Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Kolar, in Sessions Case No. 10/2017. The appellants, N Venkoba Rao and V Somashekhara Rao, were convicted for the murder of one person. The prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence, primarily the last seen theory and alleged motive. The informant, the wife of the deceased, lodged a complaint. The trial court convicted the appellants, leading to this appeal. The High Court of Karnataka, in its judgment dated 19 August 2024, allowed the appeal. The court found that the circumstantial evidence was not complete and consistent with the guilt of the appellants. The witnesses who spoke about the last seen turned hostile, and the time gap between the last seen and the death was significant. The prosecution also failed to establish any motive. The court held that the chain of circumstances was not complete and the benefit of doubt must be given to the appellants. The conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Circumstantial Evidence - Section 302 r/w 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - The appellants were convicted for murder based on circumstantial evidence. The High Court held that the chain of circumstances must be complete and consistent with the guilt of the accused, and must exclude every other hypothesis. The prosecution failed to establish motive and the evidence of last seen together was not reliable. The appeal was allowed and the conviction was set aside. (Paras 1-20) B) Evidence Law - Last Seen Theory - Circumstantial Evidence - The prosecution relied on the theory of last seen together. The court held that the evidence of last seen must be credible and proximate in time to the death. In this case, the witnesses turned hostile and the time gap was large, making the theory unreliable. (Paras 10-15) C) Criminal Law - Motive - Section 302 IPC - The prosecution failed to prove any motive for the murder. The court held that while motive is not essential in every case, its absence weakens the circumstantial evidence. (Paras 16-18)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC based on circumstantial evidence is sustainable.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction dated 08.01.2018 and order on sentence dated 09.01.2018 passed in S.C.No.10/2017 by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Kolar, are set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC. Their bail bonds stand cancelled.
Law Points
- Circumstantial evidence must be complete and consistent with guilt
- motive must be proved
- benefit of doubt when evidence is inconsistent
