STATE OF KARNATAKA versus A. B. MAHESHA ETC. on 14 August 2018

922

SUPREME COURT REPORTS[2018] 10 S.C.R. 922

[2018] 10 S.C.R.

A

STATE OF KARNATAKA

v.

A. B. MAHESHA ETC.

(Criminal Appeal Nos. 1133-1135 of 2010)

BAUGUST 14, 2018

[R. BANUMATHI AND VINEET SARAN, JJ.]

Appeal: State’s appeal against acquittal – Trial court convictedrespondents/accused for offence of murder on the basis ofcircumstantial evidence – High Court set aside conviction andacquitted all the accused – On State’s appeal, held: The evidenceof prosecution witnesses were totally contradictory to each other –There was material contradiction as to the recovery of materialobjects and also identification of those material objects by the fatherof the victim-deceased (PW-3) – There was inconsistent versionbetween the I.O. and PW-3 which raised serious doubt about thealleged recovery and the case of prosecution – Based on theseinconsistencies and contradictions, High Court had acquitted theaccused – There is no serious infirmity in the judgment of the HighCourt warranting interference.

C

D

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal AppealNos. 1133-1135 of 2010

E

From the Judgment and Order dated 06.03.2007 of the High Courtof Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No.1438 of 2003 c/wCriminal Appeal No. 1580 of 2003 and Criminal Appeal No. 1591 ofF2003.

V. N. Raghupathy, Adv. for the appellant.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. The appeals by the State of KarnatakaGare against the acquittal of the respondents/accused.

2. The case of the prosecution revolves around the followingcircumstances:- (i) deceased Jagdeesha was last seen alive in theCompany of A1 to A3-respondents; (ii) recovery of Car havingRegistration No. MEC 8344 and (iii) recovery of material objects from H

the houses of accused – one golden chain (MO-8) at the behest of A1,one Rado watch (MO-6) at the behest of A2 and one golden ring (MO-7) at the behest of A3.

3. The trial Court convicted all the accused under Section 302,201, 392 and 397 IPC and sentenced to them, inter alia, to undergo lifeimprisonment. The High Court by the impugned judgment allowed theappeal and set aside the conviction and acquitted all the accused.

4. We have heard Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, learned counsel appearingfor the State of Karnataka and perused the impugned judgment andmaterials on record. In spite of service of notice none entered appearanceon behalf of the respondents-accused.

5. Insofar as the first circumstance that the deceased was lastseen alive, the prosecution relies upon the testimony of P.Ws 5 and 6who were also running the taxi at Chikkamagalur Car Stand. PW-5 statedthat even though the accused wanted to engage his car,deceasedJagdeesha expressed his intention to go on hire as his wife’s house is inThanneruhalla near Hasan so that he could go to the house of his in-laws where his wife was staying. Subsequently the body was foundnear the bridge on NH-48 near Kirisave Village on 08.05.2000. Thebody was found in a decomposed state on 08.05.2000. The evidence ofPWs 5 and 6 is only limited to the extent that the deceased was last seenalive in the company of the accused.

6. So far as the second circumstance - recovery of the car,prosecution relies upon the evidence of PW-4 (garage owner) and PW-20 S.I. of Gudlur Police Station (Tamil Nadu). In his evidence PW-4(garage owner) has stated that the accused nos. 2 and 3 had left the carin his garage for repairs and for effecting repairs he issued quotationunder Ex.P-6 on 09.05.2000. Contrarily, PW-20 S.I. of Gudlur PoliceStation has stated that the car was abandoned in front of “Hot and ColdHotel” and he seized the car on 07.06.2000 and reported the matter tothe Taluk Executive Magistrate. Insofar as the recovery of the car, theevidence of PW-4 (garage owner) and evidence of PW-20 S.I. of GudlurPolice Station are totally contradictory to each other and it is difficult tobe reconciled. Pointing out the inconsistency in the evidence of PW-4and PW-20, the High Court rightly held that the case of the prosecutionis highly doubtful and this circumstance cannot form the basis forconviction.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A7. Insofar as the recovery of the material objects namely, goldchain (MO-8), Rado watch (MO-6) and golden ring (MO-7) recoveredfrom the houses of the respective accused, they were identified by PW-3 (father of the deceased) on 18.06.2000; whereas as per version of theinvestigating officer they were recovered on 23.06.2000. Here againthere is a material contradiction as to the recovery of the above materialBobjects and also the identification of those material objects by PW-3.The High Court has pointed out that the inconsistent version betweenthe evidence of I.O and PW-3 (father of the deceased) raises seriousdoubt about the alleged recovery and the case of the prosecution.

8. Based on the above inconsistencies and contradictions whenCthe High Court has acquitted the accused, this Court can not interferewith the acquittal unless there are serious and substantial error orcompelling reasons warranting interference. We do not find any suchserious infirmity in the judgment of the High Court warrantinginterference.

D9. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.

Devika Gujral Appeals dismissed.

E

F

G

H