State of Karnataka v. A. B. Mahesha and others

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: R. Banumathi
Vineet Saran
Judgment Date: 2018-08-14
Court Decision / Holding: The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.
Final Disposition: Appeals dismissed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

State of Karnataka

Respondents

A. B. Mahesha and others

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• V. N. Raghupathy

Case Synopsis & Summary

State of Karnataka v. A. B. Mahesha et al. concerns a murder case tried on circumstantial evidence. The trial court convicted the three accused under Sections 302, 201, 392 and 397 IPC and awarded life imprisonment. The Karnataka High Court reversed the conviction and acquitted all accused. The State challenged the acquittal in criminal appeals before the Supreme Court. The prosecution’s case rested on three linked strands: that Jagdeesha, the deceased, was last seen alive in the company of the accused (supported by PWs 5 and 6, taxi operators at the Chikkamagalur stand). The second link was the recovery of a car bearing registration MEC 8344; the third was the recovery of three material objects—a gold chain (MO-8), a Rado watch (MO-6), and a golden ring (MO-7)—from the houses of the respective accused, identified by the father of the deceased (PW-3). The High Court found serious inconsistency in the evidence, particularly between the IO’s account and PW-3’s identification, and between PW-4’s statement about the car’s recovery and PW-20’s account, casting grave doubt on the prosecution’s case. The Supreme Court held that these inconsistencies and contradictions do not amount to serious infirmity warranting interference with the High Court’s judgment, and dismissed the State’s appeals.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 302 IPCSection 201 IPCSection 392 IPCSection 397 IPC

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

State contends that the prosecution built a chain of circumstantial evidence linking the accused to the crime. The deceased Jagdeesha was last seen alive in the company of the accused, as supported by PW-5 and PW-6. The recovery of car MEC 8344 and the later recovery of three material objects—the gold chain MO-8, the Rado watch MO-6, and the gold ring MO-7—from the houses of the accused, identified by PW-3, complete the chain. The High Court’s reliance on alleged contradictions—between PW-4 and PW-20 about the car’s recovery, and between the IO’s version and PW-3’s identification—does not negate the overall credibility of the prosecution case. Read together, these links create a coherent sequence pointing to the accused’s involvement, satisfying the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt in a circumstantial case. The acquittal by the High Court undermines the fundamental doctrine of circumstantial evidence and should be corrected by restoring the conviction of the trial Court.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents submit that the entire prosecution case rests on inconsistent and unreliable evidence. The car’s recovery is described differently by PW-4 (garage owner) and PW-20 (IO), with conflicting timings, undermining the linkage to the accused. The recovery and identification of MO-8, MO-6 and MO-7 by IO and PW-3 do not align on dates or manner, creating serious doubt about the alleged recoveries. PW-3’s identification, though independent, is not corroborated by independent evidence and is itself vulnerable to inconsistency. The last-seen testimony is not sufficiently robust to sustain a conviction beyond reasonable doubt in a circumstantial case. The High Court’s acquittal is sound, and the State’s appeal is misdirected, as the record does not establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.”},

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

922 SUPREME COURT REPORTS[2018] 10 S.C.R. 922 [2018] 10 S.C.R. A ## STATE OF KARNATAKA v. A. B. MAHESHA ETC. B (Criminal Appeal Nos. 1133-1135 of 2010) AUGUST 14, 2018 ## **[R. BANUMATHI AND VINEET SARAN, JJ.]** _Appeal: State’s appeal against acquittal – Trial court convicted respondents/accused for offence of murder on the basis of circumstantial evidence – High Court set aside conviction and_ C _acquitted all the accused – On State’s appeal, held: The evidence of prosecution witnesses were totally contradictory to each other – There was material contradiction as to the recovery of material objects and also identification of those material objects by the father of the victim-deceased (PW-3) – There was inconsistent version_ D _between the I.O. and PW-3 which raised serious doubt about the alleged recovery and the case of prosecution – Based on these inconsistencies and contradictions, High Court had acquitted the accused – There is no serious infirmity in the judgment of the High Court warranting interference._ E CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal Nos. 1133-1135 of 2010 From the Judgment and Order dated 06.03.2007 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No.1438 of 2003 c/w Criminal Appeal No. 1580 of 2003 and Criminal Appeal No. 1591 of F 2003. V. N. Raghupathy, Adv. for the appellant. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by **R. BANUMATHI, J.** 1. The appeals by the State of Karnataka G 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 H 922 923 STATE OF KARNATAKA v. A. B. MAHESHA ETC. [R. BANUMATHI, J.] the houses of accused – one golden chain (MO-8) at the behest of A1, A one Rado watch (MO-6) at the behest of A2 and one golden ring (MO7) at the behest of A3. 3. The trial Court convicted all the accused under Section 302, 201, 392 and 397 IPC and sentenced to them, inter alia, to undergo life imprisonment. The High Court by the impugned judgment allowed the appeal 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 inlaws 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. B C D E 6. So far as the second circumstance - recovery of the car, prosecution relies upon the evidence of PW-4 (garage owner) and PW20 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 effecting repairs he issued quotation F 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 G 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. H 924 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 10 S.C.R. - A 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 PW3 (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 - B 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 of the prosecution. 8. Based on the above inconsistencies and contradictions when C 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. - D 9. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. Devika Gujral Appeals dismissed. E F G H