SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Kar) 739

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU 
K.S. MUDAGAL, K.V. ARAVIND, JJ.
Sandeepa B.D. S/o Dharmappa - Appellant
Versus
The State of Karnataka - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 878 of 2018
Decided On : 29-05-2025


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : H.S. Chandramouli, Rajath
For the Respondent: Sowmya R.

Circumstantial evidence must conclusively link the accused to the crime, proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt without leaving alternative hypotheses of innocence; any failure results in acquittal.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 302, 392, 201 - Conviction and sentencing for murder and theft - The appellant challenged conviction for murder and theft on grounds of circumstantial evidence lacking cogency and consistency. The prosecution's case built solely on circumstantial evidence failed to meet legal standards set forth in judicial precedents regarding circumstantial cases. (Paras 11, 17, 61)

(B) Evidence - For conviction on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove that each circumstance is established, consistent with the accused's guilt, and exclude all reasonable hypotheses of innocence. The evidence presented lacked a complete chain, leading to reasonable doubt about the accused's involvement. (Paras 17, 61)

(C) Trial court errors - The trial court failed to appreciate inconsistencies in witness testimonies, particularly regarding motive and last seen evidence, which negatively impacted the prosecution's case. (Paras 11, 61)

Facts of the case:
The accused was charged with murdering Lokeshwari @ Vidya and her child Shubha, motivated by theft of jewelry. The killings were alleged to happen during a quarrel about the stolen items when the accused was reportedly the only person present.

Issues: The court addressed whether the concomitant circumstantial evidence confidently established the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, considering the trial court's conviction hinged on flawed evidence and procedural lapses.

Findings of Court:
The court identified substantive errors in the trial court's judgment and noted the lack of coherent circumstantial evidence warranted acquittal.

Ratio Decidendi: Suspicion alone is insufficient for conviction; every aspect of evidence must link to the accused's guilt and must meet stringent legal standards to affirm a guilty verdict. The failure to conclusively link the accused to the offence warranted the conclusion that reasonable doubt existed.

Result: Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside; accused acquitted.

Table of Content
1. conviction challenge basis (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. details of theft and murder (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. arguments on evidence reliability (Para 8 , 10)
4. prosecution's counterarguments on witness credibility. (Para 9)
5. determination of sustainable judgment (Para 11 , 12)
6. background of the accused and motive for the crime. (Para 13 , 14)
7. circumstantial evidence presented by prosecution. (Para 15 , 16)
8. legal standards for circumstantial evidence (Para 17 , 61)
9. examination of motive and last seen (Para 18 , 19 , 22)
10. medical evidence confirming homicidal death. (Para 20 , 21)
11. motive established through witness testimonies. (Para 23 , 24 , 25)
12. inconsistencies in witness testimonies regarding motive. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37)
13. last seen theory and its evidentiary challenges. (Para 38 , 40)
14. issue of prosecution evidence integrity (Para 39 , 60)
15. credibility issues with last seen evidence. (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44)
16. recovery evidence and its implications. (Para 45 , 46)
17. issues with the recovery process and credibility. (Para 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51)
18. legal standards for recovery evidence. (Para 52 , 53)
19. challenges regarding the absence of the accused. (Para 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58)
20. fsl evidence and its insufficiency for conviction. (Para 59)

JUDGMENT :

K.S. MUDAGAL, J.

1. Challenging the judgment and order of conviction passed against him for the offences punishable under Sections 302 , 392, 201 of IPC, the accused in S.C.No.72/2015 on the file of III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Hassan has preferred this appeal.

2. The appellant was sole accused. He was tried in S.C.No.72/2015 for the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 392 , 302 and 201 of IPC on the basis of the charge sheet filed by Arakalgudu police in Crime No.315/2014 of their police station. For the purpose of convenience the parties are referred to henceforth according to their ranks before the trial Court.

3. Crime No.315/2014 was registered initially against unknown persons for the offence under Section 302 of IPC on the basis of the complaint filed by PW.1 as per Ex.P1.

4. It was alleged that the accused/cousin of the deceased Lokeshwari @ Vidya had committed theft of her gold chain and two finger rings. On Lokeshwari @ Vidya threatening him of the consequences, he had returned gold chain and was seeking time to return two finger rings. But he had sold them. On 17.12.2014 when he visited her house, she pestered him to return the finger rings, otherwise threatened to inform his parents about the same. When she tried to call his parents, a scuffle took place between Lokeshwari @ Vidya and accused in the kitchen, he committed her murder and to screen the evidence of murder, doused her with kerosene and set her on fire. By that time, victim’s daughter aged 1 ½ years was also in the kitchen. The accused leaving the child also in the kitchen and snatching gold mangalya chain of the victim sped away.

5. The trial Court on committal of the case and on hearing the parties framed the charges against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 392 , 302 and 201 of IPC. As the accused denied charges and claimed trial, the trial was conducted.

6. In support of the case of the prosecution, PW.1 to PW.39 were examined, Exs.P1 to P44 and MOs.1 to 19 were marked. On examination of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. with reference to incriminating evidence, he did not lead any evidence. The trial Court on hearing the parties by the impugned judgment and order convicted and sentenced the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 392 , 302 and 201 of IPC. The terms of imprisonment and fine is as follows:

S. No.Offence Under SectionSentenceFine in Rs.Default sentence
1.302 of IPCLife Imprisonment5,000/-SI for 6 months
2.201 of IPCImprisonment of three years1,000/-SI for 2 months
3.392 of IPCRI of 7 years2,000/-SI for 4 months

7. Challenging the said judgment, the accused h

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top