The Supreme Court has set aside a judgement by the Karnataka High Court, which held a man guilty of murder reversing his acquittal by a trial court. Effectively, the top court upheld the lower court’s order stating that it will be “unsafe to sustain the conviction of the man on such circumstantial evidence, where the chain is clearly incomplete”.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah allowed an appeal filed by R Sreenivasa against an HC judgement dated October 20, 2010. The order convicted him of killing a man identified as Krishnappa in January 2002. The SC discarded reliance upon circumstantial evidence, including the “last seen” theory.
A trial court in Bengaluru had acquitted the man and another accused in the murder case, holding that the prosecution had failed to prove the evidence of “last seen”. According to the prosecution, the motive behind killing Krishnappa was that he had developed an intimacy with the sister of the accused. It was also alleged that both the accused had poured petrol over the victim’s body to destroy evidence.
Sreenivasa pointed out that, as per the chargesheet, it was the other accused who had gone to Krishnappa’s house and taken him away two days before the incident. He contended the evidence of “last seen” could not be relied upon based on an extrajudicial confession by a witness, who had turned hostile during the trial.
He also said the victim’s wife deposed that there were cordial relations between him and her family, so the theory of animosity is negated. He also submitted that the woman had not lodged a complaint when her husband went missing for two to three days.
Going by the records, the SC bench stated that there is “major discrepancy” in the charges framed by the court and the statement of witnesses. It noted that the specific allegation that the other accused was the one who had taken Krishnappa away from his house, whereas during deposition the victim’s wife and brother stated that it was Sreenivasa, is enough to raise doubts on the “veracity and authenticity of such statements”.
The SC also pointed to the fact that the victim had, late at night, agreed to go to Sreenivasa’s house and, in view of the allegation that there was strong animosity between the two, that appears “highly improbable”.
“These circumstances creating a doubt as to the appellant’s involvement in the crime attain more credence when gauged apropos the factum of the deceased being missing for more than two days, yet neither his wife nor his brother reported the deceased as missing. It does not appear that the deceased’s family took any steps to find out as to where the deceased had gone. The deceased’s wife has testified that relations between the parties were cordial, and has not hinted at animosity,” the bench stated.
The court concluded that there is no definitive evidence of “last seen” as also the fact that there is a long gap between that time and the recovery of the body. In the absence of other corroborative pieces of evidence, it cannot be said that the “chain of circumstances is so complete that the only inference that could be drawn is the guilt of the appellant”.
Comments
0 comment