LexRUKIA BEGUM versus STATE OF KARNATAKA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• [2011) 4 S.C.R. 711 RUKIA BEGUM v. STATE OF KARNATAKA (Criminal Appeal No. 1519 of 2008) APRIL 4, 2011 [HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, JJ.] A B Penal Code, 1860: s.302, 201 r.w. s.34 - Murder and causing disappearance of evidence - Strained relations C between the victims and the accused party - Assault on the victims resulting in their death - Trial court acquitted 'R' and 'N' and two other accused holding that circumstances did not point guilt towards them - However convicted '/' and 'M' holding that the circumstantial evidence i.e. motive, presence D of blood, recoveries and abscondence immediately after the occurrence pointed towards their guilt - High Court set aside the acquittal of appellants 'R' and 'N' and also upheld the conviction of appellants '/' and 'M' - On appeal, held: The circumstantial evidence against appellants 'R' and 'N' were not E such which would lead towards their guilt - Trial court, on appraisal of the evidence came to the conclusion that the prosecution was not able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt, so far as 'R' and 'N' were concerned - The view taken by trial court was justified in the facts and F circumstances of the case and a possible view and, therefore, High Court erred in setting aside their acquittal - However, case of appellants '/' and 'M' stood on an a/together different footing - Trial court had held them guilty - There was overwhelming evidence to prove beyond all reasonable doubt G that they shared the motive with other accused persons - Recovery of wheel and tyre of the motorcycle belonging to the victim and knife was made on the statements made by appellants '/' and 'M' - These two appellants were not found 711 H 712 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 4 S.C.R. A at the normal place of their work and their abscondence was proved by the Manager of the firm where they were working - The trial court as also the High Court on the basis of the circumstantial e\lidence rightly came to the conclusion. that the prosecution was able to prove its case beyond all B reasonable doubt so far as '/' and 'M' were concerned. Evidence: Circumstantial evidence - Held: For bringing home the guilt on the basis of the circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has to establish that the circumstances C proved lead to one and the only conclusion towards the guilt of the accused - In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn are to be cogently and firmly established - It should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from 0 the conclusion, that the crime was committed by the accused and none else - It has to be considered within all human probability and not in fanciful manner - In order to sustain conviction, circumstantial evidence must be complete and incapable of any explanation than the guilt of the accused. E Appeal against acquittal: Acquittal by trial court - Interference by High Court - Scope of - Held: Where two views on the evidence are reasonably possible and trial court has taken a view favouring acquittal, High Court in an appeal against acquittal should not disturb the same merely on the F ground that if it was trying the case, it would have taken an alternative view and convicted the accused - High court while hearing appeal against the judgment of acquittal is possessed of all the power of appellate court and nothing prevents it to appraise evidence and come to a conclusion different than G that of trial court but while doing so it shall bear in mind that presumption of innocence is further reinforced by acquittal of the accused by the trial court - The view of trial Judge as to the credibility of the witness must be given proper weight and consideration - There must be compelling and weighty H • • RUKIA BEGUM v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 713 reason for the High Court to come to a conclusion different A than that of trial court. The prosecution case was that the victim-deceased had strained relations with his mother-accused and sisters-appellants 'R' and 'N' in relation to the ancestral 8 property. On the fateful day, the accused persons obstructed the passage near the house of the victim. When the victim was coming on. a motorcycle, he got hit against the obstruction and fell down from his motorcycle. His wife who was sitting behind also fell C down. The appellants and other accused persons
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.