Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from the judgment and conviction dated 23.10.2019 and order of sentence dated 28.10.2019 passed by the IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, in S.C. No. 166/2016. The trial court convicted the three appellants (accused Nos. 1 to 3) for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, sentencing them to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000 each for murder, and two years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000 each for causing disappearance of evidence. The appellants filed the instant criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to set aside the conviction and order of sentence and to be acquitted. The factual background is that the deceased, Marappa, was allegedly cautioned by the accused about his behaviour of eve-teasing and moving closely with the wife of accused No. 2. Despite intervention by witnesses, the deceased did not desist. Consequently, the accused decided to eliminate him. On 07.05.2016, they kept a long chopper and chilly powder packet in the auto-rickshaw of accused No. 3. Around 7:30 p.m., they went to Dairy Circle, Bangalore, where the deceased was talking with PW.1 (Ramanjini) and PW.4 (Raja). They asked the deceased to accompany them, promising alcohol. They took him to an abandoned house in Naidu Layout, made him consume alcohol, and when he was intoxicated and confronted them about their objection to his association with Shaheena, accused No. 1 brought the chopper, accused No. 3 sprinkled chilly powder in his eyes, accused No. 2 held his hands, and accused No. 1 chopped his head and right hand, causing his death. The accused then took the severed head and right hand and dumped them in a gutter near Vittasandra, Begur Road, to destroy evidence. Upon information, the police registered a case, investigated, identified the body through fingerprint analysis since the deceased was an accused in other crimes, arrested the accused, and recorded their voluntary statements. Recoveries of the chopper, blood-stained clothes, and the chopped head and right hand were made at their instance. FSL and DNA reports were obtained, and after investigation, a charge-sheet was filed. During trial, the prosecution examined 19 witnesses and marked 34 exhibits and 13 material objects. The accused did not lead defence evidence but denied incriminating evidence in their Section 313 Cr.P.C. statements. The trial court, after evaluating the evidence, particularly the testimony of PW.1, PW.4, the postmortem report, FSL/DNA evidence, and recoveries, held that the case rested on circumstantial evidence which formed a complete chain, and convicted the accused. The legal issue before the High Court was whether the trial court correctly appreciated the circumstantial evidence and whether the conviction was sustainable. The appellants contended that the evidence was insufficient and sought acquittal. The High Court was to re-appreciate the evidence and decide the appeal.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Circumstantial Evidence - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 201, 34 - The prosecution case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence including motive, last seen together, recovery of weapons and body parts at the instance of the accused, DNA profiling, and forensic reports - The trial court, after scrutinizing the evidence of 19 prosecution witnesses and 34 exhibits, held that the chain of circumstances was complete and pointed unerringly to the guilt of the accused - The accused had a motive to eliminate the deceased due to his continued eve-teasing and close association with the wife of accused No.2 - The accused were last seen with the deceased on the evening of the incident - Recovery of the chopper and body parts at their instance further corroborated the prosecution case - The DNA analysis confirmed the identity of the deceased and linked the blood stains on the recovered articles to him - Held that the conviction under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 IPC was justified based on circumstantial evidence (Paras 3-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellants under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 IPC based on circumstantial evidence and whether the prosecution proved the chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt to establish the guilt of the accused.
Law Points
- capital punishment
- circumstantial evidence
- chain of circumstances must be complete
- common intention under Section 34 IPC
- destruction of evidence under Section 201 IPC
- DNA profiling as corroborative evidence
- hostile witness
- last seen theory
- motive
- recovery under Section 27 of Evidence Act
- Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement
