Karnataka High Court
Sharanappa S/O Tukaram Kamble vs The State Aurad-B Ps on 3 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4528-DB
CRL.A No. 200031 of 2021
C/W CRL.A No. 200086 of 2016
CRL.A No. 200128 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 200031 OF 2021 (374)
C/W
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 200086 OF 2016
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 200128 OF 2016
CRL.A NO.200031/2021
BETWEEN:
RATIKANTH
S/O SHARNAPPA KAMBLE,
Digitally signed by AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
BASALINGAPPA R/O HARIJANWADA, TQ: AURAD (B),
SHIVARAJ
DHUTTARGAON DISTRICT: BIDAR -585 401.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF ...APPELLANT
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. B. C. JAKA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE BY AURAD- B P.S.
DISTRICT: BIDAR
REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
KALABURAGI- 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SIDDALING P. PATIL, ADDL. SPP)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4528-DB
CRL.A No. 200031 of 2021
C/W CRL.A No. 200086 of 2016
CRL.A No. 200128 of 2016
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374 (2) OF CR.P.C, PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER
OF SENTENCE DATED 11.04.2015 IN S.C.No.41/2015 ON THE
FILE OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT
BIDAR, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302,
201, 120B, 109 R/W 34 OF IPC AND ACQUIT THE APPELLANT
OF THE OFFENCE CHARGED AGAINST HIM IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN CRL. A NO.200086/2016
BETWEEN:
MR. PINTU @ YESU,
S/O BABURAO KAMBLE,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
R/AT, HARIJANWADA, AURAD-B,
DISTRICT: BIDAR - 577513.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. B. C. JAKA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE BY AURAD-B P.S
DISTRICT- BIDAR
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
KALABURAGI- 560001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SIDDALING P. PATIL, ADDL. SPP)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374 (2) OF CR.P.C, PRAYING
TO SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER
OF SENTENCE DATED 11.04.2015 IN S.C. NO.41/2015 ON THE
FILE OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT
BIDAR, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302,
201, 120B, 109 R/W 34 OF I.P.C AND ACQUIT THE APPELLANT
OF THE OFFENCE CHARGED AGAINST HIM IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4528-DB
CRL.A No. 200031 of 2021
C/W CRL.A No. 200086 of 2016
CRL.A No. 200128 of 2016
CRL.A NO.200128/2016
BETWEEN:
SHARNAPPA
SON OF TUKARAM KAMBLE,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: MISTRI WORK,
R/O HARIJAN WADA AURAD-B,
TQ. AURAD-B,
DISTRICT: 585 426.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. B. C. JAKA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE BY AURAD-B P.S
DISTRICT- BIDAR
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
KALABURAGI- 560001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SIDDALING P. PATIL, ADDL. SPP)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374 (2) OF CR.P.C, PRAYING
TO SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND CONVICTION AND ORDER
OF SENTENCE DATED 11.04.2016 IN S.C. NO.41/2015 ON THE
FILE OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT
BIDAR, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302,
201, 120B, 109 R/W 34 OF I.P.C AND ACQUIT THE APPELLANT
OF THE OFFENCE CHARGED AGAINST HIM IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY RAJESH RAI K J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4528-DB
CRL.A No. 200031 of 2021
C/W CRL.A No. 200086 of 2016
CRL.A No. 200128 of 2016
JUDGMENT
directed against the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence passed by the Court of Principal District and
Sessions Judge, Bidar in S.C.No.41/2015 dated
11.04.2016, wherein the learned Sessions Judge convicted
the accused/appellants for the offences punishable under
Sections 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC r/w Section 120-B, 109
and 201 of IPC. Thereby, learned Sessions Judge
sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to
pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offences punishable
under Sections 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC r/w Section 120-
B and 109 of IPC (the imprisonment for life means the
imprisonment till end of his natural life). Further, they
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period
of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each for the
offence punishable under Section 201 r/w Section 34 of
IPC. In default of payment of fine, they directed undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of one year during their
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4528-DB
time of imprisonment for life. Further directed that, all the
substantive sentences shall run concurrently.
2. The factual matrix of the prosecution case is as
follows:
It is the case of prosecution that the accused No.4
and 1 are the father and son. Deceased is the mother of
the accused No.4 and grandmother of accused No.1. The
complainant-PW.1 is the younger brother of deceased
Laxmibai. Accused No.4 working as Mestri, involved in bad
vices and always quarreling with his mother i.e., deceased
to give money, the complainant used to pacify the quarrel
between deceased and accused No.4. The accused No.1
without going to School, wandering here and there and he
was also quarreling with his grandmother i.e., deceased by
insisting her to give gold and cash for his bad vices. The
complainant had advised them not to indulge in such
activities, however the accused No.4 did not heed to the
advice made by the complainant. When this being the
scenario, on 27.11.2014 at morning 7:00 a.m., the
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4528-DB
accused No.4 had telephoned to the complainant stating
that some persons have assaulted his mother i.e.,
deceased and requested him to come to his house.
Accordingly, the complainant and his sister Janabai (PW.5)
went to the house of the deceased in the morning hours at
about 9:00 a.m. and saw the bloodstained mat and broken
Bangle pieces in the court yard of the house and saw the
dead body of his sister which was buried, leg and heels
were visible. Hence, PW.1 lodged the complaint before the
Police suspecting that accused No.1-Rathikanth and
accused No.4-Sharnappa might have murdered the
deceased with sharp edged weapon in the intervening
night of 26.11.2014 and 27.11.2014 and must have buried
the dead body by digging pit in the court yard. Based on
such complaint lodged by PW.1, PW.29-PSI of Aurad Police
Station registered the FIR in Crime No.384/2014 dated
27.11.2014 against accused Nos.1 and 4 for the offences
punishable under Sections 302 and 201 r/w section 34 of
IPC.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4528-DB
3. Thereafter, PW.33-the Investigation Officer
conducted the investigation and come across that the
accused No.1 had called upon his friends i.e., accused
Nos.2 and 3 and made a conspiracy to snatch the cash and
gold by committing his grandmother's murder, after the
act, they would share cash and gold. Accordingly, accused
Nos.2 and 3 have agreed to the said act and on the night
of 27.11.2014 at about 00:15 hours, accused No.1 tip off
accused Nos.2 and 3 to stand outside the house and to
inform him, if anybody comes and accordingly, accused
Nos.2 and 3 stood outside the house. Accused No.1 raised
TV volume and took big stone and assaulted on the left
cheek and face of the deceased who was sleeping, thereby
committed murder and also assaulted the deceased with a
wooden repiece on the leg of the deceased and made up
jolt and also assaulted on the neck of the deceased with
sickle and assaulted on her stomach. Thereafter, accused
Nos.1, 2 and 3 have taken the dead body of the deceased
outside the house and dig a pit and buried the dead body
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4528-DB
in the said pit. Accordingly, after completion of the
investigation by obtaining necessary documents from the
concerned authority, PW.33 filed the charge sheet against
accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 for the offences punishable under
Sections 302, 201, 109, 120-B r/w section 34 of IPC,
before the Committal Court. However, accused No.3 is a
minor and he tried before Juvenile Justice Board, Bidar.
4. After committal of the case before the Sessions
Court, the prosecution in total examined 33 witnesses as
PWs.1 to 33 so also got marked 38 documents as Exs.P1
to 38 and got identified 14 material objects as MOs.1 to
14. On contrary, the accused have got marked 2
documents as Exs.D1 and 2.
5. After completion of the prosecution evidence,
the learned Sessions Judge read over the incriminating
evidences of the material witnesses to the accused as
contemplated under the provisions of Section 313 of
Cr.P.C. Though accused denied the same, they neither
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4528-DB
chose to examine any witnesses on their behalf nor got
marked any documents.
6. Post assessment of oral and documentary
evidence placed before the learned Sessions Judge, the
learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused for the
aforementioned offences and sentenced them as stated
supra. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, accused
No.1 preferred Crl.A.No.200031/2021, whereas accused
No.2 preferred Crl.A.No.200086/2016 and accused No.4
preferred Crl.A.No.200128/2016 to set-aside the judgment
of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Sessions
Court.
7. We have heard learned counsel B.C. Jaka for
the appellants/accused and learned Additional SPP Sri
Siddaling P. Patil for the respondent/State in all the
appeals.
8. It is the primary contention of the learned
counsel for the appellants that the learned Sessions Judge
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4528-DB
erred while passing the impugned judgment by convicting
the accused. The impugned judgment suffers from
perversity and illegality since the learned Sessions Judge
convicted the accused based on surmises and conjectures.
They would further submit that the entire case of the
prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence except the
Investigation Officer-PW.33 and other official witnesses,
i.e., PW.23 to PW.30, none of the material witnesses have
supported the case of the prosecution, as such, the
prosecution miserably failed to prove the charges leveled
against the accused by leading cogent corroborative
evidence. They would further contend that as per the law
laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of
judgments, if the case is rests on the circumstantial
evidence, the prosecution has to prove the guilt of the
accused by proving the chain link of all the circumstances
by hypothesis guilt of accused. They would further contend
that the name of accused No.2 is not forthcoming in the
FIR i.e., Ex.P27, however, later he has been falsely
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4528-DB
implicated in the case without any prima facie materials.
Accordingly, they pray to allow the appeals.
9. Per contra, learned Addl. SPP vehemently
contended that, after meticulously examining all the
materials available on record, the learned Sessions Judge
convicted the accused in a well reasoned judgment which
does not call for any interference by the hands of this
Court. He would further contend that the prosecution
successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt by the evidence of Investigation Officer-
PW.33 so also the other official witnesses i.e., PW.23 to
30. He would further contend that, though the other
material witnesses turned hostile to the prosecution case,
there is no bar to disbelieve the evidence of official
witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused as held
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgments.
Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeals.
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4528-DB
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the
respective parties so also perused the evidence and
documents made available before us, the points that
would arise for our consideration are:
1. Whether the judgment under these
appeals suffers from any perversity or
illegality?
2. Whether the learned Sessions Judge is
justified in convicting the
appellants/accused for the offences
punishable under Sections 302, 201,
120-B, 109 r/w Section 34 of IPC?
11. This Court being the Appellate Court, in order
to, re-appreciate the entire material on record, it is
relevant to consider the evidence of prosecution witnesses
and the documents relied upon. On a cursory glance on
the evidence deposed by the witnesses before the trial
Court are as under:
(i) PW.1-Shivaram, the complainant and the
younger brother of deceased Laxmibai, lodged the
complaint as per Ex.P1 and deposed that accused No.1 is
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4528-DB
the grandson and accused No.4 is the son of the deceased.
However, this witness turned hostile to the prosecution
case by denying other averments of complaint lodged by
him as per Ex.P1.
(ii) PW.2-Lingamma and PW.3-Jagannath, the
witnesses for inquest panchanama drawn on the dead
body of the deceased as per Ex.P3. However, both the
witnesses were turned hostile to the prosecution case.
(iii) PW.4-Sunil, witness for Ex.P4 i.e., spot
mahazar, however this witness turned hostile to the
prosecution case.
(iv) PW.5-Janabai, the circumstantial witness and
also the younger sister of the deceased Laxmibai and
mother of PW.1. However, this witness turned hostile to
the prosecution case.
(v) PW.6-Umakanth, witness for Ex.P7 i.e., seizure
mahazar at the instance of accused i.e., the weapons
M.Os.12 and 13 used for the commission of crime by the
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4528-DB
accused. However, this witness turned hostile to the
prosecution case.
(vi) PW.7-Goutam, son of PW.5 and the
circumstantial witness, turned hostile to the prosecution
case.
(vii) PW.8-Muktabai and PW.9-Shakuntala, the
circumstantial witnesses and relatives of the deceased.
However, these witnesses turned hostile to the
prosecution case.
(viii) PW.10-Mallikarjun, PW.11-Narsingh, PW.12-
Subhash and PW.13-Kashinath, the labourers of the Town
Panchayat who exhumed the dead body of the deceased
from the pit at the instructions of the Chief Officer in the
presence of the family members. However, all these
witnesses were partly turned hostile to the prosecution
case.
(ix) PW.14-Sheik Chand, the Chief Officer of Town
Panchayat who sent labourers i.e., PWs.11 to 13 from TMC
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4528-DB
Office for exhumation of dead body of the deceased. He
deposed that, he had given Khata Extract i.e., Ex.P17 of
the house of the husband of the deceased.
(x) PW.15-Ramesh and PW.16-Bhimrao, the panch
witnesses for cloth seizure of the deceased as per Ex.P18,
turned hostile to the prosecution case.
(xi) PW.17-Subhash and PW.18-Raju, the panch
witnesses for recovery of currency notes from the accused
as per Ex.P19, turned hostile to the prosecution case.
(xii) PW.19-Ashok and PW.20-Sanjukumar, the
panch witnesses for exhumation of the dead body of the
deceased as per Ex.P20, turned hostile to the prosecution
case.
(xiii) PW.21-Rahula, the witness for spot
panchanama Ex.P4, turned hostile to the prosecution case.
(xiv) PW.22-Lalappa, witness for seizure
panchanama-Ex.P7 i.e., cloths M.Os.12 to 14, turned
hostile to the prosecution case.
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4528-DB
(xv) PW.23-Rajendra K.V., The Taluka Executive
Magistrate conducted the panchanama and exhumation of
dead body as ordered by the Sub Divisional Magistrate,
Bidar and he prepared panchanama of exhuming body as
per Ex.P20. He recorded the statements of PWs.5, 15, 17,
18, 19 and identified the inquest panchanama-Ex.P3,
blouse and saree of deceased as M.O.1.
(xvi) PW.24-The Police Constable, carried the FIR to
the jurisdictional Magistrate.
(xvii) PW.25-Shobha, handed over the dead body of
the deceased and M.Os.1 to 3 to the relatives after
conducting post-mortem examination.
(xviii) PW.26-Santosh is the owner of land bearing
Survey No.66 measuring 3 acre 18 guntas situated at
Aurab Taluka where the robbed amount was hidden by the
accused.
(xix) PW.27-Veershetty Rathod, Assistant Engineer,
prepared the spot sketch as per Ex.P22.
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4528-DB
(xx) PW.28-Dr.Gayatri, conducted the autopsy over
the dead body and issued the postmortem report as per
Ex.P24 and also identified the FSL report as per Ex.P25
and given the final opinion as to the cause of death as per
Ex.P26.
(xxi) PW.29-Shivanand, the then PSI, registered the
FIR against the accused as per Ex.P27 based on the
complaint lodged by PW.1 as per Ex.P1.
(xxii) PW.30-Vivekanand, the Assistant Executive
Engineer, GESCOM, issued a Certificate as per Ex.P28 that
there was an electricity supply in the intervening night of
26.11.2014 and 27.11.2014 at Aurad village.
(xxiii) PW.31-Basavaraj, the circumstantial witness ,
turned hostile to the prosecution case.
(xxiv) PW.32-Ujjwala, the Presiding Officer of II Addl.
Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bidar deposed about the
request letter of the accused to record the confessional
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4528-DB
statement of accused No.1. However the accused had not
given such statement.
(xxv) PW.33-Siddappa, CPI, Rona, the Investigation
Officer in this case. After completion of investigation, laid
the charge sheet against the accused in this case.
12. On careful perusal of the above evidence, in
order to prove the homicidal death of the deceased
Laxmibai, the prosecution relied the evidence of PW.23-
the Taluka Executive Magistrate, whose presence inquest
panchanama on the dead body was conducted so also
PW.28-Doctor who conducted the postmortem
examination, Ex.P3-inquest Panchanama, Ex.P24-
postmortem report, Ex.P25-Forensic Science Laboratory
report and final opinion of the Doctor-PW.28 as per
Ex.P26. PW.29 conducted the inquest panchanama as per
Ex.P3. PW.23-the Taluka Executive Magistrate was present
during that time and had perused the injuries sustained by
the deceased. The Doctor has opined that the death is due
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4528-DB
to "hemorrhage and shock as a result of cut throat injury".
He further opined that, by sharp edged weapon if throat is
cut, then there are chances of occurring cut throat injury.
Hence, on conjoint reading of the above evidence, the
prosecution has proved that the death of deceased
Laxmibai was homicidal one. However, to connect the
accused for homicidal death of deceased, though the
prosecution examined PWs.1 to 22 the relatives of
deceased and other material circumstantial witnesses,
unfortunately, all of them have utterly turned hostile to
the prosecution case.
13. The Sessions Judge convicted the accused
solely based on the testimony of the Investigation Officer-
PW.33 and the evidence of other official witnesses. No
doubt, the testimony of official witnesses cannot be
discarded for the reason that they are the official
witnesses. In the same time, the Court must look into the
corroborative evidence to rely the testimony of official
witnesses. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pradeep
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4528-DB
Narayan Madgaonkar and Others v. State of
Maharashtra reported in (1995) 4 SCC 255 held that
indeed the evidence of the officials (Police) witnesses
cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they
belong to the Police force and are, 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.
14. Admittedly, the entire case of the prosecution
rests on circumstantial evidence. The Hon'ble Apex Court
laid the law in catena of judgments as how a case has to
be proved, if it rests on circumstantial evidence. The
panchasheela principles held by the Hon'ble Apex Court
way back in the year 1984 in the case of Sharad
Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra reported in
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4528-DB
(1984) 4 SCC 116 which was re-iterated by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the recent judgment i.e., Shankar v. State
of Maharashtra reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 268
held as under.
(1) the circumstances from which the
conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should
be fully established. It may be noted here
that this Court indicated that the
circumstances concerned 'must or should'
and not 'may be' established. There is not
only a grammatical but a legal distinction
between 'may be proved' and 'must be or
should be proved' as was held by this
Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State
of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC 793]
where the following observations were
made:
19. ..."Certainly, it is a primary
principle that the accused must
be and not merely may be guilty
before a court can convict and the
mental distance between 'may be'
and 'must be' is long and divides
vague conjectures from sure
conclusions."
(2) The facts so established should be
consistent only with the hypothesis of the
guilt of the accused, that is to say, they
should not be explainable on any other
hypothesis except that the accused is
guilty,
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4528-DB
(3) the circumstances should be of a
conclusive nature and tendency,
(4) they should exclude every possible
hypothesis except the one to be proved,
and
(5) there must be a chain of evidence so
complete as not to leave any reasonable
ground for the conclusion consistent with
the innocence of the accused and must
show that in all human probability the act
must have been done by the accused.
15. By applying the principles laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court as above to the facts and evidence of
case on hand, in our considered view, the prosecution
miserably failed to prove all the circumstances except the
homicidal death of deceased. The dead body was not
exhumed at the instance of accused. Before their arrest
itself, the dead body of deceased was exhumed. Further,
the other circumstances like motive, recovery of weapons
used for the commission of crime, recovery of clothes of
the accused worn at the time of the incident are
concerned, though the prosecution examined the material
witnesses i.e., PWs.1-the brother of deceased, PW.5-the
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4528-DB
sister of deceased, PW.7-the son-in-law of the deceased,
PW.9-the relative of deceased, none of these witnesses
have supported the case of the prosecution. As per
prosecution, PWs.1 and 2 being the relatives were aware
about the harassment meted out by accused Nos.1 and 4
to the deceased for money to their bad vices, however,
both were not supported the case of prosecution. Though,
the Investigation Officer exhumed the dead body in the
presence of PW.23-Tahsildar, the same was conducted
before the arrest of accused. As such, the dead body was
not recovered at the instance of accused. Though the
learned Sessions Judge opined that the death of the
deceased was well within the special knowledge of
accused, they have to explain the same, if they have not
committed the murder of deceased, then who else has
committed the same. The said reasoning of the learned
Sessions Judges is totally misconceived, since the dead
body was exhumed before the arrest of accused. Further,
the initial burden lies on the prosecution to prove its case,
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4528-DB
then only such burden shifts on the accused to explain the
special knowledge. The recovery of the weapons which
were said to have been used for the commission of crime
i.e., M.Os.12 and 13, under Ex.P14 also not proved since
the mahazar witnesses for the same are totally turned
hostile to the prosecution case. The learned Sessions
Judge by relying the evidence of Investigation Officer and
the Doctor who conducted the autopsy, convicted the
accused that too in a case based on circumstantial
evidence. Hence, as per the settled position of law laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court supra, the impugned
judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge calls for
interference.
16. We are aware of the fact that the ghostly
murder of age old lady by her own son and grandson at
her house goes unpunished, but to prove the act of
accused, absolutely no evidence is forthcoming on record.
Suspicion, however strong cannot find place of proof.
There is a long difference between 'may be' and 'must be'
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4528-DB
as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Narendra Singh v. State of M.P., (2004) 10 SCC 699
held in Paragraph No.30 as under:
30. It is now well settled that benefit of
doubt belonged to the accused. It is
further trite that suspicion, however
grave may be, cannot take place of a
proof. It is equally well settled that there
is a long distance between "may be" and
"must be".
17. In view of the above discussion, we are of the
considered view that the learned Sessions Judge erred
while convicting the accused since the prosecution failed to
prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable
doubt. In that view of the matter, we answer point No.1 in
the affirmative and point No.2 in the negative and proceed
to pass the following:
ORDER
i. Criminal Appeal No.200031/2021 filed
by accused No.1, Crl.A.No.200086/2016
filed by accused No.2 and
Crl.A.No.200128/2016 filed by accused
No.4 are allowed.
- 26 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4528-DB
ii. The judgment of conviction and order of
sentence imposed by the Principal
District and Sessions Judge, Bidar in
S.C.No.41/2015 dated 11.04.2016 is
set aside.
iii. Consequently, the appellants/accused
Nos.1, 2 and 4 are acquitted for the
offences punishable under Sections 302
read with Section 34 of IPC, read with
Section 120-B and 109 so also offence
punishable under Section 201 of IPC
read with Section 34 of IPC.
i.e., appellants in Criminal Appeal
Nos.200086/2016 and 200128/2016,
stand cancelled. The fine amount, if
any, deposited by them shall be
refunded to them on due identification.
v. The Jail Authority is directed to release
accused No.1 in Criminal Appeal
No.200031/2021, forthwith, if he is not
required in any other case.
- 27 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4528-DB
vi. The operative portion of the judgment
shall be communicated to the
concerned Jail Authorities.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
HKV
CT;BN
