LexPRAKASH versus STATE OF KARNATAKA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A 8 [2014] 5 S.C.R. 242 PRAKASH v. STATE OF KARNATAKA (Criminal Appeal No. 1682 of 2005) APRIL 15, 2014 [RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI AND MADAN B. LOKUR, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: s. 302 - Murder- Acquittal by trial court C - Conviction by High Court on the basis of circumstantial evidence - Appeal against conviction - Prosecution case that appellant went to the house of victim-deceased and robbed her ornaments and murdered her - High Court relied on the circumstances that the appellant was found in deceased 0 house on the fateful day; that fingerprint expert found his fingerprint on a plastic cover; that appellant's clothes were blood-stained when he was arrested after 6 days and the blood-stains tallied with the blood group of the deceased; that the ornaments of the deceased were recovered at the instance E of the appellant after his arrest; that the weapon of offence, that is, a steel rod was discovered at the instance of the appellant - On appeal, held: The incident took place at 8. 30 P.M. while the prosecution witnesses had seen the appellant with the deceased at 1 P.M. - There was no evidence about F the whereabouts of the appellant from 1 P.M. to 8.30 P.M. - Further, no TIP was held - High Court proceeded merely on the basis of probabilities -~ The entire exercise of the appellant's fingerprint identification was a/so shrouded in· mystery - Mere recovery of some ornaments from some people also did not lead to any conclusion that the ornaments G so recovered belonged to the deceased - Investigating Officer made no effort to ascertain whether the blood stains on the steel rod were those of the deceased nor was any effort made to ascertain whether the steel rod contained any fingerprints H 242 PRAKASH v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 243 which matched with those of the appellant - This,. coupled with A the fact that the blood stained crowbar seized at the place of occurrence, was not sent for a chemical examination, raised a grave suspicion that the investigation was not fair and the benefit of this doubt must go to the appellant - None of the circumstances accepted by High Court pointed to the B probability of appellant's guilt or involvement in the murder of the deceased -. The view taken by trial court giving appellant the benefit of doubt was certainly a plausible view and in the absence of any perversity in the view taken, the High Court ought not to have upset the conclusion. c Investigation: Scientific methods ·- Use of - Discussed. Karnataka Police Manual: Guideline No. 1543 and 1544 - Articles containing fingerprints - Procedure to be followed - Oisc11ssed. D Test identification parade: Requirement of holding - Held: An identification parade is not mandatory nor can it be claimed by the suspect as matter of right- The purpose of pre-trial identification evidence is to assure the investigating E agency that the investigation is going on in the right direction and to provide corroboration of the evidence to be given by the witness or victim later in court at the trial - If the suspect is a complete stranger to the witness or victim,. then an identification parade is desirable unless the suspect has been F seen by the witness or victim for some length of time - However, if the suspect is known to the witness or victim or they have been shown a photograph of the suspect or the suspect has been exposed to the public by the media no identification evidence is necessary - Even so, the failure of G a victim or a witness to identify a suspect is not a/ways fatal to the case of the prosecution. Evidence: Circumstantial evidence - Held: In a case of circumstantial evidence, there has to be some degree of •' ' trustworthiness and certainty about the existence of the H 244 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 5 S.C.R. A circumstances - Mere probabilities are certainly not enough. The prosecution case was that on 5th November, 1990, the appellant who was resident of Nagenahalli village was searching for the victim-deceased house. 8 While doing so, he met PW-6 and asked her for directions. PW-6 did not know the way of the house of the deceased and took the appellant to the house of PW- 7 and requested her to take the appellant to the house of deceased. PW-7 took the appellant to the deceased's house. The appellant informed the deceased that he had C came along with 'S', the son of her brother PW-3 from his village and enquired from the deceased whether 'S'
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.