Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2025 DIGILAW 26 (SC)

G. Kantharaju v. State of Karnataka

2025-01-02

AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2025
ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Leave granted. 3. Appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under sections 381, 302, 201 of I.P.C. Conviction has been upheld by the High Court in an appeal. Although it is a case of circumstantial evidence but the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 4. For the reason that the motive has been established, the last scene has been substantially proved and there is also evidence of recovery,etc. 5. Under these circumstances, we see absolutely no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the High Court. 6. All the same considering the fact that the appellant has already been remained in custody for more than fifteen years with remission and there is no criminal antecedents against the appellant, we request the State to consider the pre-mature release of the appellant as per the existing Policy. 7. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s), if any shall stand disposed of.