Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from the conviction of Asif Pasha @ Asif under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru in SC No.166/2011. The case pertained to the murder of Sulthan, who was found dead with his neck cut and a chopper stuck in it near I Grade College grounds, Hoskote Town, on 17.2.2011 at about 9.45 p.m. The complainant, Parveez Pasha (brother of the deceased), suspected the accused because the deceased had fallen in love with Sayeeda Kauser, the sister of the accused. Earlier that day, the complainant’s family had approached Sayeeda Kauser’s family to propose marriage, but the accused allegedly threatened them. The trial court convicted the accused, sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine, with compensation awarded to the father of the deceased. The appellant challenged the conviction on multiple grounds before the High Court of Karnataka. The appeal was heard by a Division Bench. The appellant argued that almost all prosecution witnesses turned hostile; the sole eyewitness, PW-4 Nagappa, did not fully support the prosecution; the last seen circumstance was not proved; identification of the accused was not properly established; call list exhibits were not proved in compliance with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act; seizure of the motor cycle was not established; the FSL report was not proved; the mother of the deceased, PW-5, turned hostile; the existence of light at the scene was not proved; a material witness, Jayalakshmi, was not examined; and the alleged motive was not established. The State contended that PW-4 supported the prosecution, the Investigating Officer’s evidence could be believed for recovery, the material objects matched the deceased’s blood group as per the FSL report, and discrepancies due to hostile witnesses did not warrant rejection of the prosecution’s case. The Court examined the evidence of 18 prosecution witnesses, including the inquest panch witness (PW-1), the father of the deceased (PW-2), the eyewitness (PW-4), the complainant (PW-5), the doctor (PW-16), and investigating officers. The judgment noted that the entire case rested on the testimony of an eyewitness and circumstantial evidence of motive, last seen, and recovery at the instance of the accused. The text of the judgment is incomplete and does not contain the final decision or ratio decidendi.
Issue of Consideration
(1) Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the murder under Section 302 IPC. (2) Whether the trial court committed any serious error in sentencing the accused.
Case Details
2019 LawText (KAR) (02) 38
K. N. Phaneendra, K. Somashekar
Sri. Shankarappa S. Adv. for appellant, Sri. Vijayakumar Majage, Addl. SPP for respondent
Asif Pasha @ Asif S/o Late Mehaboob Pasha
State of Karnataka by Hoskote P.S.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction under Section 302 IPC
Remedy Sought
Appellant/accused seeks to set aside conviction and sentence passed by Principal Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District
Filing Reason
Appellant convicted under Section 302 IPC for murder of Sulthan and sentenced to life imprisonment
Previous Decisions
Principal Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District in S.C.No.166/2011 dated 1/4.7.2014 convicted appellant for murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine and compensation
Issues
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the murder under Section 302 IPC.
Whether the trial court committed any serious legal and factual error in sentencing the accused.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that almost all prosecution witnesses turned hostile; the sole eyewitness PW-4 Nagappa did not fully support the case; last seen circumstance not proved; identification of accused not properly established; call list exhibits not proved under Section 65B of Evidence Act; seizure of motor cycle not established; FSL report not proved; PW-5 (mother of deceased) turned hostile; existence of light at scene not proved; material witness Jayalakshmi not examined; motive not proved.
Respondent argued that PW-4 supported the prosecution; Investigating Officer’s evidence can be believed for recovery; material objects seized matched blood group of deceased as per FSL report; discrepancies and hostile witnesses alone insufficient to dismiss prosecution case.
Judgment Excerpts
the neck of the deceased was cut and there was a long chopper stuck in the neck of the deceased.
the entire case of the prosecution revolves around the evidence of an eye witness and the circumstances, ie., the motive, last seen theory and recovery of some incriminating articles at the instance of the accused
Procedural History
On 17.2.2011, the murder occurred; complaint lodged by Parveez Pasha; Crime No.22/2011 registered under Section 302 IPC; investigation completed and charge sheet filed; case committed to Sessions Court; on 18.2.2011 charges framed against accused; prosecution examined PWs-1 to 18, marked Exs. P-1 to P-24 and MOs-1 to 18; accused examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.; no defence evidence led; trial court convicted and sentenced accused on 1/4.7.2014; criminal appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. challenging conviction; heard by High Court of Karnataka; judgment reserved on 12.12.2018; pronounced on 8.2.2019.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 302
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 374(2), 431, 313
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872: 65B
