Headnote
AI-drafted · Reviewed and approved
The appellants, Smt Uma (Accused No.1) and Sri Shivabasavegowda (Accused No.2), challenged the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 19.01.2018 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara sitting at Kanakapura in S.C.No.5017/2013. Both accused were convicted under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of Smt. Doddadevamma, who had lent Rs.25,000/- as a hand loan to Accused No.1 and was allegedly killed when she demanded repayment. Both accused were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and fines for the offence under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC, and rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fines for the offence under Section 201 r/w 34 IPC, with sentences ordered to run concurrently.
The prosecution case rested on the allegation that on 28.01.2013, Accused No.1 took the deceased to her house at around 6.45 p.m. ostensibly to arrange repayment of the loan, but the deceased never returned home. On 29.01.2013, the body was found at the Silkworm Cocoons house of Accused No.1. The prosecution examined 19 witnesses, marked 24 documentary exhibits and 8 material objects. Both accused denied the prosecution's case in their Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination and led no defence evidence.
The Karnataka High Court, upon hearing learned counsel for both appellants and the Special Public Prosecutor for the State, proceeded to examine the impugned judgment on conviction and sentence against both accused persons in these criminal appeals filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Catchwords:
murder · causing disappearance of evidence · common intention · hand loan · circumstantial evidence · conviction · criminal appeal · Section 374(2) CrPC · rigorous imprisonment for life
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.
