Case Note & Summary
This criminal appeal arose from the acquittal of the second accused by the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in Sessions Case No.724 of 2007. The prosecution alleged that on 21.12.2006, accused Nos. 1 and 2, with common intention, waylaid the deceased Adhip Lahiri, assaulted him with pepper spray, robbed him of valuables, and murdered him near Garudachar Palya tank. They subsequently used his ATM card to withdraw Rs.75,000 and made purchases using his credit card. Accused No.1 died during trial, and the case against him was abated. The trial court acquitted accused No.2 of charges under Sections 392, 302, 468, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The State appealed, contending that the trial court failed to properly appreciate the evidence, including the test identification parade, recoveries made at the instance of accused No.2, forensic evidence linking him to the crime, and the motive of unlawful gain. The prosecution argued that the witnesses identified the accused, and the chain of circumstantial evidence was complete. The respondent-accused argued that the case rested solely on circumstantial evidence, none of which was proved against him, that the test identification parade was doubtful, and that the recoveries and identification were not credible. The High Court, after hearing both sides, framed the point whether the acquittal was erroneous and required interference. The court examined the evidence of witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.49 and the documents and material objects. The judgment excerpt provided does not contain the court's full analysis and final decision; it ends mid-testimony. The appeal was heard on 03.09.2019 and judgment pronounced on 11.10.2019.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court committed an error in acquitting accused No.2 for offences under Sections 392, 302, 468, 201 read with Section 34 IPC and whether the acquittal required interference by the High Court.
Law Points
- Circumstantial evidence must be consistent with guilt and exclude reasonable hypothesis of innocence
- Test identification parade must be conducted in accordance with law
- Benefit of doubt to accused in criminal cases
- Proof beyond reasonable doubt
Case Details
2019 LawText (KAR) (10) 24
Criminal Appeal No.883 of 2013
Ravi Malimath, H.P. Sandesh
Smt. Namitha Mahesh B.G., High Court Government Pleader; Sri J.T. Gireesha, Advocate
State of Karnataka by Mahadevapura Police Station Bengaluru
Sri B.Y. Venkatesh @ Muthuraju
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against acquittal
Remedy Sought
Appellant-State seeking to set aside acquittal and convict the respondent-accused
Filing Reason
The trial court acquitted accused No.2 despite prosecution evidence; State believes judgment perverse and not considering evidence.
Previous Decisions
Acquittal by Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in S.C.No.724/2007 dated 21.03.2013.
Issues
Whether the trial court committed an error in acquitting accused No.2?
Whether the prosecution evidence against accused No.2 was sufficient to convict?
Submissions/Arguments
State: Trial court failed to consider evidence; strong motive; test identification parade and recovery proved; forensic evidence links accused; judgment perverse; accused No.2 should be convicted.
Accused: Case against accused No.1 abated; no material against accused No.2; test identification parade doubtful; recovery not proved; circumstantial evidence not complete; acquittal correct.
Judgment Excerpts
It is the case of the prosecution that, accused Nos.1 and 2 on 21.12.2006 at about 9.45 p.m. with dishonest intention of making unlawful gain were waiting on a road which leads to Vaidehi Hospital from ITPL in a Maruthi 800 car bearing No.KA-04-M-6150 of C.W.15. At that time, the deceased Adhip Lahiri was proceeding on the said road in his car bearing No.DL-3C-Q-2478. The accused followed him and intentionally dashed against his car in front of Sai Baba Hospital.
The Court below acquitted accused No.2 for the offences punishable under Sections 392, 302, 468 and 201 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
The case rests upon circumstantial evidence and none of the circumstances have been proved against the accused No.2.
Procedural History
Case registered by Mahadevapura Police Station. Accused Nos.1 and 2 apprehended on 31.12.2006. Charge sheet filed, trial in S.C.No.724/2007. Accused No.1 reported dead, case abated against him. Trial Court acquitted accused No.2 on 21.03.2013. State filed appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C. Appeal heard on 03.09.2019, judgment pronounced on 11.10.2019.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 392, 302, 468, 201, 34
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 378(1) and (3)
