Headnote
AI-drafted · Reviewed and approved
The appellant-accused was convicted by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to death under Section 302 IPC and rigorous imprisonment of ten years with fine under Section 392 IPC. The Sessions Court made a reference for confirmation of the death sentence under Section 366 Cr.P.C. The accused had allegedly taken the deceased to Ghati Subramanya temple under the pretext of offering Pooja, murdered her by strangulation using an electric wire and twine thread, administered cyanide, and committed robbery of her gold ornaments, watch, and cash.
The criminal appeal was filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. by the accused challenging the conviction and sentence. The case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, with no eyewitnesses to the incident. Among the grounds urged were: failure of the investigating officer to send the seized substance (alleged cyanide) to the Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis, discrepancies between the date of arrest and the date of the offence, and failure to properly investigate the recovery of gold articles from the accused's possession. The earlier conviction had been set aside by the High Court and the matter remanded for cross-examination of the medical witness (PW.8), after which the trial court again convicted the accused.
The High Court took up the criminal appeal and the criminal referred case together for hearing and pronouncement, examining whether the prosecution had established the chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt to sustain the conviction and the death sentence awarded to the accused.
Catchwords:
murder · robbery · circumstantial evidence · death sentence · confirmation of death sentence · strangulation · cyanide · Section 302 IPC · Section 392 IPC · Section 366 CrPC · Section 374 CrPC · remand · forensic evidence · recovery of stolen property
Headnote © LegalFirms.in. Section 52(1)(q)(iv) of the Copyright Act, 1957 allows a court's
judgment to be reproduced unless the court has prohibited it.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.