Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
R.NATARAJ, RAJESH RAI K.
Bhimanna, S/o. Bharamu Chipparagi – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka, by CPI Athani Circle, Athani, Represented By The Additional SPP, High Court Of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(RAJESH RAI K., J.)
This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 06.02.2023 and order of sentence dated 07.02.2023 passed in Sessions Case No.393/2017 by the VII Addl. Sessions Judge, Belagavi, Sitting at Chikkodi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned Sessions Judge’), whereby the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Section s 341 , 504 and 302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of five days for the offence punishable under Section 341 of IPC . He further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,500/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC . The accused was also sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.15,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC . It is directed that all the
Evidentiary value of eyewitness testimony can support a conviction even if the witness is related to the victim, provided the testimony is credible and corroborated by additional evidence.
The conviction under Section 302 of IPC was upheld due to circumstantial evidence demonstrating motive and opportunity, proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The court affirmed that eyewitness testimony, corroborated by forensic evidence, established the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt for murder and intimidation.
The reliability of eyewitness testimony, particularly in murder cases, affirms conviction even when the witness is a relative, unless significant contradictions are proven.
Point of law: it is clear that Indian legal system does not insist on plurality of witnesses. Neither the legislature (Section 134 of the Evidence Act, 1872 ) nor the judiciary mandates that there mu....
Section 304 Part II IPC relates to punishment but without any intention to cause death.
The court affirmed that consistent eyewitness testimony and established motive are critical in upholding a murder conviction under IPC Section 302.
The testimony of a sole eye-witness can suffice for conviction if credible and corroborated by medical evidence, even if the extra-judicial confession is weak.
A conviction under Section 302 IPC can be upheld based solely on the testimony of the informant if corroborative evidence exists, even in absence of independent witnesses.
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
