The Karnataka Excessive Courtroom not too long ago put aside the conviction of a person, incarcerated since 13 years, for the offence of homicide beneath Part 302 IPC. The Courtroom thus put aside the life time period imposed by Particular CBI Courtroom and ordered his forthwith launch.
The order was handed by a division bench of Justice B. Veerappa and Justice S. Rachaiah within the enchantment filed most popular by Shivaprasad, a driver, who was acquitted for alleged theft at a home however was convicted for the proprietor’s homicide.
The Bench was of the view,
“As soon as the prosecution did not show the ‘homicide for acquire’ and acquitted the accused for the offence punishable beneath Sections 392 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code, within the absence of any materials produced by the prosecution to the impact that theft and homicide happened on similar transaction and within the absence of any eye witness to the incident, it’s not secure to convict the accused beneath Part 302 of the Indian Penal Code.“
“The paramount consideration of the Courtroom is to make sure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which can come up from acquittal of the responsible is at least from the conviction of an harmless.“
It was alleged that the accused entered the home of deceased Thulasi on June 27, 2008 with an intent to steal her jewels. He was alleged to have stabbed her on the neck and different elements of the physique. Within the scuffle, it was said that the sufferer snatched the knife and tried to assault the accused with the stated knife which resulted in his sustaining scratch damage on his left cheek. Thereafter, the accused went to the primary ground of the home and took away 905 grams of gold saved within the godrej almirah, together with different valuables.
Primarily based on the criticism made by the son, the police registered a criticism and after investigation filed a cost sheet in opposition to the accused for the offence punishable beneath Part 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The periods courtroom handed the impugned order on 19 March 2019, acquitting the accused for the offence of Theft punishable beneath Sections 392 and 397 of IPC however convicting him with imprisonment for all times for the offence of Homicide.
On the outset, the Bench noticed that for the reason that acquittal order (qua offence of Theft) has not been challenged by the prosecution, the identical has reached finality. Thus, as soon as the accused is acquitted for the offence punishable beneath Sections 392 and 397 of IPC, the burden shifts on the prosecution to show the involvement of the accused within the homicidal dying of the sufferer to draw the provisions of Part 302 IPC.
The Excessive Courtroom was of the view that proof of the prosecution witnesses doesn’t show the involvement of the accused within the homicidal dying of the deceased. All of the prosecution witnesses had solely spoken about theft.
“Very unusually, the realized Classes Decide proceeded to convict the accused for the offence punishable beneath Part 302 of the Indian Penal Code holding that there’s enough materials accessible to show the guilt of the accused within the homicidal dying of the deceased. Completely no materials has been produced by the prosecution to point out that theft and homicide fashioned a part of the identical transaction. The presumption that the accused dedicated homicide can’t be drawn merely on the premise of the restoration,” the Courtroom noticed.
“Within the absence of any eye witness, and for the reason that prosecution has not proved the chain of circumstances connecting the accused within the homicidal dying of the deceased, it’s not secure to convict the accused for the offence punishable beneath Part 302 of the Indian Penal Code, within the absence of any corroborative proof with regard to involvement of accused within the homicidal dying of the deceased.“
It concluded by saying, “The golden thread which runs via the online of administration of justice in prison circumstances is that if two views are attainable on the proof adduced within the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the opposite to his innocence, the view which is beneficial to the accused ought to be adopted.“
Accordingly it allowed the enchantment and put aside the conviction.
Case Title: SHIVAPRASAD @ SHIVA v. State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL No.573/2019
Quotation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 167
Date of Order: 17TH DAY OF MAY, 2022
Look: Advocate B.A.BELLIAPPA for appellant
Advocate Okay. NAGESHWARAPPA for respondent
Click on Right here To Learn/Obtain Judgment