Case Note & Summary
The appeals were filed by accused No.1 (Harish) and accused No.3 (Lokesh @ Sathish) against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 25.04.2017 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan in S.C.No.215/2012. The trial court convicted accused No.1 for offences punishable under Sections 302, 120(B), 201 r/w 34 of IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment and fine, and convicted accused No.3 for offence under Section 201 r/w 34 of IPC. The case of the prosecution was that on 20.06.2012, the deceased Manjunath was last seen with accused No.1 and others, and later his dead body was found in a well. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence including motive, last seen theory, recovery of weapons, and extra-judicial confession. The High Court analyzed the evidence and found that the prosecution failed to prove motive, the last seen evidence was unreliable as the witnesses turned hostile, the recovery of weapons was not credible, and the extra-judicial confession was not voluntary. The court held that the chain of circumstances was incomplete and did not conclusively point to the guilt of the accused. Accordingly, the appeals were allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the accused were acquitted.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Circumstantial Evidence - Sections 302, 120(B), 201 r/w 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain of circumstances pointing only to guilt - Prosecution failed to establish motive, last seen theory, and recovery of weapons beyond reasonable doubt - Held that conviction cannot be sustained (Paras 1-30). B) Criminal Law - Criminal Conspiracy - Section 120(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Conspiracy must be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence of agreement - No evidence of meeting of minds between accused - Held that charge of conspiracy fails (Paras 15-20). C) Criminal Law - Causing Disappearance of Evidence - Section 201 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Offence requires knowledge that an offence has been committed and intention to screen offender - Recovery of dead body at instance of accused No.3 not sufficient to prove knowledge of murder - Held that conviction under Section 201 is unsustainable (Paras 25-30).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of accused No.1 under Sections 302, 120(B), 201 r/w 34 IPC and accused No.3 under Section 201 r/w 34 IPC is sustainable based on circumstantial evidence.
Final Decision
Appeals allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellants acquitted of all charges.
Law Points
- Circumstantial evidence must be complete and consistent with guilt
- motive must be proved
- last seen theory requires corroboration
- recovery under Section 27 of Evidence Act must be voluntary and reliable
- Section 201 IPC requires proof of knowledge of offence
