1

 REPORTABLE

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA   CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1133- 1135 OF 2010

STATE OF KARNATAKA                                 ...APPELLANT(S)                                 VERSUS

A.B.MAHESHA & ORS.                                 ...RESPONDENT(S)                             

J U D G M E N T

R. BANUMATHI,J.

1. The  appeals  by  the  State  of  Karnataka  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 the houses of accused – one golden chain (MO-8)

at the behest of A1, one Rado watch (MO-6) at the

behest of A2 and one golden ring (MO-7) 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

2

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 in-

laws 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.

6. So far as the second circumstance - recovery of

the car, prosecution relies upon the evidence of PW-4

(garage  owner)  and  PW-20   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

3

effecting repairs he issued quotation 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 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.  

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  PW-3

(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 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

4

of the prosecution.

8. Based  on  the  above  inconsistencies  and

contradictions when 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.

9. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.  

….......................J. [ R. BANUMATHI]

…......................J. [VINEET SARAN]

NEW DELHI 14TH AUGUST, 2018