Convictions based solely on confessions require corroborative evidence; absence of such evidence can lead to wrongful conviction.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR)

This appeal by the accused No.2 in Sessions Case No.168/2020, is directed against the impugned judgment dated 12.03.2025 passed by the VII Additional Sessions Judge, Belagavi sitting at Chikkodi (for short, ‘the Trial Court’), whereby the Trial Court convicted the appellant/accused No.2 for the offences punishable under Section 109 of INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’), for abetting the murder committed by accused No.1 who was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC.

2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are as under;

(a) PW1-the complainant Channappa Siddappa Karigar filed a complaint on 13.12.2019, alleging that his wife Smt. Bhagyashree was murdered by accused No.1, sister of the deceased, during the midnight of 08.12.2019, and that the accused No.1 was guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. In pursuance of the aforesaid complaint filed by PW1 before the respondent-police authorities at 07.30 p.m. on 13.12.2019, the police authorities registered an FIR in Crime No.139/2019 against the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 302 , 201 and 109 of IPC.

(b) Subsequently, after investigation, the police authorities filed a charge sheet on 14.02.2022 by arraying the appellant herein as accused No.2 and the said proceedings were initiated in SC No.168/2020 before the Trial Court. While the accused No.1 was alleged to have committed offence under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC, the appellant/accused No.2 was alleged to have committed the offence of abetment to murder as contemplated under Section 109 of IPC.

3. It is a matter of record that accused No.1 and appellant/accused No.2 were arrested on 14.12.2019 and the appellant/accused No.2 was enlarged on bail on 02.07.2021 while the accused No.1 continued to remain in custody.

4. The prosecution examined 21 witnesses as PW1 to PW21 and documentary evidence at Ex.P1 to P40 were marked, as well as the material objects at MO1 to MO23 were marked. The appellant/accused No.2 as well as the accused No.1 did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence on their behalf. After hearing the parties, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the accused No.1 was guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC, while the appellant/accused No.2 was guilty for the offences punishable under Section 109 of IPC. Accordingly the Trial Court passed order on sentence, which reads as under:

“Accused No. 1 and 2 are hereby sentenced to undergo the Rigorous Imprisonment for Life and to pay the fine of ₹1,00,000/- each for the offence punishable U/Sec. 302 and 109 of INDIAN PENAL CODE respectively. In default of fine, the accused no.1 and 2 shall undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of one year.

Accused No. 1 is further sentenced to undergo the Simple Imprisonment for one year and to pay the fine of ₹10,000/- for the offence punishable U/Sec. 201 of INDIAN PENAL CODE . In default of fine, the accused no.1 shall undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen days.

Out of total fine amount of ₹2,10,000/- imposed on the accused no.1 and the amount of ₹2,00,000/- shall be paid to C.W.1 by way of compensation U/Sec. 357 Cr. P. C, and the remaining amount of ₹10,000/- shall go to the state exchequer towards public cause.

All sentences shall run consecutively.

The period of detention of accused no.1 & 2 in judicial custody be "set off" as against the sentence imposed on him U/Sec. 428 Cr. P. C.

MO.6 shall be released in favour of complainant and MO.7 shall be confiscated t