MALLESHAPPA versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation: [2007] 10 S.C.R. 153 · Decided: 21-09-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

MALLESHAPPA 
A 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA 
SEPTEMBER 21, 2007 
[R.V. RA VEENDRAN AND B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, JJ.] 
B 
Penal Code, 1860-ss. 302, 364 and 201-Murder-
'r 
Circumstantial evidence-Appellant with two of the accused taking 
away the deceased-A highly decomposed dead body without head and C 
hands found by police after 9 day since the deceased was missing-
Medical Officer not able to make out whether the body was that of a 
male or female-Identification thereof by mother of the deceased-
FIR lodged against the accused, before finding of the body-Attribution 
of motive of illicit relationship between deceased and wife of the D 
appellant-During trial majority of witnesses turning hostile-Trial 
.... h 
Court convicting the appellant and two of the accused on the basis of 
evidence of mother and wife of deceased and Police Officers-Rest of 
the accused acquitted-High Court acquitting the two accused, and-· · 
convicting the appellant shifting the burden to prove on him as to what E 
happened to the deceased-Concluding that appellant committed 
murder with some other persons-On appeal, held: Prosecution failed 
to prove the charge against the appellant-Evidence of mother and 
wife of the deceased are not reliable, being contradictory and at 
variance with the FIR and evidence of the investigating Officer-Jn F 
the facts of the case, the dead body cannot be said to have been 
identified-No convincing evidence to prove the motive-Burden to 
show as to what happened to the deceased was wrongly shifted on the 
appellant-The circumstances of last seen together, by itself would not 
lead to inference that it was appellant who committed the crime-As G 
benefit of doubt was given to other accused, High Court, in absence 
of evidence could not have propounded new theory that appellant 
committed the crime with the help of some other persons-Burden of 
proof 
153 
H 
154 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 10 S.C.R. 
A 
Appellant-accused along with. 6 other accused, was tried for 
·~ 
having caused death of a person. Prosecution case was that the 
deceased was employed with the appellant as tractor driver. He had 
illicit intimacy with the wife of the appellant (PW 19) and had left 
the job about 3 months prior to the incident due to'misunderstanding 
B between the appellant and the deceased. Appellant and accused Nos. 
6 and 7 went to the house of deceased on 12.7.2001. As deceased 
was not at home, they told mother of the deceased (PW 10) that they 
required services of the deceased. When the deceased returned 
home after half an hour, he was immediately taken by the accused 
~ 
c with them. Since the deceased did not return home, PW 10 made 
queries from the appellant and accused Nos. 6 and 7. She ultimately 
alongwith PW 18 lodged a complaint (Exbt P6) on 22. 7.2001 about 
her missing son and apprehending that the appellant could cause 
· harm to him as the appellant had taken him forcibly. Inspector from 
D some other Police Station, got an information about a dead body 
floating in river on 21. 7.2001. Head and hands of the body were 
severed. Legs were tied with a rope. The body was so decomposed 
_-L 
that the Medical Officer could not confirm as to whether the body 
was that of a male or female. However, an underwear was found on 
E the body. When the body was shown toPW-lOandPW 1 (wife of the 
deceased) PW-10 identified the same as that of her son. Appellant 
and other 6 accused were arrested. At the behest of the accused, 
the places where the accused had been taken by them and from 
where the dead body had been thrown ·had been shown. Weapons of 
{ 
F 
offence were also recovered on that basis. Trial Court convicted the 
-~ 
appellant and accused Nos. 6 and 7 u/ss. 302, 364 and 201 IPC. High 
Court further acquitted accused nos. 6 and 7 and convicted the 
appellant holding that the burden shifted on the appellant to show 
as to what happened to the deceased after he took the deceased with 
G 
him; and that the appellant committed the murder of the deceased 
with the help of some other persons and not the acquitted accused. 
Hence the present appeal. 
'r 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
H 
HELD: 1. There is no reliable and trustworthy evidence in the 
I-
MALLESHAPPA v. STATE OF KARNA I AKA 
155 
'-/ 
present case. It is highly dangerous to convict any accused on the A 
basis of which the High Court has chosen to do so. The prosecution 
miserably failed to establish the charge against the appellant. Most 
of the witnesses 

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