Trending :
Lawtext
Search
Login / Register
Sign In
HomeJudgement
Scroll Down To Discover
High Court

Karnataka High Court Delivers Judgment in Criminal Appeals Arising from Conviction for Murder Under Section 302/34 IPC. State Appeals for Imposition of Fine While Accused Challenge Life Sentence Without Remission.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU
Admin
2026-09-14 11:02:02
  • 107
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Issue of Consideration

KAHC010232742014_1

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Case Details

2019 LawText (KAR) (03) 26

CRL.A. NO.471/2014 C/W CRL.A.NOs.475/2014, 766/2014

2019-03-15

K.N. Phaneendra, K. Natarajan

Sri Hashmath Pasha, Sri Ranjan Kumar P. (for appellants); Sri Vijayakumar Majage (for respondent)

Ranjith K. and Bhuvanesh T.P. (Crl.A.471/2014 & 475/2014); State of Karnataka (Crl.A.766/2014)

State of Karnataka (Crl.A.471/2014 & 475/2014); Ranjith K. and Bhuvanesh T.P. (Crl.A.766/2014)

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal against conviction for murder and state appeal for enhancement of sentence by imposition of fine.

Remedy Sought

Accused sought acquittal; State sought modification of sentence to impose fine.

Filing Reason

Accused convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment without remission; State appealed because trial court did not impose fine as mandated.

Previous Decisions

Trial court (Fast Track (Sessions) Judge-V, Bengaluru City) convicted accused in SC No.1199/2012 on 7.5.2014 and sentenced on 9.5.2014 to life imprisonment with direction not to be released for rest of life; no fine imposed.

Issues

Whether the testimony of PW-1, the sole eyewitness, is credible in the absence of a test identification parade. Whether the recovery of incriminating articles was validly proved. Whether the motive was established beyond reasonable doubt. Whether the sentence must include fine under Section 302 IPC.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued that PW-1's presence at the spot was doubtful based on mobile records (Ex.D-6), he was a chance witness, no identification parade was conducted, and the police showed the accused to him at the station before identification. Appellants argued that the recovery of pant, shirt, and motorcycle was not proved because PW-5's mobile records showed he was not present at the recovery place. Appellants argued that motive was not mentioned in the initial complaint (Ex.P-2) by PW-2 and was an improvement at trial. The State argued that PW-1's presence was established even by defence evidence, he was a stranger with no animosity, and his core testimony remained unshaken. The State argued that the recovery evidence through PW-5 was credible and the motive and circumstances were sufficient.

Judgment Excerpts

It is the case of the prosecution that, accused No.1 Ranjith fell in love with deceased Divya D/o. P.Shyam... he was not happy and he in fact threatened PW-8 over phone... (Para 6) The learned Senior counsel for the appellants ... strenuously argued before the court that the entire case revolves around three important aspects i.e., (1) Motive Factor; (2) Evidence of the sole eye-witness PW-1; and lastly (3) Recovery of the incriminating articles... (Para 10)

Procedural History

Incident occurred on 28.5.2012. FIR initially registered under Section 307 IPC, later converted to 302/34 IPC after death. Investigation conducted, charge sheet filed. Case committed to Sessions Court, S.C. No.1199/2012. Trial conducted, accused convicted and sentenced on 7.5.2014/9.5.2014 to life imprisonment without remission. Accused filed appeals under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C.; State filed appeal under Section 377 Cr.P.C. High Court heard appeals, reserved judgment on 20.02.2019, and pronounced judgment on 15.03.2019.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860: 302, 34
  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 374(2), 377, 313
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Tags :
murder life imprisonment sole eyewitness recovery motive identification parade chance witness Section 302 IPC Section 34 IPC criminal appeal

Pay once for this file or subscribe for unlimited downloads

Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Disposes of Miscellaneous Application in Suo Motu Limitation Extension Case with Final Directions. The Court excluded the period from 15.03.2020 to 02.10.2021 in computing limitation under general and special laws, providing a 90-day pe... 2026-09-19 03:13:20
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Hears Writ Petition Challenging GST Refund Rejection and Alleged Coercive Recovery. Petitioner Seeks Refund of Amounts Paid Under Protest During Investigation Under Central/Karnataka GST Acts. 2026-09-19 03:13:15
Categories
Popular Tags
writ petition Natural Justice acquittal murder compensation burden of proof limitation Article 226 Land Acquisition benefit of doubt
Follow Us

Bombay High Court Allows Appeals by Acquiring Body in Land Acquisition Compensation Cases,...

Bombay High Court Dismisses NHAI Appeals in Land Acquisition Compensation Dispute — Upho...

Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Concurrent Findings in Suit for Spec...

High Court of Bombay Hears Section 11 Arbitration Application for Appointment of Arbitrato...

Bombay High Court Allows Assessee in Central Excise Refund Interest Dispute Under Section ...

Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Orders Allowing Writ Petitions by Lessees in Land Encr...

Supreme Court Upholds High Court Order Setting Aside Anganwadi Supervisor Appointment for ...

Supreme Court Upholds Plaintiff in Specific Performance Suit Under Specific Relief Act, 19...

Supreme Court Allows Appellant in Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code Appeal — Sets Aside NCL...

Supreme Court Acquits Appellant in Prevention of Corruption Act Case Due to Absence of Pec...

Lost Your Password?