State Of Karnataka vs A.B.Mahesha Etc.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1133- 1135 OF 2010

STATE OF KARNATAKA ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS

A.B.MAHESHA & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

R. BANUMATHI,J.

1. The appeals by the State of Karnataka are

against the acquittal of the respondents/accused.

2. The case of the prosecution revolves around the

following circumstances:- (i) deceased Jagdeesha was

last seen alive in the Company of A1 to A3-

respondents; (ii) recovery of Car having Registration

No. MEC 8344 and (iii) recovery of material objects

from the houses of accused – one golden chain (MO-8)

at the behest of A1, one Rado watch (MO-6) at the

behest of A2 and one golden ring (MO-7) at the behest

of A3.

3. The trial Court convicted all the accused under Signature Not Verified Section 302, 201, 392 and 397 IPC and sentenced to Digitally signed by MADHU BALA Date: 2018.08.18 11:48:23 IST Reason: them, inter alia, to undergo life imprisonment. The

High Court by the impugned judgment allowed the appeal 2

and set aside the conviction and acquitted all the

accused.

4. We have heard Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, learned

counsel appearing for the State of Karnataka and

perused the impugned judgment and materials on record.

In spite of service of notice none entered appearance

on behalf of the respondents-accused.

5. Insofar as the first circumstance that the

deceased was last seen alive, the prosecution relies

upon the testimony of P.Ws 5 and 6 who were also

running the taxi at Chikkamagalur Car Stand. PW-5

stated that even though the accused wanted to engage

his car, deceased Jagdeesha expressed his intention to

go on hire as his wife’s house is in Thanneruhalla

near Hasan so that he could go to the house of his in-

laws where his wife was staying. Subsequently the

body was found near the bridge on NH-48 near Kirisave

Village on 08.05.2000. The body was found in a

decomposed state on 08.05.2000. The evidence of PWs 5

and 6 is only limited to the extent that the deceased

was last seen alive in the company of the accused.

6. So far as the second circumstance - recovery of

the car, prosecution relies upon the evidence of PW-4

(garage owner) and PW-20 S.I. of Gudlur Police

Station (Tamil Nadu). In his evidence PW-4 (garage

owner) has stated that the accused nos. 2 and 3 had

left the car in his garage for repairs and for 3

effecting repairs he issued quotation under Ex.P-6 on

09.05.2000. Contrarily, PW-20 S.I. of Gudlur Police

Station has stated that the car was abandoned in front

of “Hot and Cold Hotel” and he seized the car on

07.06.2000 and reported the matter to the Taluk

Executive Magistrate. Insofar as the recovery of the

car, the evidence of PW-4 (garage owner) and evidence

of PW-20 S.I. of Gudlur Police Station are totally

contradictory to each other and it is difficult to be

reconciled. Pointing out the inconsistency in the

evidence of PW-4 and PW-20, the High Court rightly

held that the case of the prosecution is highly

doubtful and this circumstance cannot form the basis

for conviction.

7. Insofar as the recovery of the material objects

namely, gold chain (MO-8), Rado watch (MO-6) and

golden ring (MO-7) recovered from the houses of the

respective accused, they were identified by PW-3

(father of the deceased) on 18.06.2000; whereas as

per version of the investigating officer they were

recovered on 23.06.2000. Here again there is a

material contradiction as to the recovery of the above

material objects and also the identification of those

material objects by PW-3. The High Court has pointed

out that the inconsistent version between the evidence

of I.O and PW-3 (father of the deceased) raises

serious doubt about the alleged recovery and the case 4

of the prosecution.

8. Based on the above inconsistencies and

contradictions when the High Court has acquitted the

accused, this Court can not interfere with the

acquittal unless there are serious and substantial

error or compelling reasons warranting interference.

We do not find any such serious infirmity in the

judgment of the High Court warranting interference.

9. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.

….......................J. [ R. BANUMATHI]

…......................J. [VINEET SARAN] NEW DELHI 14TH AUGUST, 2018