NAGESH versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation: [2012] 5 S.C.R. 872 · Decided: 08-05-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. PATNAIK · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2012] 5 S.C.R. 872 
NAGESH 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 671 of 2005) 
MAY 8, 2012 
[A.K. PATNAIK AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.] 
PENAL CODE, 1860: s.302 - Murder- Conviction based 
on circumstantial evidence - Allegation that victim-deceased 
C who was residing with accused no. 1 in Belgaum was alone in 
the house on the day of occurrence - Appellant-accused no. 2 
came there and tried to outrage her modesty and when she 
resisted such attempts, appellant assaulted her and 
administered poison to her - Witnesses saw accused no. 1 
0 
taking the deceased in a car brought by accused no.2 -
Accused no. 1 told neighbours that he was taking the 
deceased to hospital as she has taken poison - Police jeep 
also came there - Deceased was put into the car and the car 
and the police jeep left the place - Instead of taking deceased 
to hospital she was taken to her parent's house next morning 
E - Her father saw the dead body of his daughter and bruises 
on her body but was forced to cremate hurriedly - FIR filed 
subsequently - Trial court convicted appellant but acquitted 
other accused- High Court upheld the decision of the trial 
court - On appeal, held: Statement of witnesses provided 
F complete chain as to how the deceased was last seen with the 
appellant whereafter she died and her body was cremated in 
the village despite protest by her parents - Appellant was last 
seen with the deceased but offered no explanation - The 
statements of witnesses established the facts which formed 
G the very basis of the case of the prosecution - Evidence was 
admissible and was appreciated in consonance with the rules 
of prudence and law - Findings of courts below were neither 
perverse nor improper - Interference with the order of 
conviction not called for merely because another view on the 
H 
872 
NAGESH v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 
873 
same evidence was possible - Director General of Police! A 
Commissioner of Police directed to take disciplinary action 
against the police officers/officials at Belgaum, who were 
present at the place of occurrence when the deceased was 
brought from her room downstairs where the car was parked, 
but failed to take appropriate action and register a case B 
despite the fact that it was openly stated that the deceased 
had consumed poison - Further, disciplinary action directed 
against the police officers/officials who were present when the 
body of the deceased was cremated and failed to take charge 
of the dead body and proceed in accordance with law, it being c 
an unnatural death, and did not discharge their public duty 
and mandatory obligations under the provisions of the Police 
Manual and the Code of Criminal Procedure - Constitution 
of India, 1950 - Article 136. 
CONSTITUTION OF IND/A, 1950: Article 136 - Scope of D 
interference - Held: When the evidence is legally admissible 
and has been appreciated by the courts in its correct 
perspective then merely because another view is possible, 
Supreme Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 136 of 
the Constitution, would be very reluctant to interfere with the E 
concurrent findings of the courts below. 
The prosecution case was that the victim-deceased 
was daughter of PW4 and PW9 and was a college 
student. Accused no.1 was close relative of the deceased 
F 
and was resident of Belgaum. The appellant and accused 
no.2 were brothers-in~law of accused no.1. Accused no.1 
had pressed upon the parents of the deceased for 
sending her from their village Gokarna to Belgaum with 
him. At the relevant time, she was staying with accused 
G 
no.1 at Belgaum. On the fateful day, at 5.00 p.m. when 
accused no.1 had gone to the temple leaving the 
deceased alone in the house, the appellant came to the 
house of accused no.1 and tried to outrage the modesty 
of the deceased and have sexual intercourse with her. But 
H 
874 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 5 S.C.R. 
A when she resisted such attempts, the appellant assaulted 
her and murdered her by administering poison. PW1, the 
neighbour saw .accused no.1 returning to the house at 
about 8.30 p.m. and taking the deceased along with him 
outside the house by holding her hands. On her enquiry, 
s he told that the deceased was not well and was being 
taken for treatment to the doctor. PW1 also tried to 
enquire from the deceased as to what had happened to 
her but she was unable to give any reply except 
producing or making some groaning/moaning sound of 
c "huhu huhu". Upon this, PW

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