LexG. PARSHWANATH versus STATE OF KARNATAKA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 10 S.C.R. 377 G. PARSHWANATH V. STATE OF KARNATAKA (Criminal Appeal No. 628 of 2005) AUGUST 18, 2010 [HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND J.M. PANCHAL, JJ.] A B Penal Code, 1860 - ss.302 and 201 - Punishment for murder and for causing disappearance of evidence - Prosecution case rested on circumstantial evidence - C Charred bodies of accused's wife and minor son recovered from the house of accused - Accused suspected the character of his wife and that he had not fathered the child - Accused's mother-in-law testified that the accused subjected his wife to cruelty - Door of the accused's house was found o locked from outside - Kerosene was found present on the dead bodies- Trial courl convicted the accused u/ss.302 and 201 and sentenced him to life imprisonment - Conviction affirmed by High Coult - On appeal, held: The prosecution sufficiently proved that the deaths were homicidal -More than E one and totally inconsistent defences were taken by the accused - The suicide theory put forlh by the defence is not only improbable but also impossible - The accused had sufficient motive to kill his wife and the child - The chain of circumstances against the accused when viewed with the false explanation given by him, with reference to the incident in F question, makes it clear that the accused was the only person responsible for murders of the two deceased - Conviction upheld. · Evidence - Circumstantial evidence - Appreciation of - G Law discussed. The wife and the minor son of the appellant died of extensive burn injuries. Placing reliance upon the 377 H 378 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 10 S.C.R. A circumstantial evidence in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The conviction was affirmed by the High Court. B In the instant appeal, the appellant challenged his conviction stating that the circumstances on which the prosecution proposed to rely were not firmly established nor did they form a chain to indicate that it was the appellant and appellant alone who had committed C murders of the two deceased. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD:1. The evidence tendered in a court of law is D either direct or circumstantial. Evidence is said to be direct if it consists of an eye-witness account of the facts in issue in a criminal case. On the other hand, circumstantial evidence is evidence of relevant facts from which, one can, by process of intuitive reasoning, infer about the existence of facts in issue or factum E probandum. In cases where evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should, in the first instance, be fully established. Each fact sought to be relied upon must be proved individually. However, in F applying this principle a distinction must be made between facts called primary or basic on the one hand and inference of facts to be drawn from them on the other. · In regard to proof of primary facts, the court has to judge the evidence and decide whether that evidence proves G a particular fact and if that fact is 1>roved, the question whether that fact leads to an inference of guilt of the accused person should be considered. In deciding the sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence for the purpose H G. PARSHWANATH v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 379 of conviction, the court has to consider the total A cumulative effect of all the proved facts, each one of which reinforces the conclusion of guilt and if the combined effect of all these facts taken together is conclusive in establishing the guilt of the accused, the conviction would be justified even though it may be that B one or more of these facts by itself or themselves is/are not decisive. The facts established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and should exclude every hypothesis except the one sought to be proved. But this does not mean that before the c prosecution can succeed in a case resting upon circumstantial evidence alone, it must exclude each and every hypothesis suggested by the accused, howsoever, extravagant and fanciful it might be. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable 0 ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and m.ust show that in all human probability the act must ti.ave been done b
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.