LexANANDA POOJARY versus STATE OF KARNATAKA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 10 S.C.R. 929 ANANDA POOJARY v. STATE OF KARNATAKA (Criminal Appeal No. 2202 of 2014) OCTOBER 14, 2014 [J. CHELAMESWAR AND A.K. SIKRI, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950: A 8 Art. 136 - Interference with concurrent findings recorded c by both the courts belo 1w - Such an exercise would be justified by the court for the purpose of satisfying itself that the grave injustice had not resulted in the case - Principles culled out. Penal Code, 1860: ss.302 and 201- Appellant stated to have murdered the lady who had bequeathed all her properties to him - Conviction by courts below based on circumstantial evidence - Set aside - Having regard to the seriousness of the nature of imputation, viz. that of murder, coupled with the fact that findings of the courts below are the result of ignoring vital material and unsustainable inferences, interference with the judgments of courts below is permissible under the law. Allowing the appeal, the Court D E F HELD: 1.1. It would be a natural conduct of any person to take the patient to a doctor under whose care and supervision the patient is already put, as that doctor would be in a position to immediately diagnose the G ailment, knowing well the medical history of the patient. Therefore, merely because there was some other hospital nearby and the appellant did not take her at the said hospital but chose to bring her to Adarsha Hospital, 929 H 930 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 10 S.C.R. A where she was a regular patient, is not a circumstance which would create any doubt about his integrity or conduct. [para 17] [941-E-G] 1.2. In so far as issuance of death certificate (Ex.P-3) 8 issued by CW-13 is concerned, it has come on record that the doctor, CW-13 had seen the dead body of the deceased. She formed the opinion that the deceased had died of cardiac arrest. Since CW-13 examined the body and issued the certificate, it is she who was competent C to issue such a certificate. [para 18] [941-G-H; 942-A-B] 1.3. It cannot be said with certainty as to whether the deceased died of smothering or being a heart patient, the actual cause of death was cardiac arrest. In such circumstances, when there was a possibility of both the D causes of death, in the absence of clear certainty about the cause, this Court is of the opinion that High Court committed an error in not giving benefit of doubt to the accused. [para 21] [943-H; 944-A-B] E 1.4. The condition in the will that the appellant will succeed to the estate of the deceased only if he marries a Christian girl cannot be said to be the motive for the appellant to have killed the deceased. Death of the deceased natural or unnatural would not and could not F wipe off the condition stated in the will. [para 25] [946-A- C] 1.5. It is a matter of record that the will and the documents relating to investments and jewellery were handed over to the appellant and, therefore, they were in G his rightful possession. Therefore, the so called 'recovery' could not have been a circumstance from · which an adverse inference is drawn. The appellant is accordingly acquitted of the charge giving him benefit of doubt. [para 26 & 34] [946-F-G; 952-B] H ANANDA POOJARY v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 931 2. This Court has interfered with the findings of the A courts below, having regard to the seriousness of the nature of imputation, viz. thaf"of murder, coupled with the fact that findings of the- courts below are the result of ignoring vital material and unsustainable inferences. Such an exercise by Court is-permissible under the law and B would be justified for the purpose of satisfying itself that the grave injustice had not resulted in the case. [para 29- 30] [947-E-G] Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar v. State of Maharashtra, 2009 C (3) SeR 1122 = (2009) 11 SCC 141; Sham Sunder v. Puran & Anr. 1990 (1) Suppl. seR 662 = (1990) 4 sec 731; Khilli Ram v. State of Rajasthan 1985 (1) SeR 1136 = 1985 (1) sec 28; and Suryamoorthi & Anr. v. Govindaswamy & Ors., (1989) 3 sec 24 - relied on. Case Law Reference: 1990 (1) Suppl. SeR 662 relied on 1985 (1) SCR 1136 relied on (1989) 3 sec 24 2009 (3) SCR 1122 relied on relied on para 30 para 31 para 32 para 33 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 2202 of 2014. From the Judgment and Order dated 14.02.2013 in CRLA No. 178 of 2009 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore. Basant R., Shekhar G. Devasa, Karthik Ashok, S
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.