Back
K. SOMASHEKAR, S. RACHAIAH
Uma, W/O Cauvery Gowda – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR)
Criminal Appeal No.773/2018 and Criminal Appeal No.195/2018 have been preferred by the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) challenging the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence rendered by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara, sitting at Kanakapura, (for short ‘trial Court’) in S.C.No.5017/2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’). Both the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 namely Smt. Uma and Shri Shivabasavegowda have been convicted by the trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 r/w 34 of IPC. Both accused Nos.1 and 2 were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.30,000/each for the offence under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. For the offence under Section 201 r/w 34 of IPC, both accused Nos.1 and 2 were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain excluding all reasonable hypotheses of innocence.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, especially in circumstantial evidence cases, where inconsistencies can lead to acquittal.
Point of Law : It is suffice to hold that said period of incarceration undergone by appellants shall be termed as service of sentence and the same will meet the ends of justice. [Para 44]
The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and in cases relying on circumstantial evidence, the evidence must form a complete chain that excludes any reasonable do....
Murder and disappearance of evidence – Whenever any doubt emanates in mind of Court, benefit shall accrue to accused and not prosecution – Conviction only on the basis of last seen together cannot be....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the 'last seen together theory' and the reliance on circumstantial evidence, medical evidence, and recovery evidence to establis....
In a murder conviction based on circumstantial evidence, multiple corroborative factors, including the last seen theory and absence of alternative explanations, can establish guilt beyond reasonable ....
(1) Section 106 of Evidence Act does not directly operate against either a husband or wife staying under same roof and being last person seen with deceased.(2) In a case of circumstantial evidence, m....
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
