SMT. CHINTAMBARAMMA & ANR. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation: [2019] 12 S.C.R. 946 · Decided: 22-08-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
946
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 12 S.C.R.
SMT. CHINTAMBARAMMA & ANR.
v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
(Criminal Appeal No.1258 of 2019)
AUGUST 22, 2019
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 r/w s.34 – Case based on
circumstantial evidence – Marriage of ‘S’ was solemnised with one
‘LM’ in 2006 – FIR was lodged in 2009 by CW-1 that ‘S’ has been
killed by the appellants (mother-in-law and sister-in-law of ‘S’) along
with ‘LM’ and others – Trial Court convicted the appellants and
‘LM’ for having conspired the murder of ‘S’ with accused nos.4 and
5, however accused nos.6 to 8 were acquitted – High Court acquitted
‘LM’ but maintained sentence of the appellants – On appeal, held:
Entire prosecution proceeded on the basis that accused nos.4 and
5 were the actual assailants – Accused nos.4 and 5 were never
apprehended – Charge of conspiracy against the appellants with
accused nos.4 and 5 has not found favour either with the Trial
Court or with the High Court – Conviction of the appellants is
probably on the basis of the lack of explanation of the injuries
suffered on the person of the deceased – However, from the statement
of PW-20, tenant living on the ground floor of the house in which
the appellants and the deceased were residing, it is found that there
were five persons who were performing Puja and two of them were
Swamis – Chain of circumstances has not been completed so as to
lead to only one conclusion that the appellants and the appellants
alone were responsible for committing the crime – Since the
prosecution story proceeded on the basis that the role of the
appellants is that of conspirators but having failed to prove the
charge of conspiracy, the appellants could not be convicted for the
offence u/s.302 – Such conviction has caused not only prejudice
but also failure of justice, therefore, conviction cannot be sustained
– Appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Omission to frame
charges and consequent prejudice to the accused – Discussed.
[2019] 12  S.C.R. 946
             946
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
947
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The prosecution case is based upon testimony
of PW-19 and PW-20 who are the tenants and living on the ground
floor of the house in which the appellants and the deceased were
residing.  PW-19 in his examination-in-chief deposed that accused
No. 2 sprinkled water on the face of deceased when he along
with his wife went to their house on the asking of the appellants.
In cross-examination, the question asked is about enmity with
the husband of the deceased in respect of payment of rent.
[Para 11] [952-F]
1.2 The statement of PW-20, in fact, proves the presence
of two other persons on the date of occurrence and that there
were Swamis performing the Puja. Therefore, the findings
recorded by the High Court that Investigating Officer botched
up the investigation against the appellants are based upon
surmises even when the prosecution witness has deposed to this
effect. The entire prosecution proceeded on the basis that accused
Nos. 4 and 5 were the actual assailants. Accused Nos. 4 and 5
were never apprehended.  The charge of conspiracy against the
appellants with accused Nos. 4 and 5 has not found favour either
with the Trial Court or with the High Court. [Paras 13-14]
[953-C-D]
1.3 The conviction of the appellants is probably on the basis
of the lack of explanation of the injuries suffered on the person of
the deceased. However, it is found from the statement of PW-20
that there were five persons who were performing Puja and two
of them were Swamis. Thus, the appellants cannot be held guilty
for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section
34 IPC. The chain of circumstances has not been completed so
as to lead only one conclusion that the appellants and the
appellants alone were responsible for committing the crime. The
charge No. 3 against the appellants was that accused Nos. 4 and
5 have conspired with the appellants by receiving money.
However, both the Courts have found the charge of conspiracy
as not proved. [Paras 15, 17] [953-E-F; 954-D]
1.4 The question as to whether omission to frame an
alternative charge under Section 302 IPC is an illegality that cuts
 CHINTAMBARAMMA & ANR. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
948
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 12 S.C.R.
at the root of the conviction and makes not invalid or whether it
is a curable irregularity, has been examined by Supreme 

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