The appeal was allowed due to insufficient evidence establishing the guilt of the appellant, highlighting the presumption of innocence and the importance of definitive evidence in criminal proceedings.

JUDGEMENT

AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present criminal appeal, under The Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970, is directed against the Final Judgment and Order dated 20.10.2010 in Crl. A. No.1952/2005 (hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Judgment”) passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as the “High Court”), whereby Digitally signed by SONIA BHASIN Date: 2023.09.06 14:36:39 IST Reason:

Signature Not Verified the High Court was pleased to allow the appeal filed by the State qua the sole appellant.

THE FACTUAL PRISM:

3. The appellant was a co-accused along with one other. Upon trial, both were acquitted. However, in appeal before the High Court preferred by the State of Karnataka, the appellant has been convicted under Section 3021 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the “IPC”) and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.

4. According to the prosecution story, on 03.01.2002 at about 4:30 P.M., an unidentified dead body of a male was found by the Complainant (PW1) in his field leading to institution of complaint with police. Later, the body was identified to be that of one Krishnappa. The allegation is that Accused No.1 (appellant herein) along with Accused No.2 with a common intention killed the deceased. The motive statedly being that the 1 302. Punishment for murder.—Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.

deceased had developed illicit intimacy with the appellant’s sister. It is alleged that both accused had further tried to destroy evidence by setting fire to the dead body by pouring petrol. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses including the Complainant/PW1 and one of the attestors to the inquest.

5. Upon trial, the Principal Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore by Judgment and Order dated 09.06.2005 acquitted the accused of offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC, holding that the prosecution had failed to prove that the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused and had also failed to prove the extra-judicial confession.

6. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 09.06.2005, the State of Karnataka filed Criminal Appeal No.1952 of 2005 before the High Court. The High Court vide the Impugned Judgment reversed the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court qua the appellant whereas the appeal against the co-accused-Accused No.2 (hereinafter referred to as “A2”) was dismissed. The same is under challenge in the present appeal by the appellant.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT:

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the ground for acquittal by the Trial Court is based on evidence and the reasons given are cogent for holding that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused under Sections 302 and 2012 of the IPC. It was further submitted that the High Court erred in reversing the order of acquittal against the 2 201. Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender.— Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false, if a capital offence.—shall, if the offen