R. SREENIVASA versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation: [2023] 12 S.C.R. 55 · Decided: 06-09-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIKRAM NATH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 12 S.C.R. 55 : 2023 INSC 803
CASE DETAILS
R. SREENIVASA
v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
(Criminal Appeal No. 859 of 2011)
SEPTEMBER 06, 2023
[VIKRAM NATH AND AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: High Court if justifi ed in reversing the 
acquittal order passed by the Trial Court qua the appellant-accused acquitting 
him of off ences u/ss.302 and 201, IPC by which it held that the prosecution 
had failed to prove that the deceased was last seen in the company of the 
appellant.
Evidence – Circumstantial evidence – Last seen theory – When 
cannot be invoked:
Held: The ‘last seen’ theory can be invoked only when the same 
stands proved beyond reasonable doubt – In the present case, there is no 
defi nitive evidence of last seen and that theory itself is in doubt – Also, 
there is a long time-gap between the alleged last seen and the recovery of 
the body – Further, there is major discrepancy in the charge framed and 
the statement of the witnesses- the specifi c allegation that co-accused was 
the one who had taken away the deceased from his house, whereas during 
deposition the deceased’s wife and his brother stated that it was the appellant 
who had taken away the deceased is enough to raise doubts with regard to 
the veracity and authenticity of such statements – Also, the fact that the 
deceased, late at night, agreed to go to the house of the appellant, when seen 
in the backdrop of the allegation that there was strong animosity between 
the two, appears to be highly improbable – Further, it does not appear that 
the deceased’s family took any steps to fi nd out as to where the deceased 
had gone despite being missing for more than two days – The deceased’s 
wife even testifi ed that relations between the parties were cordial, and did 
not hint at animosity – Thus, in the absence of other corroborative pieces 
55
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 12 S.C.R.
56
of evidence, it cannot be said that the chain of circumstances is so complete 
that the only inference that could be drawn is the guilt of the appellant – 
Unsafe to sustain the conviction of the appellant on such evidence, where the 
chain is incomplete – Presumption of innocence is in favour of the accused 
and when doubts emanate, the benefi t accrues to the accused, and not the 
prosecution – Impugned judgment set aside. [Paras 13, 15, 16 and 17]
Practice and Procedure – Acquittal – Interference by appellate 
Court:
Held: An appellate court, in the case of an acquittal, must bear in 
mind that there is a double presumption in favour of the accused – When 
two views are possible, the one favouring the accused is to be leaned on – 
Criminal Law. [Para 18]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram, (2006) 12 SCC 254 : [2006] 8 Suppl. 
SCR 501 – held not applicable.
Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Rajasthan, (2014) 4 SCC 715 : [2014] 3 SCR 
744; Nizam v. State of Rajasthan, (2016) 1 SCC 550 : [2015] 10 SCR 786; 
Chotkau v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2023) 6 SCC 742; Laxman Prasad 
v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2023) 6 SCC 399; Chandrappa v. State of 
Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 : [2007] 2 SCR 630; Jafarudheen v. State of 
Kerala, (2022) 8 SCC 440 – relied on.
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 
116 : [1985] 1 SCR 88; Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan v. State of Gujarat,
(2020) 14 SCC 750 : [2019] 14 SCR 270; Suresh Thipmppa Shetty v. State 
of Maharashtra, 2023 INSC 749 – referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.859 
of 2011.
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.10.2010 of the High Court of 
Karnataka at Bangalore in Crl. A. No.1952 of 2005.
57
Appearances:
Ms. Kiran Suri, Sr. Adv., S. J. Amith, Ms. Aishwarya Kumar, Ms. 
Vidushi Garg, Krishna Kumar, B. Purushothama Reddy, Dr. (Mrs.) Vipin 
Gupta, Advs. for the Appellant.
Aman Panwar, AAG, V. N. Raghupathy, Manendra Pal Gupta, Shivam 
Singh Baghal, Varun Varma, Advs. for the Respondent.
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT
AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.
     Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present criminal appeal, under The Supreme Court (Enlargement 
of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970, is directed against the Final 
Judgment and Order dated 20.10.2010 in Crl. A. No.1952/2005 (hereinafter 
referred to as the “Impugned Judgment”) passed by the High Court of 
Karnataka at Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as the “High Court”), 
whereby the High Court

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