Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 25564
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Mohammad Nawaz, Geetha K.B., JJ
Abujar – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
CRL.A No. 100196 of 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K.L. Patil
For the Respondents: M.B. Gundawade
Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires a complete chain of facts pointing unerringly to guilt. Procedural inconsistencies in collecting identification evidence, such as finger prints, when coupled with a failure to prove essential elements like conspiracy, entitle the accused to the benefit of doubt.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120-B, 302, 201 read with Section 34 - Criminal appeal against conviction - Murder for gain - Circumstantial evidence - Reliability of finger print evidence - Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 - Sections 4 and 5 - Competency of police to take specimen finger prints.
(B) Circumstantial Evidence - Standard of proof - The chain of circumstances must be complete and point towards the guilt of the accused - Evidence of conspiracy must be concrete and not based on mere suspicion of contact (Paras 13, 47, 55).
(C) Finger Print Evidence - Specimen collection - While police are competent under Section 4 of the Identification of Prisoners Act to take finger prints, procedures must ensure no reasonable doubt arises regarding the collection timing vis-a-vis the arrest, especially when inconsistencies exist in the expert's report (Paras 41, 43).
Facts of the case:
The appellants were convicted for conspiracy, murder, and destruction of evidence based on circumstantial evidence, including call data records, recovery of incriminating objects, and finger print analysis. The prosecution alleged that the owner of a business was murdered for financial gain by a competitor under the guise of an outstanding debt payment. The trial court convicted both accused of all charges. The accused appealed, challenging the chain of circumstantial evidence and the validity of expert testimony.
Findings of Court:
The court held that homicidal death was proven. Recovered blood-stained items and financial transactions established a link to the primary accused. However, the evidence failed to establish the conspiracy charge or the specific involvement of the second accused. Discrepancies in the timing of the finger print expert's report created a reasonable doubt regarding the evidence against the second accused.
Issues: Whether the prosecution successfully established the chain of circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt for all charges and whether the finger print evidence was sufficient to convict both accused.
Ratio Decidendi: Circumstantial evidence must be cogent and complete. While recovery of items and call records corroborated the culpability of the primary accused, the lack of sufficient evidence regarding conspiracy and the procedural gaps concerning finger print collection necessitated the acquittal of the second accused and the setting aside of the conspiracy conviction.
Result: Appeal allowed-in-part; conviction for conspiracy set aside for the primary accused; acquittal granted in favor of the second accused.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background and prosecution case regarding circumstantial evidence linkage. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 2. arguments regarding sufficiency of circumstantial evidence and false implication. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 3. proof of homicidal death and established motive for the crime. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 4. evidentiary value of financial recovery as an incriminating circumstance. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 5. admissibility and reliability of finger print expert reports. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43) |
| 6. call detail records (cdr) as corroborative evidence of presence/conspiracy. (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48) |
| 7. legality of recoveries made pursuant to section 27 of evidence act. (Para 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55) |
| 8. appreciating evidence to determine individual culpability of multiple accused. (Para 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60) |
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 374(2) OF CR.PC., SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.03.2023 PASSED IN S.C.NO.65/2018, PASSED BY THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD SITTING AT HUBBALLI AND SENTENCE DATED 18.03.2023, PASSED IN THE SAME CASE, PASSED BY THE SAME JUDGE, CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS FOR THE OFFENES P/U/S 120-B, 302, 201 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC SENTENCING IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE AND TO PAY FINE OF RS.25,000/- FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 120-B, AND 302 OF IPC, FURTHER SENTENCING FOR 3 YEARS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 201 OF IPC, ORDERING SUBSTANTIVE SENTENCES OF IMPRISONMENT SHALL RUN CONCURRENTLY.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 27.02.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)
This appeal is preferred against the Judgment and Order dated 16.3.2023 passed by the Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, sitting at Hubballi in SC No.65/2018, wherein the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 are convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Sections 120B , 302, 201 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
2. For the offence punishable under Section 120B of IPC, accused are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo S.I. for 3 months.
3. For the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC, accused are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo S.I. for 6 months.
4. For the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC, accused are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo S.I. for 6 months.
Brief facts:-
5. It is the case of prosecution that, deceased Pandurang Pawar was owning a poultry farm at Panjarpol Road, Anchatgeri and he was also owning a chicken shop at Padadayyana Hakkal, P.B. Road, Old Hubballi under the name and style of ‘Hubballi Fresh Chicken’. Accused No.1, Abujar Nalaband, was running a Chicken shop in the name and style of “Chicken Point” near Nekarnagar Bridge and he was under heavy debt. The creditors of accused No.1 were repeatedly demanding repayment of the amounts due from him. In that background, accused No.1 hatched a conspiracy with accused No.2 to murder Panduranga Pawar, with an intention to rob the amount from him and utilize the same for clearing the debts, assuring accused No.2 that a portion of the amount would be given to him.
6. On 25.02.2018 at about 9.00 p.m., accused No.1 telephoned the deceased and asked him to come and collect the money payable for the chicken supplied to him. Accordingly, at about 9.30 p.m., deceased came to the shop of accused No.1, in his Tata Indica car bearing No.KA-25-Z-8261 and parked the car in front of his shop. When the deceased was sitting inside the shop and counting Rs.7,000/-, accused No.1 assaulted him with an iron spade on the left eyeb
