JAI SINGH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts leading to this appeal by special leave are as under :

(2.) It has been argued by Mr. Sushil Kumar, the learned counsel for the accused-appellants that the trial court had acquitted the accused on a minute appreciation of the evidence and arrived at conclusions clearly possible on that evidence and in this circumstance the High Court was not justified in reversing the acquittal. He has submitted that though the jurisdiction of the High Court in an appeal against acquittal was as wide and unfettered as in the case of a conviction appeal yet the presumption that an accused was innocent until proved guilty was further strengthened when the trial court made an order of acquittal and in this view of the matter extra care and caution was required if the acquittal was to be reversed. He has in this connection placed reliance on the judgment in Chandrappa & Ors. V/s. State of Karnataka, 2007 3 SCALE 90. The learned counsel has also urged that the entire matter would hinge on the testimony of PWs 30 and 33, and the veracity of their evidence would have to be evaluated under the principles laid down in the afore cited case. He has highlighted that the two were chance witnesses and their conduct was so unnatural that their presence had to be ruled out ab-initio. It has finally been pleaded that in this situation the evidence of motive or recovery of incriminating articles did not connect the accused with the crime and could not by themselves and in isolation form the basis of a conviction.

(3.) Mr. Hegde the learned Government Advocate has however supported the judgment of the High Court and at the very outset pointed out that the trial court s judgment though laboured and lengthy did not deal with the evidence in a systematic manner and the entire discussion on the evidence had been confined to the last four pages whereas the judgment of the High Court had been rendered after a minute re- evaluation of the matter and for very good reasons. He has urged that the matter would have to be examined in the background that the murder appeared to have been committed in the State of Maharashtra and the body recovered in the State of Karnataka and the resulting confusion which would have ensued in such a situation. He has pointed out that the relations between the parties were undoubtedly strained as they represented different political groups and as such the motive for the murder stood proved. It has finally been urged that the circumstantial evidence inasmuch as the recovery of the bicycle, the identification of the tiffin carrier, the jeep etc. supported the prosecution s story.