Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
K.S.MUDAGAL, VENKATESH NAIK T.
Arun Kumar M., S/o. Murugan – Appellant
Versus
State By Bagaluru P.S. Represented By S.P.P – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
VENKATESH NAIK T, J.
Challenging the order of his conviction and sentence, accused No.1 in S.C. No.15033/2015 on the file of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural, Sitting at Devanahalli, has preferred this appeal.
2. The appellant was prosecuted in S.C. No.15033/2015 for the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 120B, 109, 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ' IPC ') on the basis of the charge-sheet filed by Bagaluru Police in Crime No.213/2014 of their Police Station.
3. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to henceforth according to their ranks before the trial Court. The appellant was accused No.1 in SC No.15033/2015. Pending the case, accused Nos.3 and 4 died. Hence, case against them stood abated. As accused No.7 was absconding, case against him was split up. Accused Nos.2, 5, 6 and 8 to 10 have been acquitted of the charges leveled against them.
4. The case of the prosecution is as follows:-
The first informant/Sri Muniswamigowda (PW1) lodged complaint as per Ex.P1 before the respondent-Bagaluru Police on 30-12-2014, alleging that, when he had been to his land on that
Circumstantial evidence must establish a clear, unbroken chain pointing to guilt without reasonable doubt; the absence of direct evidence requires further corroboration for conviction.
The standards of proof in criminal law necessitate that the prosecution must establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, which was not met due to lack of reliable evidence.
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....
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 ....
Point of Law : It is suffice to hold that said period of incarceration undergone by appellants shall be termed as service of sentence and the same will meet the ends of justice. [Para 44]
Circumstantial evidence, including motive and opportunity, confirmed the guilt of the accused for premeditated murder, substantiating conviction under Section 302 IPC.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases, especially when relying on circumstantial evidence, which requires stringent adherence to established evidentiary standards....
It is one of the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent till he is proved to be guilty. It is equally well settled that suspicion howsoever strong....
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
