LexCHETAN versus THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 906 : 2025 INSC 793 Chetan v. The State of Karnataka (Criminal Appeal No. 1568 of 2013) 30 May 2025 [Surya Kant and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the courts below convicting and sentencing the appellant u/ss.302, 304 IPC, and u/ss.3, 5 of the Arms Act, 1959. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 304, 404 – Murder – Conviction on basis of circumstantial evidence, last seen theory, and recovery of articles – Prosecution case that homicidal death of the victim due to gunshot injury by the appellant – Appellant had a grudge against the victim because of certain monetary dispute – After committing the offence, the appellant misappropriated the mobile phone and gold chain belonging to the victim – Appellant used gun belonging to his grandfather without a valid license – Courts below convicted and sentenced the appellant u/ss.302, 304 and ss.3, 5 of the Arms Act, on basis of the circumstantial evidence, last seen theory, recovery of articles, forensic evidence and the act of abscondence by the appellant – Interference with: Held: It was unnatural death due to gunshot injury, thus, case of homicide – Evidence of witnesses supports the last seen theory and strengthens the circumstance – Appellant’s link to the death of the deceased established based on the circumstances and the established facts – Possibility of the deceased being with another person other than the appellant before he was shot quite remote – Prosecution’s case not mere conjecture, but rather based on established circumstances and facts – Forensic evidence based on ballistic tests established that the gun recovered at the instance of the appellant used in causing the bullet injury to the deceased which led to his death – Weapon of crime directly * Author [2025] 5 S.C.R. 907 Chetan v. The State of Karnataka traceable to appellant – Failure to explain the recovery of the gun and its discharge, and recovery of the spent cartridge implicates the appellant – Absence of evidence of any witness seeing the gun being carried by the appellant, not fatal to the prosecution case – Act of absconding by appellant, rather than helping and cooperating with the family of his friend, in spite of persistent enquiries from the father of the deceased, clear indication of his guilt – Furthermore, failure to prove monetary transaction between the appellant and the deceased, may not materially affect the prosecution case – Thus, a clear pattern emerges out of the circumstances so proved with inferential and logical links which unmistakably points to the guilt of the appellant for committing murder of the deceased punishable u/s.302 and also for committing offences u/s.404 and ss.3 and 5 punishable u/ss.25 and 27 of the Arms Act – These proved circumstances considered individually or taken together do not indicate the involvement of anyone else other than the appellant – Prosecution has been able to prove the charges against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt – No material illegality committed by the courts below in appreciating the evidence against the appellant nor any gross injustice caused to the appellant by the impugned judgment by misreading or ignoring any material evidence – Thus, the conviction of the appellant by the courts below does not warrant any interference except for setting aside the conviction u/s.404 as regards recovery of the mobile phone, of which the benefit of doubt given to the appellant, however, the conviction of the appellant u/ss.302 and 404 as regards murder of the deceased and misappropriation of gold chain by the appellant and u/ss.25 and 27 of the Arms Act for unlawful possession and use of the gun, sustained – Arms Act, 1959 – ss.3, 5, 25, 27 – Evidence Act – ss.27, 106. [Paras 10.3, 10.5.1, 10.5.9, 10.6.1, 10.6.8, 10.6.12, 10.7, 10.7.4, 10.7.6, 10.7.9, 10.9.1, 10.11.2, 11.1-11.3] Evidence – Circumstantial evidence – Scope and nature: Held: Circumstantial evidence as opposed to direct evidence, is the inference one draws from the existence of a fact based on certain established fact/circumstance – This process invariably involves intuitive reasoning, proper understanding of human behavior and psychology – Based on lived human experiences and human behaviour, if any supposition of fact is clearly inferable from an established fact, the inferred position of fact should be adopted
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.