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
| 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 Section | Sentence | Fine in Rs. | Default sentence |
| 1. | 302 of IPC | Life Imprisonment | 5,000/- | SI for 6 months |
| 2. | 201 of IPC | Imprisonment of three years | 1,000/- | SI for 2 months |
| 3. | 392 of IPC | RI of 7 years | 2,000/- | SI for 4 months |
7. Challenging the said judgment, the accused h
Thulia Kali v. The State of Tamil Nadu
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra
Meharaj Singh v. State of U.P.
State of A.P. v. Punati Ramulu
Navaneetha Krishnan v. State by Inspector of Police
R. Sreenivasa v. State of Karnataka
Shivaji v. State of Maharashtra
Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra
Sadayappan Alias Ganesan v. State represented by Inspector of Police
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.
Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires undeniable proof of all circumstances leading solely to guilt, which was not satisfied in this case.
Murder Charge - When a murder charge is to be proved solely on circumstantial evidence, as in this case, presumption of innocence of the accused must have a dominant role.
Circumstantial evidence requires complete chain excluding innocence; long time gap invalidates last seen theory without ruling out third-party intervention; open-place recoveries lack credibility; un....
For a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, each link in the chain must be established beyond reasonable doubt; failure to do so warrants acquittal.
The sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
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 ....
In cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances and a motive for the crime to secure a conviction.
Convictions under circumstantial evidence require a complete and unbroken chain of proof; mere suspicion is insufficient for establishing guilt.
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.