LexNINGAPPA YALLAPPA HOSAMANI & ORS. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 8 S.C.R. 421 " NINGAPPA YALLAPPA HOSAMANI & ORS. A v. §TATEI OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. (Criminal Appeal No. 495 of 2006) MAY 8, 2009 B [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR J.c GANGULY, JJ.] Sq. 302134 and 201134 - Murder- Conviction based on circumstantial evidence - Held: Since dead body of victim c recovered in furtherance of voluntary information furnished by the accLJsed who were convicted by High Court for the murder, natu1c1I presumption in absence of explanation by them is that they had murdered the deceased and buried the dead body - - Prosecution has conclusively proved that accused had D disposed of the dead body by putting it in a gunny bag and burying it - Judgment of High Court does not warrant any interference - Circumstantial evidence - Evidence Act, 1872- s.27. Seven accused including the appellants faced trial for E commission of offences punishable u/ss. 143. 148, 341, • 109, 302 and 201 r/w s. 149 IPC. The prosecution case "" was that there was enmity between A-4 and the husband -· of PW1. The husband of PW1 left the house on his motor cycle at 4.00 P.M. on 30.1.2005 and when he did not return F till the following day, PW1, suspecting his abduction, lodged a complaint against A-4 and A-5. During the investigation A-1 and A-2 were arrested and pursuant to their statements, dead body of the husband of PW1, G ,;,.. .. which had been buried near the canal in a gunny bag - was recovered. Later on the other accused were also - arrested and at the instance of A-6, the motorcycle of the deceased was recovered from the river. The trial court on the basis of cumulative effect of the circumstantial 421 H 422 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 8 S.C.R. A evidence concluded that the prosecution proved that the .. accused had committed the murder of the husband of PW1 and disposed of his body and buried it near the .. canal and thrown his motorcycle in the river. On appeal, the High Court set aside the conviction of A-3 to A-5, B converted conviction of A-1 and A-2 to 302/34 IPC. It set aside conviction of A-6 and A-7 u/ss. 302 r/w s. 149 IPC and converted conviction of A-1, A-2, A-6 and A-7 from s. 201/149 to s. 201/34 IPC but maintained the sentence. ~ c In the appeal filed by A-1, A-6 and A-7, it was mainly contended that on the basis of the statements made u/s. 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872 conviction could not be maintained because it could not be said that the circumstances were established. D Dismissing the appeals, the Court .. HELD: The prosecution has conclusively proved that accused Nos. 1, 2, 6 and 7 had disposed of the dead body of the deceased by putting it in a gunny bag and E burying it at a place near the canal, which was detected in furtherance of the voluntary information furnished by · accused No. 1 and 2. It is also proved that the motorcycle of the deceased was drowned in the river by the accused, which was later recovered in furtherance of the voluntary ~ .. F information furnished by accused No. 6. As regards -' accused Nos. 1 and 2, since the dead body of the deceased was recovered in furtherance of the voluntary information furnished by them, the natural presumption, in the absence of explanation by them, is that it was those G two persons, who had murdered the deceased and had buried the dead body.[Para 9] [429-E-H; 430-A] • ... State of Maharashtra Vs. Sure sh 2000(1) SCC 471, relied on. H NINGAPPA YALLAPPA HOSAMANI & ORS. v. STATE 423 OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. "' Case Law Reference: A 2000(1) sec 471 relied on para 11 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 495 of 2006. B From the Judgment & Order dated 30.11.2005 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Crl. Appeal No. 1644 of -- .!- 2005. WITH c Crl. Appeal No. 496 of 2006. S.N. Baht, B. Subrahmanya Prasad, Ajay Kumar, M.V.N. Raghupathy and Sanjay Jain for the Appellant. Sanjay Jain, Mukesh Verma, Anmol Thukral, Vinay Arora D and Sanjay R. Hegde for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in these appeals is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the. Karnataka E High Court. The High Court by the impugned judgment allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction of appellants 3, 4 and . ., y 5 (accused No.3-Sri Giriyappa @ Gireppa, A-4 Sri Yallappa .... Slo Arujunappa Yaraddi, A-5 Sri Vithal S/o Kalakappa) before it. The compensation of Rs.50
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.