Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 39547
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
MR JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR, MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI, JJ
NAGENDRA K – Appellant
Versus
STATE BY – Respondent
CRL.A 116 / 2021
SRI. TIGADI G. VEERANNA, ADVOCATE; SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, SPP-II
Circumstantial evidence must establish all links to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; the court upheld the conviction based on such evidence.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 201, and 394 - Conviction for murder and theft - Accused strangled the deceased to rob gold ornaments, and evidence included hair samples matching the accused and eyewitness accounts - Trial Court's conviction based on circumstantial evidence was upheld. (Paras 1-49)
(B) Circumstantial Evidence - All links in the chain of circumstantial evidence must be established beyond reasonable doubt for conviction - The prosecution successfully established the accused's guilt through various testimonies and forensic evidence. (Paras 1-49)
Facts of the case:
The accused was charged with murdering the deceased, strangling her during a robbery, and attempting to conceal the crime. Evidence included eyewitness accounts and forensic matches. (Paras 1-49)
Findings of Court:
The trial Court found the accused guilty based on comprehensive circumstantial evidence, including recovery of stolen items and matching hair samples. (Paras 1-49)
Issues: The main issues addressed were the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence and the credibility of eyewitness testimony. (Paras 1-49)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the circumstantial evidence presented was sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, thus affirming the trial Court's judgment. (Paras 1-49)
Result: Appeal dismissed; trial Court's judgment confirmed.
Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence for the offences punishable under Sections 302 , 201 and 394 IPC, imposed by the trial Court, accused has filed this appeal under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to by their ranks before the trial Court.
3. A charge sheet came to be filed against the accused alleging that on 19.08.2016, in between 9.30 and 10 a.m, when deceased Smt. Geethamma was alone in the house and requested the accused to change the LPG cylinder, accused entered the kitchen and with an intention to rob her gold ornaments, strangled her neck and dragged her to the bedroom and throttled her neck with a veil and committed theft of mangalya chain and three pairs of gold studs from the Almirah. In order to cause disappearance of evidence, accused sprinkled chilli powder on the dead body.
4. During the course of investigation, accused was apprehended and at his instance, the gold ornaments belonging to the deceased were seized through him. In the fist of the deceased, a few hair strands were found and the investigating officer collected hair samples of accused and on comparison by the FSL, it was found that the hair found in the fist of the deceased matched with the hair samples collected from the accused. According to the prosecution immediately after the incident, accused was seen outside the house of deceased by PW-2 Kumaraswamy. Post mortem examination of the deceased establish that her death was homicidal. After completing the investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against the accused.
5. Accused pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against him and claimed trial.
6. Vide the impugned judgment and order, the trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C and other sentences as detailed in the order.
7. Accused challenged the impugned judgment and order contending that it is illegal, improper and not in accordance with law. It is contrary to the evidence on record and as such liable to be set aside. The trial Court erred in convicting the accused without proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record resulting in miscarriage of justice. The entire case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence and all the links in the chain of circumstances are not completely established. The evidence on record is not consistent with the guilt of the accused. The trial Court has also not appreciated the fact that many circumstances and facts during the cross-examination of PWs-1, 2 and 4 point out that in all probabilities it is PW-4 who committed the offence in question. Only to safeguard PW-4, accused is being falsely implicated.
7.1 The recovery of gold ornaments belonging to the deceased at the instance of accused is not proved through the testimonies of PWs-17 to 19, especially when they have turned hostile. Evidence of PW-2 regarding accused being seen outside the house of deceased immediately after the incident is not reliable. According to PWs-1 and 4, turmeric/chilli powder was found sprinkled on the dead body and also blood stains near the dead body, but the investigating officer and the doctor have not corroborated the said fact. Turmeric powder was not seized from the spot. The son-in-law of PW-2 is not examined to prove his presence and other neighbouring witnesses, which is a major lacuna. Viewed from any angle the impugned judgment and order are not sustainable and hence it is to be set aside.
8. On the other hand, learned State Public Prosecutor-II submitted that on the basis of material placed on record, the prosecution proved the allegations against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the findings of the trial Court are based on the evidence placed on record by the prosecution. All the links in the chain are complete and they are consistent with the guilt of the accused and sought for dismissal of the appeal.
9. We have heard elaborate ar
