Case Note & Summary
The present appeal arose against the judgment of conviction dated 02.02.2017 passed by the III-Addl. Sessions Judge, Shivamogga in S.C.No.83/2016 convicting the accused under Section 302 IPC for the murder of one Rajasab @ Basha. The prosecution case was that on 18.12.2015, the deceased and accused were working as masons at a construction site owned by PW.1. They stayed at the site. The next morning, the deceased was found dead with injuries in a pool of blood, and the accused was missing. Based on suspicion, a complaint was lodged, leading to registration of Crime No.577/2015. After investigation, charge sheet was filed, and trial was conducted. The trial court convicted the accused. In appeal, the appellant contended that the conviction was based on insufficient circumstantial evidence. The advocate argued that the last-seen theory was not established as the accused was not shown to be present at the site after 7 p.m. on 18.12.2015. The recoveries of clothes and a wooden club were alleged to be planted, as the FSL report showed bloodstains while witnesses claimed no bloodstains. PWs.1 and 3 gave contradictory evidence, and the call records were not produced to substantiate the phone call claimed by PW.10. The appellant relied on precedents emphasizing that a complete chain of circumstances is necessary and that suspicion cannot replace proof. The court heard arguments but the provided excerpt does not contain the final decision or ratio decidendi.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt based on circumstantial evidence?
Law Points
- circumstantial evidence must form complete chain unerringly pointing to guilt
- suspicion cannot substitute proof
- voice identification evidence is unreliable
- bloodstains on clothes and weapon must be linked to deceased
Case Details
2022 LawText (KAR) (08) 25
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.516 OF 2017
K.Somashekar, T.G.Shivashankare Gowda
Leeladhar H.P., Vijayakumar Majage
Sri. Shekarappa S/o Rakundi Mallappa
State by Thunganagara Police Station, Shivamogga
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal under Section 374(2) CrPC against conviction and sentence for murder under Section 302 IPC.
Remedy Sought
Setting aside the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 02.02.2017, and acquittal of the accused.
Filing Reason
The trial court convicted the accused of murder based on circumstantial evidence, and the appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient and the conviction is unsustainable.
Previous Decisions
The III-Addl. Sessions Judge, Shivamogga in S.C.No.83/2016 convicted the accused under Section 302 IPC on 02.02.2017.
Issues
Whether the trial court correctly appreciated the circumstantial evidence, including last seen theory, recoveries, and motive, to convict the accused?
Whether the chain of circumstances is complete and unerringly points to the guilt of the accused?
Whether the recovery of clothes and weapons was proved and linked to the accused and the deceased?
Whether the FSL report contradictions and lack of call detail records affect the prosecution case?
Submissions/Arguments
Evidence of PW.1 and PW.3 is contradictory regarding last seen; accused not shown to be present at the site after 7 p.m. on 18.12.2015, chain of last seen is broken.
Recovery of clothes and club under Ex.P8 and P11 is doubtful; witness PW.4 stated no bloodstains on club, but FSL report found bloodstains, indicating planting.
No call detail records produced to corroborate PW.10's evidence about phone call from accused, making voice identification unreliable.
FSL report shows bloodstains on club but witness claims mud stains; this contradiction creates doubt and fails to link accused.
The entire prosecution case is based on suspicion and cannot take the place of proof, as held in State of Odisha v. Banabihari Mohapatra.
Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain excluding any hypothesis of innocence, relying on Keerthi Pal v. State of West Bengal.
Judgment Excerpts
He entered inside the house where he found the body of the deceased lying in the pool of blood. There were also injuries on the body, the face of the deceased was totally battered.
PW.3 claims to be the neighbourer of the building. In his evidence, he has stated that at 11 p.m. he heard the accused and deceased were speaking in raised voice. But on the next day he found the dead body of deceased Basha @ Rajasab.
PW.10... at 10 p.m. the accused claims to have called over phone stating that there is no consonance between accused and deceased and he was leaving the job.
A portion of the club which is according to the witness no blood stain is found on the club and the said club is stained with mud-slurries. But when the same is taken into consideration, the FSL report is contrary to the evidence of PW.4.
Procedural History
On 19.12.2015, PW.1 discovered the dead body and lodged a complaint, leading to registration of Crime No.577/2015 under Section 302 IPC. After investigation, charge sheet was filed in the committal court, which committed the case to the Sessions Court. The case was registered as S.C.No.83/2016. The trial court framed charges under Section 302 IPC, and the accused pleaded not guilty. Prosecution examined PWs.1 to 12, marked Exs.P1 to P29 and MOs.1 to 27. The accused was examined under Section 313 CrPC and denied incriminating evidence; no defence evidence was adduced except marking Ex.D1. The trial Court convicted the accused on 02.02.2017. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the present criminal appeal under Section 374(2) CrPC.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 302
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 374(2), 313, 233
