Karnataka High Court
Majarullakhan S/O. Mohammadiqbalkhan ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2862-DB
CRL.A No. 100080 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100080 OF 2021 (C)
BETWEEN:
1. MAJARULLAKHAN
S/O. MOHAMMADIQBALKHAN JAGEERDAR
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: NEAR APMC, KALAGHATAGI,
DIST. DHARWAD.
2. RAMESH @ PAPPUSI GOVINDAPPA TEGUR
S/O. GOVINDAPPA TEGUR
R/O: BANDIGERI ONI,
KALAGHATAGI, DIST. DHARWAD.
3. MANJUNATH SHIVARUDRAYYA TEGURMATH
Digitally signed
S/O. SHIVARUDRAYYA TEGURMATH
by AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
SHIVAKUMAR
HIREMATH R/O: NEAR APMC,
Date: KALAGHATAGI, DIST. DHARWAD.
2024.02.21
11:31:07 +0530
4. AJAMATALLAKHAN
MAHAMADIQBLKHAN JAGEERDAR
S/O. MOHAMADIQBALKHAN JAGEERDAR
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: NEAR APMC, KALAGHATAGI
DIST: DHARWAD.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. RAVI B. NAIK, SENIOR COUNSEL)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2862-DB
CRL.A No. 100080 of 2021
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH KALGHATAGI POLICE, KALGHATGI,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENCH AT DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. M.B. GUNDAWADE, ADDL. SPP.)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 374(2) OF CR.P.C.,
PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN S.C.NO.70/2017,
PERUSE THE SAME, ALLOW THIS APPEAL, SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 31/03/2021
AND SENTENCE DATED 08/04/2021 U/S 449, 504, 302, 324,
341 AND 109 R/W 34 OF IPC, PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL
SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD AND ACQUIT THE APPELLANTS
NOS.1 TO 4 / ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 4 AND SET THE APPELLANTS
AT LIBERTY, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, RAJESH RAI K, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2862-DB
CRL.A No. 100080 of 2021
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the convicted accused Nos.1 to 4
directed against the judgment and order of sentence passed in
SC No.70/2017 dated 31.03.2021 by the Prl. Sessions Judge,
Dharwad, wherein, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the
accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offence punishable under Sections
449, 504, 302, 324, 341 and 109 r/w Section 34 of Indian
Penal Code and directed them to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of 10 years and shall pay a fine of
Rs.10,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, shall undergo
further simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months for the
offence punishable under Section 449 r/w Section 34 of Indian
Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of 6 months and shall pay a fine of
Rs.1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, they shall
undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of 1 month
for the offence punishable under Section 504 r/w Section 34 of
Indian Penal Code. Further they were sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 year and shall pay a
fine of Rs.2,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, they
shall undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of 45
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2862-DB
days for the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w Section
34 of Indian Penal Code. Further, sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of 15 days and shall pay a fine of
Rs.250/- each in default of payment of fine, they shall further
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 5 days for the
offence punishable under Section 341 r/w Section 34 of Indian
Penal Code. So also Sentenced accused No.2 to 4 to undergo
imprisonment for life and shall pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each
and in default of payment of fine, they shall further undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months for the offence
punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal
Code. Further, accused No.1 is sentenced to undergo life
imprisonment and shall pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default
of payment of fine he shall further undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of 6 months for the offence
punishable under Section 109 r/w Section 302 and 112 of
Indian Penal Code.
2. The factual matrix of the of the prosecution case
are that:
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2862-DB
The deceased in this case-Nagaraj Udapi, was a resident of
Kalagatagi and he was running a Hotel business. In addition to
that, he was a Vice-President of Kalagatagi Gram Panchayat
during the year 2016. Further, there were 2 sites belonging to
the Government and they both were situated i.e., one near the
Court complex and another near a petrol bunk and the accused
No.1 was insisting the deceased-Nagaraj that the revenue
records of the said properties should be mutated in his name.
The deceased refused to do the same, as such the accused
No.1 bore a grudge against the deceased.
3. Further prosecution has presented that, on
29.08.2016, PW.6-Smt.Shankuntala, PW.7-Manjula and
deceased Nagaraj had been to Dundibasaveshwar Temple in a
car and PW.10 was driving the said car. After the Prasadam
(lunch) they were returning from the Temple and on the way,
PW.6, 7 and the deceased went to the house of PW.9-Bharati
situated at Jolad street, Kalagatagi-PW.6 went inside the
house, PW.7-Manjula was standing outside the house, PW.9-
Bharati, PW.8-Laxmibai mother of PW.9, was also inside the
said house. To further clarify, Deceased-Nagaraj, PW.6, 8 and 9
were in the house and PW.7 was outside the house. PW.9 was
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2862-DB
preparing tea for the guests and at that time, accused No.2-
Ramesh and accused No.3-Manjunath, along with accused
No.4-Hazmathulla Khan, trespassed the house of PW.9 with an
intention to commit the murder of the deceased and assaulted
the deceased with chopper on his neck, shoulder and back and
abused him in filthy language and were shouting at him saying
that, accused No.1 directed them to kill him. Due to the
assault, he fell on the ground with bleeding injuries. At that
time, the accused Nos.2 and 3 fled away from the house in a
motor bike.
4. Thereafter, PW.6-Shankuntala, the sister of
Deceased-Nagaraj lodged the Complaint before the respondent-
Police on the same day i.e., 29.08.2016 at about 11:00 pm, as
per Ex.P.9 before PW.16, against the accused persons and the
same has been registered in Crime No.266/2016 against the
accused for the aforementioned offences, as per Ex.P.27.
Subsequently, PW.16 conducted the Investigation and arrested
the accused Nos.1 to 4 and recorded their voluntary statements
and recovered the motor bikes and weapons used for the
commission of the Crime, so also, drawn the Inquest and Spot
Mahazars and after obtaining the reports from the Doctor and
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2862-DB
FSL Officer, laid the chargesheet against the accused, before
the committal Court, for the aforementioned offences.
5. After committal of the case before the Sessions
Court, the learned Sessions Judge framed the charges against
the accused for the offences mentioned above and read over
the same to the accused. However, the accused denied the
charges and claimed to be tried.
6. In order to prove the charges leveled against the
accused before the Sessions Court, the prosecution in total
examined 16 witnesses as PWs.1 to 16, so also, got marked 35
documents as Exs.P.1 to 35 and got identified 17 material
objects as MOs.1 to 17.
7. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the
learned Sessions Judge read over the incriminating evidences
of material witnesses to the accused, as contemplated under
the provisions of Section 313 of CrPC. The accused denied the
same. They neither chose to examine any witness on their
behalf nor got marked any documents. The defence of the
accused is total denial and that of false implication.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2862-DB
8. Post assessment of oral and documentary evidence,
the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused for the
charges leveled against them and sentenced them as stated
supra. The correctness and legality of the judgment is
challenged under this appeal by accused Nos.1 to 4/ appellant
Nos.1 to 4.
9. We have heard the learned Senior counsel Sri. Ravi
B. Naik for Sri.J.Basavraj learned counsel for the
appellants/accused, so also, the learned Additional State Public
Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
10. The learned Senior counsel would submit that the
judgment under this appeal suffers from perversity and
illegality, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused
only based on surmise and conjectures without there being any
cogent evidence available on record. He would further contend
that all the material witnesses including the eye-witnesses
PW.6 to 10 i.e., the Complainant and other family members of
the deceased-Nagaraj, have totally turned hostile to the
prosecution case. In spite of that, the learned Sessions Judge
convicted the accused by relying on their 161 statements,
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2862-DB
allegedly recorded by the Investigation Officer. According to
him, the said reasoning of the learned Sessions Judge is
completely contrary to the law and settled principles by this
Court and by the Hon'ble Apex Court. He would further contend
that, though the prosecution examined PWs.1 and 4 the Panch
witnesses for Ex.P.1-Spot Mahazar, ExP.2-Sketch, they have
admitted in their cross-examination that, they went along with
the Police to the scene of crime. As such, their version cannot
be relied to convict the accused. The other witness PW.8 i.e.,
the Recovery Mahazar witness in respect of recovery of the
weapons i.e., MO.9 and 10 allegedly used for the commission of
the Crime and also the clothes of the accused MO.11 to 16 is
concerned, totally turned hostile to the prosecution case.
According to the learned Senior counsel, the prosecution has
miserably failed to prove all the circumstances. As such, he
would submit that the impugned judgment is liable to be set
aside. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal.
11. Per contra, the learned Additional State Public
Prosecutor vehemently contends that, learned Sessions Judge
has rightly convicted the accused, by meticulously examining
the evidence of the witnesses examined before the trial Court.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2862-DB
According to him, the learned Sessions Judge appreciated the
evidences on a right perspective and to emphasize, he would
persuade this Court to the evidence of PW.6-Complainant and
the other family members i.e., PW.7 to 10. Though they have
partially turned hostile to the case of prosecution, he would
submit, on conjoint reading of their evidence, the prosecution
has proved the charges leveled against the accused. Further,
he would contend that, PW.6-Complainant, in her evidence,
categorically deposed that, on the date of incident, herself,
PWs.8 and 9 were inside the house, along with the deceased-
Nagaraj and the deceased was murdered in the house of PW.9
and she know all the four accused. Thereafter, the Police visited
the spot and she lodged the Complaint at Ex.P.9. Though, she
turned hostile to the prosecution case in respect of the actual
assault made by the accused to the deceased, this relevant
portion of the evidence of PW.6, is suffice in itself, to hold that
accused have committed the murder of the deceased. In such
circumstances, according to the learned Additional State Public
Prosecutor, the learned Sessions Judge rightly convicted the
accused for the charges leveled against them. Nevertheless,
PWs.13 and 14 being the brothers of the deceased, clearly
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2862-DB
deposed about the dispute between the accused Nos.1 to 3
with the Deceased-Nagaraj, in respect of mutation entries of 2
Government sites in the name of accused No.1. On that count,
accused No.1 had quarreled with the Deceased-Nagaraj. Hence,
the prosecution has clearly proved the motive for the
commission of the alleged incident. Hence, according to the
learned Additional State Public Prosecutor, the prosecution has
clearly established the homicidal death of the deceased-
Nagaraj, so also, the participation of the accused in the
homicidal death of the deceased-Nagaraj. Accordingly, he
contends that, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly convicted
the accused and prays to dismiss the appeal.
12. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant
so also, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the
respondent-State. The points that would arise for our
consideration are as under;
"1. Whether the judgment under this
appeal suffers from any perversity or
illegality ?
2. Whether the learned Sessions
Judge is justified in convicting the
accused for the offence punishable
under Sections 449, 504, 302, 324,
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2862-DB
341 and 109 r/w Section 34 of Indian
Penal Code?"
13. As these points are inter-linked to each other they
are taken up together for consideration. Accordingly, this Court
being an appellate Court, on re-appreciation of the entire
evidence available on record, would find:-
PW.1-Sangappa Channappa Baliger, witness for Spot
Panchanama as per Ex.P.2 and also seizure of articles in the
place of scene of occurrence.
PW.2-Madhukar Ningappa Khanapur and PW.3-Jayavant
Ramachandra Motennavar are the witnesses for Inquest
Panchanama as per Ex.P.4.
PW.4-Srikant Keshav Gondakar, Panch witness for Ex.P.1
and 2 i.e., the Spot Panchanama and Rough Sketch of the
Spot.
PW.5-Dugesh Sharad Gokarna, Panch witness for recovery
of the weapons, motor bike and clothes of the accused at the
instance of accused No.2 as per MOs.9, 10 and 17 under
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2862-DB
Ex.P.8. However, this witness turned hostile to the prosecution
case.
PW.6-Shakuntala,complainant and also eye-witness, the
sister of the Deceased-Nagaraj, deposed that, on the date of
incident, while returning from the Temple, along with deceased,
Pws.8 and 9; she got down in the midst from the car and went
to her house. At about 8:00 pm, from one Praveen, she came
to know that, there is a quarrel going on between deceased-
Nagaraj and few people. Thereafter, she went to the house of
PW.9 and in the kitchen, she found the Deceased-Nagaraj with
grievous injuries and he was lying in a pool of blood.
Thereafter, herself and others who were present, intimated the
same to the Police and subsequently, she visited the Police
Station and lodged the Complaint as per Ex.P.9. However, she
pleaded her ignorance as to the perpetrators of the crime.
Hence, the prosecution has treated her hostile to the
prosecution case.
PW.7-Manjula Gopalappa Devalapur, circumstantial
witness, turned hostile to the prosecution case.
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2862-DB
PW.8-Laxmibai Laxman Kakatikar, PW.9-Bharati Laxman
Kakatikar and PW.10-Siddaroodha Gurubasayya Chikkamath
are eye-witnesses to the incident, among them PW.9 is the
injured eye-witness. However, all these three witnesses have
totally turned hostile to the prosecution case in respect of the
involvement of the accused in the murder of the Deceased-
Nagaraj. Further, according to PW.9, there was some
commotion on front door of the house and subsequently, 2 to 3
persons forcibly entered the house and pushed her and she
sustained contusion on her knee and abrasion on her hand. As
such, she totally denied the incident.
PW.11-Dr.Sidray Gurushantappa Kuppasada, Medical
officer, treated the injured PW.9 and issued the report as per
Ex.P.20.
PW.12-Rajashekhar Chandrashekar Sheelavant, Panch
witness for Ex.P.7 i.e., the seizure of the clothes of the
deceased-Nagaraj. However, he turned hostile to the
prosecution case.
PW.13-Anantacharya Srikant Udupi, circumstantial witness
and brother of the PW.6-Shakuntala and Deceased-Nagaraj.
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2862-DB
According to him, he came to the spot of incident after
receiving a text message from PWs.6 and 7. According to him,
he found the injuries on the dead body of his brother and on
enquiry, he came to know from PW.6 that accused Nos.2, 3 and
three others forcibly trespassed into the house of PW.9 and
assaulted the deceased and committed his murder.
PW.14-Raghavendra Srikant Udapi, brother of the
Deceased-Nagaraj, hear-say witness to the incident. According
to him, based on the telephone call of PW.7-Manjula, he came
to the house of PW.9 and saw the dead body of the deceased
and thereafter, he came to know through PWs.6 and 7 that
accused have committed the murder of the deceased-Nagaraj.
PW.15-Dr.Shrikant Mallappa Sambrani, Medical Officer,
conducted the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased-
Nagaraj and issued the Post-Mortem report as per Ex.P.23.
PW.16-Srinivas Manju Handa, the then Police Inspector,
conducted the Investigation and laid the chargesheet against
the accused for the aforesaid offences.
14. On meticulous reading of the above evidence, in
order to prove the homicidal death of the deceased, the
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2862-DB
prosecution has relied on the evidence of the Doctor who
conducted the autopsy on the dead body of the Deceased-
Nagaraj and the Post-Mortem i.e., Ex.P.23. On perusal of
Ex.P.23, the same depicts that, the cause of the death is "due
to shock, hemorrhage as a result of head injury". Nevertheless,
PW.16-Investigation Officer has conducted the Inquest
Panchanama as per Ex.P.4 and PW.2 is the witness for the
same, who has supported the case of prosecution.Howbeit,
PW.6, 7, 13 and 14 have deposed that, they have seen the
dead body of the Deceased-Nagaraj and he died due to the
injuries sustained on his neck and other parts of the body. In
such circumstances, the evidence of PW.15-the Doctor and the
Post-Mortem Report-Ex.P.23 and the Inquest Panchanama-
Ex.P4, clearly corroborates with the testimonies of above
witnesses and hence, in our considered view, the prosecution
has proved the homicidal death of the deceased-Nagaraj in this
case.
15. In order to connect the accused in the homicidal
death of the deceased-Nagaraj, the prosecution mainly relied
on the evidence of PW.6-Complainant i.e., the sister of the
deceased and PWs.8 to 10 who are portrayed as eye-witnesses
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2862-DB
to the incident. On perusal of their evidence, though PW.6
deposed about the homicidal death of the deceased in the
house of PW.9 and also about the information given by her to
the Police and subsequently, lodging of Complaint-Ex.P.9, but
she pleaded her ignorance in respect of the assault made by
the accused to her brother is concerned. PW.8 who is a relative
of the deceased turned hostile to the prosecution case. Further,
PW.9 has stated that, on the date of incident, when she was
alone in the house, some unknown persons barged into her
house and pushed her and she became unconscious and she
regained conscious in the Hospital. Hence, she did not know
about the person who committed the murder of deceased.
PW.10, who is one more eye-witness to the incident also turned
hostile to the prosecution case. Hence, in our opinion, the
prosecution has failed to place cogent evidence to connect the
accused persons in the commission of the homicidal death of
deceased. Further, the learned Sessions Judge placed much
reliance on the evidence of PW.6-Complainant on the ground
that, she has partially supported the case of prosecution and
had identified the dead body of her brother-Deceased-Nagaraj
and also lodged the Complaint before Police. But on the other
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2862-DB
hand, PW.6 totally denied the contents of her Complaint during
the course of her evidence.
16. Additionally, the learned Sessions Judge also relied
on the evidences of PWs.13 and 14 i.e., the brothers of the
deceased. On perusal of their evidence, though, they have
supported the case of prosecution, they are the hear-say
witnesses to the incident. According to them, PW.6 informed
them that, accused have committed the murder of the
deceased. But, as discussed supra, PW.6 herself has denied the
said aspect in her evidence as such, much evidentiary value
cannot be attached to evidences deposed by PWs.13 and 14.
17. Further, the prosecution has also failed to prove the
recovery of weapons said to have been used in the commission
of crime i.e., MOs.9 and 10 under Ex.P.8, so also, MOs.11 to 16
i.e., the blood stained clothes of the accused. Since, the
Mahazar witness-PW.5 has totally turned hostile to the
prosecution case.
18. The prosecution has also failed to prove the motive
for the commission of the offence, since, PWs.6 and 8 to 10
have turned hostile to the prosecution case. The learned
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2862-DB
Sessions Judge in the impugned judgment has opined on
motive for the commission of the crime by relying on Ex.P.9-
Complaint filed by PW.6. However, the said reasoning of the
learned Sessions Judge, does not hold good for the reasons
that, PW.6 herself has blanketly disowned the very contents of
Ex.P.6. Further, the learned Sessions Judge has opined that, all
the witnesses who have turned hostile have deposed before the
Investigation Officer under Section 161 of Cr.P.C as per Ex.P.9
to 11 and in his opinion, the same are trustworthy and are
reliable. This understanding of the learned Sessions Judge,
totally suffers from perversity and illegality and the same calls
for an interference by this Court. The learned Sessions Judge
also held that, the recovery of the weapons have been proved
by the prosecution by relying on the evidence of Investigation
Officer-PW.16. As stated supra, PW.5 the witness for Ex.P.8 the
Recovery Mahazar has totally turned hostile to the prosecution
case and the only evidence of PW.16-Investigation Officer is not
suffice in itself, either to prove the recovery or to convict the
accused. In support of this view, this Court would rely upon the
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pradeep Narayan
Madgaonkar v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (1995) 4
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2862-DB
SCC 255 wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court, while weighing the
evidence of official witnesses in a criminal case, has laid the
preposition as under -
"11. Learned counsel for the State, however,
vehemently argued that there was no reason for the court to
disbelieve the official witnesses PW 1, PW 4 and PW 6 who
had no reason to falsely implicate any of the appellants.
They are independent respectable persons. Indeed, the
evidence of the officials (police) witnesses cannot be
discarded merely on the ground that they belong to the
police force and Sare, either interested in the investigating
or the prosecuting agency but prudence dictates that their
evidence needs to be subjected to strict scrutiny and as far
as possible corroboration of their evidence in material
particulars should be sought. Their desire to see the success
of the case based on their investigation, requires greater
care to appreciate their testimony. We cannot lose sight of
the fact that these police officials did not join
any independent witnesses of the locality and made an
attempt to create an impression on the courts that both PW
2 and PW 5 were witnesses of locality and were independent,
knowing fully well that PW 2 was a witness who was under
their influence and 'available' to them, as he had been
joining the raids earlier also and PW 5 was a close associate
of PW 2, their friendship having developed during the days
of gambling when admittedly the police never conducted any
raid at their gambling den."
(Emphasis supplied by Us)
Hence, on collective reading of the evidence and materials
placed by the prosecution, though the prosecution miserably
has failed to prove all the circumstances, except the homicidal
death of the deceased, the learned Sessions Judge has
proceeded to pass an order of conviction; by only relying on the
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2862-DB
161 statements of the above discussed witnesses and as such,
in our opinion, would only show that, the conviction awarded is
not justified by the evidences and documents produced, but
only justified by the social morals which is contrary to law and
norms of very Criminal Jurisprudence itself. As such, in support
our opinion, we would refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Mousam Singha Roy and others Vs. State of W.B,
reported in (2003) 12 SCC 377 ,wherein, hon'ble Apex Court
has opined that, moral conviction bondering on strong suspicion
is not an option to decide a case by the Trial Court and has held
in Paragraph No. 27 that -
"27. Before we conclude, we must place on record
the fact that we are not unaware of the degree of agony
and frustration that may be caused to the society in general
and the families of the victims in particular, by the fact that
a heinous crime like this goes unpunished, but then the law
does not permit the courts to punish the accused on the
basis of moral conviction or on suspicion alone. The burden
of proof in a criminal trial never shifts, and it is always the
burden of the prosecution to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence. In a
similar circumstance this Court in the case of Sarwan Singh
Rattan Singh Vs. State of Panjab, reported in AIR 1957 SC
637 stated thus:
It is no doubt a matter of regret that a foul cold-
blooded and cruel murder should go unpunished. There may
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2862-DB
also be an element of truth in the prosecution story against
the accused. Considered as a whole, the prosecution story
may be true; but between 'may be true' and must be true'
there is inevitably a long distance to travel and the whole of
this distance must be covered by the prosecution by legal,
reliable and unimpeachable evidence before an accused can
be convicted."
(Emphasis supplied by Us)
Our view is further fortified by the judgment rendered by
this Court in Crl.A. No.100190/2020 C/w. Crl.A.
No.100527/2021 dated 12.01.2024, wherein, this Court
reiterating the above cited judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court
has held in paragraph No 23. as under -
"Thus, the learned Sessions Judge convicting the
accused and sentencing him under Section 304 Part I
of IPC in the absence of corroboration from the
witnesses produced before it, seems to be a moral
conviction but nothing else; as the accused is the son
of the deceased and he has committed the murder of
his own father. Though, we are aware of the fact
that, the prosecution has presented the case of a
cruel and cold-blooded murder of the father by his
own son, but in the absence of necessary
corroborative evidence and the fact that the
incriminating witnesses have been turned hostile,
this Court is constrained to answer the above raised
points in positive as it is a settled principle in the
criminal jurisprudence that the presumption of
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2862-DB
innocence of the accused cannot be given a goby
unless the prosecution proves the guilt of the
accused beyond all reasonable doubt. It is also well-
settled norm that, the trial Court cannot stretch this
principle to such an extent so as to give conviction to
the accused solely relying on the evidences that are
not corroborative and the incident that is brutal in
the prevailing society. "
19. In our opinion, the case on hand and the conviction
awarded in the decision discussed supra, are influenced on the
same grounds i.e., Morality and values prevailing in the society
is concerned. Though in the case on hand, the homicidal death
of the deceased is pictured by the prosecution as very brutal
act, this Court being the Court sitting on the evidences and
proofs made available before it, cannot overlook the fact that
there is not a single piece of evidence available on record that
supports the case of the prosecution and directs towards the
guilt of the accused. Hence, this Court is constrained to opine
that, the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Sessions
Judge calls for an interference and accordingly, we answer the
above raised points in affirmative and negative and
consequently, proceed to pass the following -
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2862-DB
ORDER
i. The appeal filed by the appellants/accused
Nos.1 to 4 is allowed.
ii. The judgment of conviction and order of
sentence passed in SC No.70/2017 dated
31.03.2021 by the Prl. Sessions Judge,
Dharwad, is set aside. Consequently, the
appellant/accused are acquitted for the
offences punishable under Sections 449,
504, 302, 324, 341 and 109 r/w Section 34
of Indian Penal Code.
iii. The bail bond and surety bond executed by
the accused stands cancelled.
iv. Fine amount paid, if any, by the accused is
ordered to be refunded to the accused on
their proper identification.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
PJ
