ESHWARAIAH AND ANR. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation: [1994] 1 S.C.R. 387 · Decided: 27-01-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

,..,._I 
I 
ESHWARAIAH AND ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA 
JANUARY 27, 1994 
[K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY AND G.N. RAY, JJ.] 
Indian Penal Code, 1860: Section 302/34--Death of a person in the 
A 
B 
+ 
presence of two accused in a house bolted from inside-No plausible explana-
tion-Prosecution could not prove who actually smothered the deceased--Cir-
cumstantial evidence that death was homicidaHfeld both the accused liable C 
to be convicted. 
....... -
Criminal Trial: Circumstantial evidence--Circumstances to be closely 
scrutinised-All circumstances must f onn an unbroken chain leading to the 
only inescapable conclusion of the guilt of the accused. 
Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Sections 101 and lOfr-Burden of 
proof-l'resence of accused and none else at the time of death-Burden lies 
on accused to explain their presence and the circumstances under which the 
death occu"ed. 
The two appellants, were tried for the offence of murder on one 'R'. 
The Sessions Judge held that the prosecution case was based on cir-
cumstantial evidence and that the prosecution had satisfactorily estab-
lished 7 out of 10 of these circumstances. However, he did not accept the 
post-mortem report that the death of the deceased was due to asphyxia on 
account of smothering, but accepted the expert opinion of the Doctor, DW 
1, to the effect that it was a case of natural death and acquitted both the 
appellant accused. 
D 
E 
F 
On appeal by the State, the High Court held that the evidence, 
though circumstantial, clearly proved the guilt of the accused persons. G 
Accordingly, it set aside the order of acquittal passed by the Sessions 
Judge and convicted both the accused of the offence of murder under 
Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and awarded the sentence of life 
imprisonment to both the accused. 
In the appeal before this Court on behalf of the accused- appellants, H 
387 
388 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1994) 1 S.C.R. 
A 
it was contended that the factum of homicidal death itself was not estab-
r 
B 
lished beyond reasonable doubt, and accordingly, the question of convic-
tion on a charge of murder was not sustainable in law, that the usual 
features suggesting homicidal death were absent and the facts which were 
noted by the doctors holding post-mortem examination clearly fitted in 
with the case of a natural death of the deceased; that the expert opinion 
of DW 1, the Doctor, should have bt::en accepted by the High Court; that 
it was a case of circumstantial evidence and unless from the circumstances 
fully established, the chain was full and complete which only pointed to the 
commission of murder by the accused and no other conclusion was pos-
sible, then and then only, the conviction on a charge of murder was 
C permissible in law and if there was any doubt in any aspect, the chain was 
broken and the circumstances, however intriguing and suspicious they may 
be, would not warrant conviction because no conviction could be based on 
D 
suspicion. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1. It has been clearly established from the evidences adduced 
on behalf of the prosecution that shortly before the death of the deceased, 
both the accused entered the house at dead of night on the fateful day and 
both of them had witnessed a cinema show and came to the house. 
E Admittedly, accused No. 2 was the mistress of the deceased and she used 
to visit the house of the deceased frequently at night. It has been estab-
lished from the evidence that the accused No. 2 tapped the door which was 
opened by the deceased and she entered the house and accused No. 1 who 
had also come with accused No. 2 and was waiting just at a little distance 
F 
had also entered the house. When the door was broken open by the 
neighbours and the relations, the deceased was found lying dead in the 
kitchen and under the cot in bed room of the deceased, both the accused 
persons were hiding. Despite tapping the door repeatedly by the neigh-
bours and the relations of the deceased, the accused persons who were 
inside the house did not open the same and the door had to be broken. 
G Both the accused had not given any explanation as to why both of them 
were present in the house at that late hour in the night. (397-C-F] 
2. The High Court has rightly held that the DW 1, the Doctor, had no 
occasion to see the dead body and the injuries on the person of the deceased 
H and only from the report of the post- mortem the said doctor gave an expert 
+ 
I 
_.(_ 
ESHWARAIAH 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.