STATE OF KARNATAKA versus M.V. MAHESH

Citation: [2003] 2 S.C.R. 553 · Decided: 04-03-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

·~ 
STATE OF KARNATAKA 
v. 
M.V. MAHESH 
MARCH 4, 2003 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860/Evidence Act, 1872: 
Circumstantial Evidence: 
Disappearance and murder of the deceased allegedly by husband and 
father-In-Law-Recovery of bones---Conviction by Trial Court-Reversed by 
High Court-On appeal, Held: In murder case of such nature, definite evidence 
A 
B 
c 
as to the proximity of time of the deceased and accused being last seen 
together and commission of murder was within the knowledge of accused need D 
to be established-Discovery of bones of the deceased not based on the basis 
of statement of her husban~Absence of motive and other appropriate material 
to establish involvement of husband in the commission of murder-hence 
conviction of husband rightly set aside by High Court. 
Respondent-husband lodged a complaint about the missing of his E 
wife. On investigation, human bones had been recovered and were 
subjected to DNA examination which established identity of bones as that 
of the deceased-wife. Trial Court found accused-husband .and his father 
guilty of committing murder of the deceased and convicted and sentenced 
both of them accordingly. n~fore the High Court, they successfully 
appealed against the conviction and sentence. Hence the present appeal F 
by the State. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Regarding involvement of the respondent-husband in the 
commission of murder of his wife, the deceased, the explanation sought G 
to be offered by him is that he took her to the place of her relatives on 
28.11.1988 at about 5.45 A.M. while the evidence of the witnesses is that 
they saw her last on an earlier date. The statement made by the respondent 
was false and not established. Merely being seen last together is not enough. 
553 
H 
554 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2003) 2 S.C.R. 
A What has to be established in a case of this nature is definite evidence to 
indicate that the deceased had been done to death of which the respondent 
is or must be aware as also proximate to the time of being last seen 
together. No such clinching evidence is put forth. Even in the absence of 
the corpus delicti it is possible to establish in an appropriate case 
B commission of murder on appropriate material being made available to 
the Court. In the instant case no such material is made available to the 
Court. (5SS-D-E-F( 
1.2. The statement given by the respondent is a very lengthy one 
unnecessarily narrating various circumstances leading to his marriage with 
C the deceased against the wishes of his parents and then she was in the 
family way at the relevant time and so on. So far as respondent is 
concerned, no motive appears to have been established. Further the 
statement of the respondent as such leading to the discovery is neither 
marked nor put to the witnesses for prosecution. Indeed, the statement 
which itself is in doubt inasmuch as the police had already iHlformation 
D through another witness and that circumstance was strongly relied upon 
by the High Court holding that the whole proser.ution case is a chain of 
circumstances connecting one with another with many missing links in 
between, hence, rightly rejected it. (SSS-A; SS6-A-B-C) 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 
E 1678 of 1995. 
F 
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.7.1995 of the Karnataka High 
Court in Crl. A. No. 374 of 1993. 
Siddharth Dave, for S.R. Hegde, for the Appellant. 
U.R. Lalit, S.N. Bhat, for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
RAJENDRA BABU, J. This case bristles with mystery over mystery 
G as to the disappearance of Beena, wife of the respondent. On a complaint 
lodged about the missing of the said Beena, investigation was taken up by the 
police and on recovery of. human bones M.O. 13 to M.O. 20 which were 
subjected to DNA examination, in order to establish the identity of the said 
bones as that of Beena, laid a charge sheet against the respondent and his 
H father in the Court of Sessions at Bangalore which Court, after an elaborate 
< 
STATEOFKARNATAKA v. M.V.MAHESH[S. RAJENDRABABU,J.) 
SSS 
trial, found that there are incriminating circumstances involving the respondent A 
and his father in the offence alleged against them, namely, murder of Beena 
and convicted both of them who successfully appealed against the same. 
Hence this appeal. During pendency of this appeal father of the respondent 
died. 
The first circumstance relied upon by 

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