LexAJIT SAVANT MAJAGAVI versus STATE OF KARNATAKA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A AJIT SA VANT MAJAGA VI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AUGUST 14, 1997 B (M.K. MUKHERJEE ANDS. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.] Criminal Law-Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 302-Criminal Pro- cedure Code 197rSection 378-Appeal against acquittal-Appellant ac- quitted by trial court-Of charge of murdering wife-High Court reversing the C acquittal on circumstantial evidence-Whether permissible-Held, permis- sible-Principles laid down. Indian Evidence Act 1872-Circumstantial evidence-When can be relied on-Principles explained. D Section 73-Comparison of signature of accused-Held Court em- powered to con;pare disputed signatures of accused w#h the admitted signa- ture. The Appellant was married to one P. After a while disputes arose E between the appellant and his wife, since be suspected her fidelity. Appel- lants wife went to her parents' house aad deliven(fa female child. Though the Appellant did not \·isit his wife a~ four months, he went to take his child and wife back with him. On his way b<iCk, the Appellant with his wife and child stayed in a iodge. On ~ next diiy his wife was found dead in the lodge and the child was fo~~ntruste4 to a friend of the appellant. F The Appellant was tried under S~~ion 302 IPC, and he was acquitted by the Sessions Court, which found that the prosecution failed to establish that the appellant had come to the house of his father-in-law and took the wife and child away or that he took them to the lodge where she was throttled to death by the appellant. It also accepted the contention of the G Appellant that since PWs 3, 9, 14, 17 and 18 have turned hostile and the prosecution theory is broken, he could not be convicted on the basis of broken circumstantial evidence. On appeal, the High Court reversed the finding and held the Appel- lant guilty under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprison- H ment for life. The High Court held that the i.Ieath of P. in a room of the 444 AJIT SAVANT MAJAGAVI v. STATE 445 lodge at the hands of the appellant had been established by P.W. 1 who A found the body. P.W. 2 who was the room boy who deposed that the Appellant came to the lodge with his wife and child and later left the lodge with his child on the pretext that his wife had died of cardiac arrest and that he was going to call his relations. The High Court held that inspite of the hostility of PWs 3, 9, 14, 17 and 18 the prosecution case was fully B established by other witnesses viz., PWs 1, 2 and 12. Before this court the Appellant contended that cumulative effect of th,e circumstances does not lead to the irresistible conclusion that the appellant was guilty and that the hotel records should not be relied upon to indicate that the appellant had stayed in that lodge. C Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD : 1. The High Court in reversing the judgment of the trial court had fully adhered to the principles laid down by this Court in various decisions and there is no infirmity in its judgment. [458-G] D Sheo Swamp & Ore. v. King Emperor, L.R. 61 Indian Appeals 398 = AIR (1934) P.C. 227(2); Sanwat Singh v. State of Rajasthan, [1961] 3 SCR 120; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Samman Oas, AIR (1972) SC 677 = [1972] 3 SCR 58, relied on. E 2. For a crime to be proved it is not necessary that the crime must be seen to have been committed and must, in all circumstances, be proved by direct ocular evidence by examining before the Court those persons who had seen its commission. The offence can be proved by circumstantial evidence also. The princip ii fact or "factum probandum" may be proved indirectly by means of certain inferences drawn from "factum probans" that is the evidentiary facts. To put it differently, circumstantial evidence F is not direct to the point in issue but consists of evidence of various other facts which are so closely associated with the· fact in issue that taken together, they form a chain of circumstances from which the existence of G the principal fact can be legally inferred or presumed. [ 452-E-F] Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR (1977) SC 1063; Eradu & Ors. v. State of Hyderabad, AIR (J'l56) SC 316; Earabhadrappa v. State of Kamataka, AIR (1983) SC 446; S.ate of U.P. v. Sukhbasi & Ors., AIR (1985) H 446 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A SC 1224; Ba/winder Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR (1987) SC 350; Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR (1989) SC 1890; State of U.P. v.Ashok Kumar Srivastava
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.