R. Sreenivasa vs State of Karnataka

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

6 September 2023

Case No.

Criminal Appeal No. 859 of 2011

Result

Allowed

Bench

Vikram Nath, Ahsanuddin Amanullah

Citation

[2023] 12 S.C.R. 55 : 2023 INSC 803

Issue for consideration

High Court if justified in reversing the acquittal order passed by the Trial Court qua the appellant-accused acquitting him of offences u/ss.302 and 201, IPC by which it held that the prosecution had failed to prove that the deceased was last seen in the company of the appellant.

Headnote

Evidence – Circumstantial evidence – Last seen theory – When cannot be invoked:

Held: The ‘last seen’ theory can be invoked only when the same stands proved beyond reasonable doubt – In the present case, there is no definitive evidence of last seen and that theory itself is in doubt – Also, there is a long time-gap between the alleged last seen and the recovery of the body – Further, there is major discrepancy in the charge framed and the statement of the witnesses- the specific allegation that co-accused was the one who had taken away the deceased from his house, whereas during deposition the deceased’s wife and his brother 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 – Also, 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 – Further, it does not appear that the deceased’s family took any steps to find out as to where the deceased had gone despite being missing for more than two days – The deceased’s wife even testified that relations between the parties were cordial, and did not hint at animosity – Thus, 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 – Unsafe to sustain the conviction of the appellant on such evidence, where the chain is incomplete – Presumption of innocence is in favour of the accused and when doubts emanate, the benefit accrues to the accused, and not the prosecution – Impugned judgment set aside. [Paras 13, 15, 16 and 17] Practice and Procedure – Acquittal – Interference by appellate Court:

Held: An appellate court, in the case of an acquittal, must bear in mind that there is a double presumption in favour of the accused – When two views are possible, the one favouring the accused is to be leaned on – Criminal Law. [Para 18]

LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES

State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram, (2006) 12 SCC 254 : [2006] 8 Suppl. SCR 501 – held not applicable.

JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present criminal appeal, under The Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970, is directed against the Final Judgment and Order dated 20.10.2010 in Crl. A. No.1952/2005 (hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Judgment”) passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as the “High Court”), whereby the High Court was pleased to allow the appeal filed by the State qua the sole appellant. THE FACTUAL PRISM: 3. The ap

View Subscription Plans →