-B, 201 and 302 read with 34 of IPC, accused Nos.4 and 10 were found guilty of offence under Sec. 364 read with 34 of IPC. All the accused were acquitted of offences under Ss. 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, 'POA Act').
4. By order of sentence dtd. 24/3/2018, accused Nos.1 and 3 to 10 were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.5, 000.00 each for offences under Sec. 302 read with 34 of IPC, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. Accused Nos.3 to 10 were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years and to pay fine of Rs.5, 000.00 each for offences under Sec. 201 read with 34 of IPC and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Accused Nos.1 and 3 to 10 were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.5, 000.00 each for offences under Sec. 120-B read with 34 of IPC and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. Accused Nos.4 and 10 were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.5, 000.00 each for offence under Sec. 364 read with 34 of IPC and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Accused Nos.1 and 3 to 10 were entitled to set off under Sec. 428 of Cr.P.C.
5. It is aggrieved by the aforesaid judgement of conviction and order of sentence that the aforesaid accused are before this Court.
6. A complaint came to be filed by PW.1-Veeranagouda Patil alleging that on 27/8/2018 at 6.00 a.m., he found someone fallen on east face of the service road on NH-4 near the agricultural land of Basappa Aralikatti. He along with certain others had gone to see the person who had fallen on the road, when they found the person dead and stained with blood. It is in that background that a complaint came to be filed with PSI, Kittur Police Station to take action against unknown persons.
7. Investigation was completed and charge sheet was laid by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dharwad Rural Police Station for offences under Ss. 120- B, 201, 302 and 364 read with 34 of IPC and 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 (for short POA Act). Charges were framed for the said offences.
8. In order to prove its case the prosecution, in all, led evidence of 28 witnesses and marked more than 76 exhibits. 25 material objects were also marked.
9. When the incriminating evidence was put across to the Accused the same was denied, which was recorded in the Sec. 313 statement.
10. Defence led evidence of one witness.
11. The trial Court proceeded for arguments and passed the above order of conviction and sentence.
12. Sri.Ravi B Naik, learned Senior counsel for Sri.Avinash M Angadi and Sri.J.Basavaraj appearing for the appellants, would submit that:
12.1. The entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. There are no eyewitnesses to the alleged crime. The said circumstantial evidence is not corroborated by any cogent evidence on record.
12.2. The investigation has been done in absurd manner and does not support the charges laid against the accused.
12.3. Of the 28 witnesses who were examined in the matter, except the official witness, everybody has turned hostile, none of
Point of Law : Where a woman is raped by one or more in a group of persons acting in furtherance of their common intention, each of the person shall be deemed to have committed gang rape within the m....
Circumstantial evidence can support convictions for conspiracy and murder, even if witnesses turn hostile, provided the overall evidence points consistently to the guilt of the accused.
Minor discrepancies and shortcomings in statements made by witnesses after passage of a few years would necessarily have to be discounted.
(1) Death sentence cannot be awarded on evidence of a child witness.(2) Corroboration of testimony of a child witness is not a rule but a measure of caution and prudence.
Point of Law : Prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused persons by facilitating worthwhile evidence. [Para 236]
(1) While appreciating evidence in criminal cases, there cannot be a strait-jacket formula. Evidence must be appreciated from perception of a prudent common man.(2) Conduct of a stranger eyewitness t....
Circumstantial evidence must be cogent and complete to establish guilt; the evidence of an approver requires careful scrutiny and corroboration.
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
