LexA. YADHAV versus STATE OF KARNATAKA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 16 $.C.R. 567 A. YADHAV II. ST ATE OF KARNATAKA (Criminal Appeal No.102 of 2001) NOVEMBER 25, 2008 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] A B. Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302 and 394 - Prosecution under - Circumstantial evidence - Acquittal by trial Court - C Conviction by High Court - On appeal, held: Circumstances highlighted by High .Court to hold the accused guilty are relevant - Conviction justified. Evidence - Circumstantial evidence - Reliance on - o Held: Conviction can be based on such evidence - Condition precedent for reliance before conviction discussed. Appellant-accused No.2 was prosecuted u/ss. 302 and 394 IPC alongwith accused No.1. Prosecution case E was based on circumstantial evidence. The circumstances relied on against the appellant-accused were that he was acquainted with the prime accused (A- 1 ); that he was found near the place of incident alongwith A-1 while going to the flat of the deceased persons on the fateful day, whereafter the deceased were not heard/ F seen alive; that A-1 pointed out appellant (A-2) as his accomplice; that as per his voluntary statement pillow and pillow-cover alleged to have been used for smothering both the deceased, were recovered; and that chance finger print of A-2 was found from the scene of G occurrence. Trial. Court convicted A-1 u/ss. 302 and 394 IPC and acquitted appellant-accused giving him benefit of doubt. ~7 H 568 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 S.C.R. A Against the order of trial court three appeals were filed, one by A-1 challenging conviction, the other two were filed by the State; one for enhancement of sentence of A-1 and the other against acquittal of appellant-accused. High Court allowed the appeal of the State challenging B acquittal of appellant-accused while dismissing the other two appeals. Hence, the present appeal by appellant- accused. Dismissing the appeal, the Court: C HELD: 1. The circumstances highlighted by the prosecution against the appellant were that he was acquainted with accused No. 1; that he was found near the place of incident along with Accused No.1 going to the flat of the deceased on 8.8.1992 at about 8.30 pm; D that Accused No.1 pointed out the appellant as his ' accomplice- and after apprehension as per the voluntary statement made by hi_m, M.Os. 7 and 7a (pillow and pillow cover alleged to . have been used for smothering both the deceased) were recovered; that chance finger print E of the appellant were found from the scene of offence. The Hi_gh _Court has referred to several factors including the motive aspect. It has referred to the evidence of PWs. 2 & 4, who saw the appellant and A-1 after they came out of the deceased's house. PW4 remembered that the F appellant was sitting in the car with A 1. The circumstances highlighted by the High Court to hold the appellant guilty cannot be said to be without relevance. The High Court has rightly observed that the trial court· did not consider the relevant aspects while directing G acquittal of the present appellant. [Paras 6 and 18) [581· H; 582-A·B] 2~ Where a ·case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when H all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found A YADHAV v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 569 -1" to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or A the guilt of any other person. There is no doubt that conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence but it should be tested by the touch-stone of law relating to circumstantial evidence. The condition precedent, before conviction could be based on B circumstantial evidence, must be fully established. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must' or 'should' and not 'may be' established; the facts so established should be c consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; they should exclude every possible D hypothesis except the one to be proved; and there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.