Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 807 (KAR)

STATE BY GANGAMMANAGUDI POLICE v. CHANNAIAH

2003-09-23

body2003
SALDANHA, J. ( 1 ) THE State Government has assailed the acquittal of accused 1 and 2 by the trial court on the ground that the chain of circumstances in this case leads to the irresistible conclusion, that accused 1 and 2 were the persons responsible for the murder of Channakeshava, whose body was found at Air Force Firing Range at Jalahalli, on the morning of 17-3-2001. ( 2 ) THE trial court after very elaborate analysis, first of the law and then of each of the circumstances, recorded a conclusion that the guilt of the accused said to have been not established and therefore acquitted them and the learned Addl. SPP, who appears in support of this appeal, had taken us through the record circumstance by circumstance. His submission is that the evidence conclusively establishes that the accused had taken substantial loan of Rs. 75,000/- from the deceased. When he had asked for repayment of the amount the situation got unpleasant and since the prosecution has established through evidence the nature of the transaction, that the motive for the murder stands established. All that we wish to add is that it could certainly provide a certain possible motive. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel then submitted that the recovery of the knife is the conclusive circumstance against accused 1 and 2. It is true that a knife has been recovered, but the supportive evidence in this regard is relatively weak and more importantly, that evidence is not of much consequence because no blood stains or incriminating materials are found on that weapon and consequently, if this is to be used as an incriminating circumstance, something more would have to be established by the prosecution. ( 4 ) SO far as the crucial area of the evidence is concerned, namely, the circumstance under which the deceased was done to death by slitting his throat, there is neither oral evidence not any evidence of any other type in order to establish as to when and where this unfortunate incident took place, but more importantly, there is virtually zero evidence to link the accused with this incident. ( 5 ) ALL the circumstances that have been alleged and established even if taken cumulatively fail to satisfy the legal requirements of a case based on circumstantial evidence, which can lead to a conviction. ( 5 ) ALL the circumstances that have been alleged and established even if taken cumulatively fail to satisfy the legal requirements of a case based on circumstantial evidence, which can lead to a conviction. First of all what we need to observe is that the chain of circumstances presupposes that there will be a starting point and more importantly, that there will also be a finishing point and that the Supreme Court has times without number pointed out that even one or two strong conclusive circumstances would still not be good enough to sustain a conviction on circumstantial evidence, because the requirement that has got to be a complete chain which presupposes several links and not one or two links or where presupposes a web of sufficient intensity and dimensions, which absolutely leaves no room for doubt or no avenue of escape to the accuse. In other words, the settled legal position is to the effect that the evidence taken in its totality must establish not only a nexus between the accused and the offence, but must also establish the irresistible conclusion that this material is in consonance with the only possible inference of guilt and nothing else. The Apex Court was at pains to point out that in these class of cases each circumstance is required to be strong and conclusive and is required to be established individually and completely. Where the circumstances itself are weak, where they establish only a possible background, the motive and the fact that the accused may have been involved in the offence, the chain of circumstances cannot be held to conform with the requirements of law in the matter of a conviction based on circumstantial evidence. We have done a very detailed and thorough review of the entire record and heard both the learned counsel and having done so we will have also to bear in mind that this is an appeal against acquittal, wherein we have before us a well considered judgment. The trial court has not overlooked any aspect of the evidence. The trial court has not failed to analyses that evidence and the trial court has also recorded findings that are perfectly plausible and logical or rather, the conclusions arrived at are sustainable in law. The trial court has not overlooked any aspect of the evidence. The trial court has not failed to analyses that evidence and the trial court has also recorded findings that are perfectly plausible and logical or rather, the conclusions arrived at are sustainable in law. We need to remind ourselves that in such a situation, the High Court is precluded from interfering merely because the an other view is possible. Having applied these principles which are now well defined and well settled to the record of the case, in our considered view, the order of acquittal is fully justified. No interference is permissible. The appeal fails on merits and stands dismissed. As far as IA-I is concerned, in view of the reasons set out, the delay is condoned, IA-I is allowed. --- *** --- .