SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2010 (4) Crimes 40 (SC)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Harjit Singh Bedi and J.M. Panchal, JJ.
G. Parshwanath — Appellant
versus
State of Karnataka — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 628 of 2005
Decided on : 18-8-2010

IMPORTANT POINT
Every suspicion is not a doubt. Only reasonable doubt gives benefit to the accused and not the doubt of a vacillating judge.

Headnote:(a) Criminal trial – Circumstantial evidence – Principles for appreciation restated. (Para 11)

        (b) Criminal Trial – Benefit of doubt – Every suspicion is not a doubt – Only reasonable doubt gives benefit to the accused and not the doubt of a vacillating judge. (Para 22)

        (c) Criminal Trial – Circumstantial evidence – Motive – Where proved circumstances complete the chain of evidence, it cannot be said that in absence of motive, the other proved circumstances are of no consequence. (Para 22)

       Facts of the case:

        This appeal assails the judgment of the High Court confirming the conviction and sentence u/ss 302 and 201 IPC.

       Finding of the Court:

        The evidence on record has been rightly appreciated by the trial court and the High Court.

       Result : Appeal dismissed.

       

JUDGMENT

J.M. Panchal, J. —

The instant appeal questions legality of judgment dated December 17, 2004, rendered by High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No. 1427 of 2003 by which judgment dated September 1, 2003delivered by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Bellary in S.C. No. 91/93 convicting the appellant under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and sentencing him to undergo RI for life and fine of Rs.5,000/- in default RI for six months for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC as well as RI for one year and fine of Rs.2,000/- in default RI for two months for commission of offence punishable under Section 201 IPC, is confirmed.

2. The facts emerging from the record of the case are as under :-

Deceased Chethana was daughter of Jwalnaiah and Smt. Radhamma. The parents of the deceased were residents of Bangalore. Marriage of deceased Chethana took place with the appellant in the year 1987. After marriage the deceased started residing at Bellary because the appellant and his family were residents of Bellary. In the year 1988 the deceased gave birth to a male child, who was named Mahaveer. Initially the relations between the appellant and the deceased were cordial, but, after sometime bickering started taking place between the two of them. As the days passed by, this bickering grew into discordiality resulting in the harassment and cruelty to the deceased by the appellant. The deceased used to complain about harassment and cruelty meted out to her, to her father, mother and sister when she had occasion to meet them. The deceased Chethana had mentioned before her sister Ranjana Jain that the appellant was treating her cruelly and was harassing her because he was having a doubt that the male child was not born through him and that the appellant was having illicit relationship with one girl named Asha of Bangalore. The harassment meted out to the deceased reached such a peak that one day the deceased had to call her parents to Bellary and the parents had to take help of police to take back the deceased to their house at Bangalore. Obviously, the appellant was annoyed and, therefore, the appellant filed a petition for divorce. During the time when the deceased was staying with her parents at Bangalore and when the divorce petition was pending, efforts were made to settle the disputes between husband and wife amicably. The result of those efforts was that the appellant had withdrawn the divorce petition whereas the deceased had started living with the appellant at Bellary. On the surface, the differences appeared to have cooled down for some time but nevertheless ill treatment of the deceased by the appellant and ill feelings between the appellant and his family on one hand and the deceased on the other continued.

On May 13, 1993 around 1.45 P.M. the neighbours of the appellant noticed smoke and fumes emitting from the house of the appellant, which was situated at Ganesh Temple Street, Bellary. One of the neighbours summoned fire brigade service and also informed police. Papaiah and Neelakanat, who were then fire brigade officials, rushed to the house along with their team. They had to break open the front door of the house. When they entered the house, they noticed two completely burnt and charred bodies of a woman and child in one of the rooms. They found that the appellant was not present in the house. They also noticed that the appellant had come back to his house only after the information about the fire having taken place in his house was conveyed to him.

On receiving a phone call in the police station, ASI on duty went to the spot and made enquiry with the appellant, who by that time had come back to his house. On the basis of the statement made by the appellant the ASI registered a case as UDR No. 9/93 and sent requisition to the Executive Magistrate to draw inquest proceedings. Accordingly Mr. Mahmood, who was Taluka Executive Magistrate, went to the spot and held inquest on the dead bodies of th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top