Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 12670
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR, MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND, JJ
MR. NAGESH S/O THANGAVELU – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRL.A 1289 / 2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI H. S. SURESH
For the Respondents: SMT. R. SOWMYA
A conviction cannot be sustained on incomplete circumstantial evidence; when multiple interpretations exist, the view favoring the accused must be adopted.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 374(2) - Appeal against conviction for murder - Accused convicted for life imprisonment, later acquitted on appeal due to insufficient evidence - Prosecution's case based on circumstantial evidence, which was found to be incomplete and uncorroborated by key witnesses - Evidence of hostility among witnesses and inconsistencies in testimonies raised reasonable doubt about the prosecution's case. (Paras 1-23)
(B) Legal Principles - The principle that when more than one view is possible, the view favoring the accused should be accepted - A conviction cannot be sustained on incomplete circumstantial evidence. (Paras 18-21)
Facts of the case:
The accused was convicted of murdering his wife, Asha, amid allegations of dowry-related harassment. The prosecution's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including a complaint and witness testimonies, but key witnesses turned hostile, undermining the prosecution's narrative.
Findings of Court:
The trial court's conviction was based on unreliable evidence, leading to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Issues: The main issues included the credibility of witness testimonies, the completeness of circumstantial evidence, and the validity of the accused's alibi.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the prosecution did not conclusively establish the accused's guilt, highlighting the need for a complete chain of evidence in circumstantial cases.
Result: Appeal allowed; the conviction and sentence of the trial court were set aside, and the accused was acquitted.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the prosecution's case is based on the accused's alleged actions leading to the death of the deceased. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. defense argues prosecution's case is weak due to witness hostility and investigation flaws. (Para 5) |
| 3. prosecution presents witnesses and evidence, but many witnesses turn hostile. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain for conviction; doubts favor the accused. (Para 18 , 19 , 21) |
| 5. the appeal is allowed; the accused is acquitted due to insufficient evidence. (Para 23) |
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND)
The accused in S.C. No. 44/2015 has preferred this appeal, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 14.06.2019 and order on sentence dated 15.06.2019 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Mandya, wherein he has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 (for short, 'IPC') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused was married to the deceased, Asha, on 16.05.2009. At the time of marriage, the accused is stated to have received gold and silver ornaments as dowry. After the marriage, the accused and the deceased were residing at Halebudanaur village. It is alleged that the accused began suspecting the fidelity of the deceased. On 28.01.2015, at about 9:15 a.m., the accused is said to have closed the door of the house, increased the volume of the home theatre speakers, picked up a quarrel with the deceased, and assaulted her with a bamboo club on her head, right arm, and other parts of the body, causing her to fall to the ground. Thereafter, he allegedly slit her neck with a knife. It is further alleged that, soon after the death of the deceased, the accused abandoned her body in a room, locked the house, and handed over the keys to PW.2 before leaving the premises.
3. PW.1 lodged a complaint with the police, which came to be registered as per Ex.P1. Upon completion of investigation, the prosecution filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) and Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act , 1961 (for short, ‘DP Act’). The trial Court framed charges against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 304-B of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the DP Act.
4. The trial Court, upon appreciation of the oral testimonies of the witnesses, documentary evidence, and material objects, recorded a finding of guilt against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. However, the accused was acquitted of the charges under Section 304-B of the IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the DP Act. Consequently, the trial Court sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/-.
5. Sri H. S. Suresh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that the case against the accused was built by the prosecution primarily on the basis of the complaint lodged by PW.1. However, PW.1 did not support the case of the prosecution during trial. It is further case of the prosecution that the accused had handed over the house keys to PW.2, but PW.2 denied having received the keys from the accused. PW.5, the father of the deceased, deposed that the relationship between the accused and the deceased was cordial. He further stated that the deceased was engaged in money lending activities and was involved in frequent quarrels, which he admitted in his testimony. PW.5 also stated that the accused had no bad habits, although he expressed suspicion regarding the death of the deceased.
6. It is further submitted that the independent witnesses examined by the prosecution have turned hostile and have not supported the case of the prosecution. There was i
