Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
H.P. SANDESH, VENKATESH NAIK T.
Kumar, S/o. Eshwarappa – Appellant
Versus
State By Shikaripura Rural Police, Shikaripura, Rep. By State Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Karnataka – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction under ipc sections. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments on evidence and timing. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. assessment of evidence and motive. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. screening evidence and guilt established. (Para 18 , 19) |
| 5. final order on appeal. (Para 20) |
JUDGMENT :
H.P. SANDESH, J.
1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the counsel appearing for the respondent/State-Addl. SPP.
2. This appeal is filed against the conviction for the offence punishable under Section 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as IPC) and sentenced the accused for life imprisonment and also pay fine of Rs.20,000/- for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and undergo sentence for a period of 3 years and also pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in respect of Section 201 of IPC and default sentence also imposed for both the offences and the same is challenged before this Court.
3. The factual matrix of case of prosecution is that on 01.05.2015 at about 5:50 a.m., the complainant and one Rudrappa have noticed the body of the deceased lying on the edge of the road near Kanivemane Village bridge; on going-over they found that it was the body of the p
The conviction under Sections 302 and 201 IPC was upheld based on extrajudicial confessions and established motive for financial gain through insurance proceeds, indicating a premeditated murder rath....
In order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the gui....
The court determined that in circumstances of domestic disputes leading to death, the accused's actions warrant a lesser charge when proven without premeditation and intent to kill.
The conviction for murder was upheld based on substantial eyewitness testimony and evidence of motive, affirming the principle that direct evidence substantiates a guilty verdict beyond reasonable do....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of reliable and convincing evidence in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Section 106 of the Evidence Act reads Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge – When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.
Point of Law : Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reveals that whenever a Court desires to give judgment as to any legal right or liability depend on the existence of facts which he asserts....
Point of law: Conviction set aside – Murder case - duty is cast upon the prosecution to produce worthwhile evidence to establish the guilt against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused caused the death of the deceased in order to secure a conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Pa....
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
