Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 33776
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
K.S.Mudagal, M.G.S. Kamal, JJ
GIRISHA ALIAS GIRISH ALIAS GIRI S/O GURUVA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1528/2018 | S.C.NO.5013/2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. SUBRAHMANYA P.D. ADV.
For the Respondents: SMT. SOWMYA R, HCGP
A conviction under Section 302 IPC necessitates credible evidence. Inconsistent eyewitness accounts can create reasonable doubt, resulting in acquittal.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Criminal Appeal - Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside due to reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the appellant - Eyewitness accounts were found to be contradictory and inconsistent - No clear evidence linking the appellant to the murder was established. (Paras 43 and 44)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 374(2) - A criminal appeal can lead to acquittal if the prosecution fails to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 44)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for murdering the victim after an altercation over money. He allegedly stabbed the victim multiple times, leading to injuries resulting in death. Eyewitnesses claimed to have seen the incident, but their testimonies lacked credibility due to inconsistencies regarding the sequence of events and the evidence presented. (Paras 1, 2, 34)
Findings of Court:
The trial court's judgment was overturned as the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, highlighting contradictions in witness accounts and insufficient evidence linking the appellant to the crime. (Paras 43, 44)
Issues: Whether the trial court was justified in convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC given the contradictions and lack of reliable evidence from eyewitnesses. (Para 9)
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that inherent contradictions in the testimonies of witnesses raised reasonable doubt about the appellant's involvement in the crime, which necessitated the acquittal. The standard of proof in criminal cases requires the presentation of consistent and credible evidence to uphold a conviction. (Paras 41, 43)
Result: Appeal is allowed; the conviction and sentence are set aside, and the appellant is acquitted of the charge.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of conviction and background facts. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments regarding inconsistencies of evidence. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 3. court's observations on prosecution evidence and contradictions. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43) |
| 4. final decision on appeal and acquittal. (Para 44) |
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL)
This appeal is against the Judgment and order dated 30.11.2017 passed in S.C.No.5013/2017 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu- Madikeri sitting at Virajpet (hereinafter referred to as 'trial Court' for short) by which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for six months.
2. Case of the prosecution is that appellant-accused and one Mohan-victim, being daily workers used to sleep at Ambedkar Samudaya Bhavana (Ambedkar Community Hall) situated at Gonikoppal. That on 28.01.2017 between 10.30 p.m. to 11.00 p.m., appellant-accused quarrelled with the Mohan-victim demanding money and stabbed him with a knife on his abdomen, neck and back causing grievous injuries in the presence of Girish H.A.-PW1, Pawan R. -PW2, Vinay K.P. -PW3 and Aruna-PW4. That appellant-accused went away throwing the knife near the door of the hall. That PW1 to PW4 shifted the injured- Mohan initially to Gonikoppal Hospital and thereafter to Madikeri Government Hospital for treatment and later to K.R Hospital, Mysuru. Since the treatment was not successful injured Mohan succumbed to the injuries on 02.02.2017 at 00.05 hours.
3. Upon the complaint lodged by PW1 a case in Crime No.8/2017 was registered initially for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC which was later converted to offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Appellant-accused was arrested on 30.1.2017 and based on his voluntary statement leading to recovery of knife by the investigation officer in the presence of Panchas and discovery of clothes worn by him at the time of incident and on recording of the statement of the eyewitnesses and by obtaining the Post-mortem report, a charge sheet was filed by the police on 06.03.2017 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Accused pleaded not guilty and sought for trial.
4. Prosecution examined 12 witnesses as PW1 to PW12 and marked 27 documents as Exs.P1 to P27 and five material objects as MOs.1 to 5. Accused has denied the incriminating evidence produced by the prosecution against him while recording the statement under Section 313 of CR.P.C. Accused has not led any defence evidence.
5. The trial Court framed the following point for its consideration:
"1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 28-1-2015 between 10.30 P.M and 11.00 P.M within the jurisdiction of Gonikoppal Police Station at Gonikoppal in Ambedkar Samudaya Bhavana (Ambedkar Community Hall), Gonikoppal situated near Mutton and Chicken shop the accused who was sleeping with the CW-2 to 4 and Mohan picked up quarrel with Mohan in respect of money matters and with an intention to kill Mohan he assaulted and stabbed him with knife on his abdomen, neck, back and other parts of the body and caused him grievous injuries and thereafter injured when taking treatment in K.R.Hospital, Mysuru succumbed to injuries on 2-2-2017 and thereby the accused committed murder of Mohan and the accused committed an offence punishable U/s 302 of IPC? 2) What Order?"
6. On appreciation of evidence led by the prosecution, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant-accused as noted above. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant is before this Court.
7. Taking this Court through the records learned counsel for the appellant submitted;
(a)
