IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
K.SOMASHEKAR, PRADEEP SINGH YERUR, JJ.
Sri Manjunath, S/o. G. Murthy – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.4 of 2018
Decided on : 26-06-2023
JUDGMENT :
This Criminal appeal is preferred by the appellant-accused. The appellant is aggrieved by the Judgment of Conviction and Order of Sentence dated 18.12.2017 passed in S.C.No.231/2015 by the I Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/-for the offence under Section 364 of IPC and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for a period of four months. Appellant is sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and in default for payment of fine he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Further, the appellant is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-for the offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC and in default for payment of fine he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months and the sentences are ordered to run concurrently.
2. This appeal is against the aforesaid judgment of conviction by the appellant-accused with an endeavour to free himself of the conviction and charges laid against him by the prosecution and from the ordeal of the torture of imprisonment for life. It is to be seen after re-examining and re-appreciating the material evidence placed on record as to whether prosecution has made out a valid ground to uphold the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court and whether the appellant-accused would be able to succeed in coming out of the clammy grip of sentence of imprisonment of life which would depend on the appreciation and analysis of evidence and the material placed on record.
3. Accused is convicted for having kidnapped and done to death one minor boy viz. Kiran Yadav, aged 14 years brutally by sitting on the top of the body of the minor Kiran Yadav by cutting the neck of Kiran Yadav brutally by using blade. As a result of which the minor Kiran Yadav received heavy bleeding injuries and died on the spot. After committing the murder, in order to conceal the same, he threw the dead body towards the bushes in the Jnana Bharathi University campus inside Sai grounds. On the basis of voluntary statement of the accused, complainant-Police registered the aforementioned case against him.
4. According to the prosecution, the background of the case is that during the month of December-2014, CW-2-Pramila who is none other than the mother of the deceased Kiran Yadav made a compliant to the mother of the accused, due to which the parents of the accused scolded him, as such, the accused got angry with CW.2-Pramila and with an intention to take revenge against her, on 04.02.2015, he took deceased Kiran Yadav, aged 14 years without the knowledge of anybody to murder him. With this intention, accused went to the shop of CW-14 Prabhudev, purchased 5 supermax shaving blades, kept them in his bike and about 5.45 p.m., he went near Vishwa Bharati School where deceased Kiran Yadav used to get down from the school van, waited there for deceased Kiran Yadav to get down from the school van and soon after he got down, talked to him and convinced him that his brother viz., Tilak Yadav fell down on the ground and received injuries on his head and that his family members have taken him to the Hospital and accordingly told the deceased Kiran Yadav to accompany him to go to the hospital. Thereafter, the accused took deceased Kiran Yadav in the black motorbike bearing No.KA02 HX 7901 as a pillion rider in the school uniform itself along with school bag towards Jnana Bharathi University campus, inside Sai grounds.
5. It is the further case of prosecution that Jnana Bharathi University campus consists of a thick forest trees with thick bushes. The accused with an intention to do away with the life of this Kiran Yadav closed the mouth of deceased Kiran Yadav by his hands pushed him down and sat over his body, took out one bla
Mousam Singha Roy and others vs. State of W.B
Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab's case reported in AIR 1957 SC 637
SHARAD BIRDHICHAND SARDA v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA reported in (1984)4 SCC 116
Rang Bahadur Singh and others vs. State of U.P.
Conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence requires a complete and coherent chain of events that excludes all reasonable hypotheses of innocence.
(1) Sentence – Power to impose punishment of imprisonment for life without remission is conferred only on Constitutional Courts and not on Sessions Courts.(2) Remission – No right accrues to accused ....
In circumstantial evidence cases, all links in the chain must be proven conclusively to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The court emphasized that circumstantial evidence must establish a complete and unbroken chain of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in capital cases.
In cases based on circumstantial evidence, each relevant fact must be proved beyond reasonable doubt by independent evidence, and the chain of evidence must be complete without giving room to any oth....
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
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.