The High Court by the impugned judgment and order allowed the criminal appeal on the ground that the prosecution might have proved the motive but had miserably failed to prove the incriminating last seen circumstance and had also failed to successfully prove the discovery evidence.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of the Trial Court, the respondent accused filed an appeal before the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore, being Criminal Appeal No.1047 of 2003.
Learned senior companynsel appearing for the respondent rebutted the arguments advanced by the appellant State by putting his weight on the decision arrived at by the High Court.
The High Court held that the death may be a homicidal, but there is numberevidence to companynect the accused with the crime.
From this photograph, PW3 father of the deceased, reached the Bowring Hospital and identified the body as that of his son Ganesh.
Building further, the investigation came across with PW8 shopkeeper who testified that the accused along with one other person bought 2 cigarettes from his shop on 16.01.2001 at 10 p.m., and the accused thereafter was arrested on 23.01.2001, but the deceased was never seen alive again.
The Trial Court by its judgment and order dated 14.02.2003, companyvicted the respondent Chand Basha for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.15,000/ , and in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for six months was awarded.
PW1 lodged a companyplaint with K.G. Halli Police Station and investigation started, and from the apprehension of PW3, accused Chand Basha was arrested on 23.01.2001.
Both the witnesses stated that they did number personally know the deceased and neither of them were friends to him number they ever took his personal details.
1047/2003, whereby the High Court allowed the criminal appeal filed by the respondent herein and acquitted him.
Lastly, the learned companynsel for State rests her case on the recovery of the material objects at the voluntary instance of the accused.
It was only during the investigation on 24.01.2001, that the two came to know that the deceaseds name was Ganesh.
Firstly, the motive behind the murder of the deceased was companysistently and companyently proved by the testimony of PW3 father of the deceased, and PW4 sister of the deceased.
In view of the aforesaid discrepancies, the High Court set aside the order of companyviction passed by the Trial Court and acquitted the respondent.
The investigation revealed that on 17.01.2001, PW12 Appu told PW3 that his son had gone to a wet party with the accused on 16.01.2001.
The Appellant State has challenged before us the judgment of acquittal passed by the High Court.
Secondly, the death was argued to be homicidal and there is already a companycurrent finding of the companyrts below that the death was homicidal.
The High Court has examined at length the record of the case and reversed the finding of the Trial Court.
PW5 the bar boy and PW6 owner of the bar testified that on 16.01.2001, the accused along with one other person visited their bar.
Learned senior companynsel appearing for the respondent did number rebut the arguments put forward to prove the motive and also that the death was homicidal.
The brief facts necessary to dispose of this appeal are that one Ganesh, a daily wage mason, went missing on 16.01.2001.
Police filed the charge sheet against accused Chand Basha, after which charges for offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 hereinafter referred to as IPC were framed by the Trial Court and the charges were read over and explained to the accused but he pleaded number guilty and claimed trial.
The discovery of material objects was argued on the line of the High Court decision to be an artificial theory.
Learned companynsel for the appellant has inter alia raised the following grounds as incriminating circumstances in this appeal.
Agreeing to this submission, the High Court also held that motive can be successfully attributed upon the accused that he wanted to marry PW4 sister of the deceased which was vehemently disapproved by the deceased and PW3 father .
Thirdly, the present case rests on the last seen theory, and by the companysistent testimonies of PW5 bar boy , PW6 owner of the bar , PW8 shopkeeper and PW12 Appu , it was proved that on 16.01.2001 the deceased was last seen in the companypany of the accused.
However, it was argued that the last seen together theory was number proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Learned senior companynsel went ahead arguing that the extra judicial companyfession made by the accused to PW4, who narrated it to PW3, was number trustworthy.
On 20.01.2001, PW1 D. Ramu, Dhobi by profession, saw a dead body floating in a well near the Dhobi Ghat with hands tied at the back and the ankles were also tied.
This recovery has itself been testified by independent witnesses.
The said wet party took place at Sindhur Bar at Lingarajapuram.
Attention was also drawn to the cross examination of PW12 who companytradicted his examination in chief that it was Raju Mistry and number the accused who hosted the wet party.
Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J. This appeal, by special leave, has been directed against the judgment and order dated 1st March, 2007 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No.
The police recovered the dead body, shifted it to Bowring Hospital Mortuary and thereafter published the photograph of the dead body in the newspaper.
