The appellant has been convicted under Section 302 (Para 3)
The allegation is that Accused No.1 (appellant herein) along with Accused No.2 with a common intention killed the deceased. The motive statedly being that the deceased had developed illicit intimacy with the appellant’s sister. (Para 3)
The High Court vide the Impugned Judgment reversed the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court qua the appellant whereas the appeal against the co-accused-Accused No.2 (Para 6)
The fact that there is major discrepancy in the charge framed by the Court and the statement of the witnesses – the specific allegation that A2 was the one who had taken away the deceased from his house, whereas during deposition the deceased’s wife and his brother have stated that it was the appellant who had taken away the deceased is enough to raise doubts with regard to the veracity and authenticity of such statements. Furthermore, the fact that the deceased, late at night, agreed to go to the house of the appellant, when seen in the backdrop of the allegation that there was strong animosity between the two, appears to be 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. (Para 13)
In the present case, given that there is no definitive evidence of last seen as also the fact that there is a long time-gap between the alleged last seen and the recovery of the body, and 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. (Para 17)
For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is allowed. The Impugned Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the High Court is set aside. (Para 19)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2023 STPL(Web) 246 SC
[2023 INSC 803]
Sreenivasa Vs. State Of Karnataka
Criminal Appeal No. 859 of 2011-Decided on 6-9-2023
https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/2023-STPLWeb-246-SC.pdf
