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

2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 5499

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI, J
Subhash S/o. Bhauraj Teradal – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103160 OF 2024



Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :SRI JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE
For the Respondent: SMT. GIRIJA S.HIREMATH, HCGP

The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, especially in murder cases, and confessions made in custody are inadmissible unless they lead to the discovery of evidence.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 201, 109, and 34 - Petition for regular bail filed by accused no.1 in a murder case - The prosecution's case relies on circumstantial evidence, including confessions and last seen theory, with no eyewitnesses available - The court emphasized the necessity of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt, especially in heinous crimes. (Paras 1, 4, 14, 17)

(B) Extra-judicial Confession - The court noted that confessions made to police while in custody are inadmissible unless they lead to the discovery of evidence, highlighting the need for corroboration. (Paras 15, 16)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner is accused of murdering the victim, who was found dead with traumatic injuries. The prosecution's case is based on circumstantial evidence, including confessions and the last seen theory, with no eyewitnesses. (Paras 3, 4)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution's reliance on confessional statements was weak and emphasized the need for proof beyond reasonable doubt. The petitioner was granted bail due to insufficient evidence to deny bail. (Paras 17)

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the charges and the evidence presented. (Paras 12, 13)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the prosecution must prove all circumstances beyond reasonable doubt, and the reliance on confessions made in custody is problematic without corroborating evidence. (Paras 17)

Result: Petition allowed; petitioner granted bail subject to conditions.

CAV ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI)

This petition is filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail in Crime no.73/2024 by Aigali Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 302 , 201 and 109 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’) by accused no.1 (Petitioner).

2. Sri Jagadish Patil, learned counsel for petitioner submitted case of prosecution was that Smt.Shaila Terdal was married to Basappa @ Basavaraj Terdal (victim) and she was residing with victim, their two children, parents-in-law, brother- in-law and his wife together at Khojanawadi village. And since one year, victim had brought one married woman Smt.Susheela Bannatti and kept her in their house. And that victim owned Motorcycle for his own use.

3. On evening of 05.05.2024, her brother-in-law went to Gulbarga with a load of grapes in his pickup vehicle. And that one of her relative Ramesh Guruning Benade visited them. At that time, victim informed Ramesh that he was going to drop his sister – Kavitha to her matrimonial home on his motorcycle and that Ramesh also accompanied them. But, when victim did not return and had left his Mobile phone at home, she called Ramesh at 2:30 a.m. And that Ramesh informed her, after dropping Kavitha, victim had said that he would visit Raju Subhash Terdal. And when she called Raju, he did not receive call, therefore she called Subhash Terdal, who told her that victim had not come to his house. Therefore, her father-in-law and brother Sangamesh went in search and came back at 8:20 a.m. without finding him. At 10:00 a.m., her brother went out to search once again and returned at 11:00 a.m. with information that victim was killed and his body was lying with his motorcycle near Wind Mills. Suspecting that some had killed her husband by hitting him on his head with some weapon, she filed complaint at about 5:30 p.m. on 06.05.2024 for taking action. Complaint was registered as Crime no.73/2024 for offences under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC .

4. It was submitted, as per complainant, complaint was filed after discussion with brother giving room for afterthought. It was submitted, after completion of investigation, Police had filed charge-sheet on 03.08.2024 and contents of column no.17, showed that there were no eye- witnesses and that prosecution case almost entirely depended on confessional statement of accused no.2 before Police, while being in custody. Only overt act with reference to petitioner was on instigation of accused no.2, petitioner had committed offences alleged. It was submitted, confession was extra judicial confession (‘EJC’) and which as per Sections 25 to 27 of Evidence Act, would not be acceptable, by referring to Randeep Singh @ Rana and Anr. v. State of Haryana reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3383 .

5. Thus, when prosecution case was based on circumstantial evidence and prosecution was required to prove all circumstances beyond reasonable doubt during trial. Since petitioner was arrested on 12.05.2024 and was in custody until filing of charge sheet, he would not be required for custodial interrogation. Besides, petitioner was law abiding citizen and permanent resident of Khojanawadi village and also possessed both movable and immovable properties. It was also submitted, there no criminal antecedents. On above grounds, learned counsel sought for allowing petition by imposing conditions.

6. On other hand, Smt.Girija S. Hiremath, learned HCGP for respondent – State opposed petition. It was submitted petitioner was accused no.1 charged with commission of murder and destruction of evidence. Said offences were heinous in nature and punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Though, prosecution case was dependent on circumstantial evidence, it had sufficient material to sustain charges. Insofar as first circumstance, CW-13 – Ramappa @ Ramesh stating that on 05.05.2024, victim had come to drop his sister Kavita

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