STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. VENKATESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal which has been hotly contested raises once again the question as to how a Criminal Court is required to apply the law relating to circumstantial evidence in a given situation. The deceased Rajegowda and accused Venkatesh are brothers and it is alleged that there was some unpleasantness and quarrels over the family property. Rajegowda was last seen alive on 12-5-1994 when he left the house ostensibly to go to his fields. Since he did not return, after waiting for a considerable period of time after three days, his wife Prema lodged a missing person's complaint. The prosecution alleges that accused Venkatesh had attacked his brother Rajegowda with a stone over a quarrel, that Rajegowda sustained a serious head injury, that he collapsed and died and that the accused put the body in a bullock cart and took it to a remote place, tied stones to it and dumped it in the Kaveri backwaters. The accused is supposed to have sustained an injury to his hand which he got treated at Kollegal Hospital and this attracted the attention of his relations and associates who kept on asking him about it. He did not disclose the circumstances under which he sustained the injury but, it is the prosecution case that when he attacked Rajegowda, that Rajegowda in turn inflicted the injury with a sickle. P.W. 2, Ramegowda however contends that the accused is alleged to have made an extrajudicial confession to P.W. 6 which was witnessed by him and the reason given is that the accused was overcome by remorse and that he confessed to the offence. What is more incriminating is the fact that the police arrested the accused and while he was in custody, he is alleged to have made a statement to the effect that he will point out the place where he has concealed the dead body and that pursuant to this statement, the parents and the panchas went to that place and that the dead body of Rajegowda was recovered. Furthermore, the prosecution alleges that apart from the earlier statement which is recorded in Ex. P. 26, that the accused also made another statement recorded in Ex. P. 19 to the effect that he will point out the weapons used and that he took the police to his fields and pointed out a rough stone. The stone Mo-5 has been seized but, it is not of much consequence because it was not blood-stained nor was there any incriminating on it. The accused was charge-sheeted and sent up for trial and the learned Trial Judge after a careful analysis of thefollowing seven circumstances acquitted the accused. The circumstances were.

(2.) The present appeal has been preferred by the State assailing the order of acquittal. This is a very hotly contested case and we need to record that it is very evenly balanced. The learned Government Pleader Sri Nawaz has done an excellent job insofar as he has analysed the evidence and he has very strongly contended that the circumstances are conclusive and sufficient to fully establish the guilt of the accused. Fortunately, learned Advocate Sri Sanjay Patil who represents the accused has also done a first class job of the case. He was well prepared. He has analysed the case exceedingly well and he has argued it with a degree of competency both on facts and in law which is admirable. Both the learned Government Pleader and the learned Advocate who represents the accused are relatively young Counsel and we need to record that we have been extremely well-impressed by their performances.

(3.) We need to briefly recount the well crystallised position in law relating to circumstantial evidence because the short question is as to whether the finding of the Trial Court that these circumstances do not establish the guilt of the accused, even if taken cumulatively, is required to be confirmed or whether it is required to be interfered with. Often times, Criminal Courts make the familiar mistake of recording convictions on the basis of just one circumstance which in their opinion is a strong circumstance and is conclusive. We need to remind ourselves that unlike other cases of oral and documentary evidence, that the law with regard to circumstantial evidence very clearly postulates that there must be a chain or a web of circumstances which establish a nexus between the accused and the offence which is so conclusive that it leads to only one inference which is in consonance with the guilt of the accused and to nothing else. Here again, the Supreme Court has had to repeatedly point out that the chain of circumstances pre-supposes several links and that one link or two links do not constitute a chain. Again, the law as laid down by the Apex Court and the High Courts requires that every link in the chain has got to be a strong and sustainable link and that one or two strong links cannot substitute for a few other weak links because in that event, the chain will not be good enough. In other words, the duty of the Court is to examine each circumstance individually and record its finding as to whether it is strong and conclusive and to then lastly examine the cumulative effect of this chain of circumstances for purposes of concluding as to whether they lead to the irresistible conclusion of guilt. This briefly summarises the law on the point and it is on the basis of these principles, that we have reviewed the record and the judgment of the Trial Court.