Karnataka High Court Upholds Murder Conviction, Life Terms Of Four; Dismisses Claim That Eye Witness Saw Accused Persons’ Photos Before TIP
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Karnataka Division Bench of Justice H.P. Sandesh and Justice Venkatesh Naik T dismissed the appeals filed by four convicted men and maintained their murder conviction and life imprisonment sentence. The case concerned the killing of the deceased, which the prosecution said was carried out by three assailants, with the fourth accused alleged to have planned the offence, based on the eyewitness account of the deceased’s wife and supporting circumstances. Rejecting a challenge to identification, the Bench declined to accept the argument that the wife’s identification was tainted because she had seen the accused persons’ photographs in the media before the Test Identification Parade, noting that no specific cross-examination question was put to her on prior publication.
On 03.10.2017 at about 8.45 p.m., the prosecution alleged that three men came to the house of the deceased and his wife, called the deceased outside on the pretext of demanding sand, and attacked him with machetes, causing injuries to his neck and abdomen. The wife stated that when she raised an alarm, one assailant kicked her and pressed her neck, and neighbours arrived at the spot; the deceased was shifted to hospital and was declared to have succumbed to the injuries at about 10.15 p.m.
Based on the wife’s complaint recorded at the hospital, police registered the case and investigated. The accused were apprehended on 16.10.2017 (accused 1–3) and 17.10.2017 (accused 4). A charge-sheet was filed invoking offences under Sections 323, 504, 506, 307, 302 and 120-B read with Section 34 of the IPC. At trial, the prosecution examined 17 witnesses, marked documents and material objects, and relied on the wife’s eyewitness account, spot and seizure mahazars, recovery-related material, medical evidence, and an RFSL report; the wife’s wound certificate recorded simple injuries.
In appeal, the accused contended that the wife initially complained against unknown persons, disputed the prosecution’s motive narrative, and challenged identification on the ground that she had allegedly seen photographs of the accused in newspapers and media before the Test Identification Parade. They also raised objections to the evidentiary basis linking the fourth accused to the alleged conspiracy.
The Court recorded at the outset: “The case rests upon direct evidence as well as circumstantial evidence.” It stated: “The prosecution mainly relies upon the direct evidence of P.W.1, who had witnessed the incident and also sustained injury in the incident.”
On P.W.1’s account and the immediacy of her version, the Court stated: “Having considered this evidence, it is very clear that she has narrated how an incident has taken place and she is an eye witness to the incident and immediately after the death of her husband, she gave the statement between 10.30 to 11.30 p.m. and narrated each of overt act of the accused persons and also categorically given the description of accused Nos.1 to 3 that two were tall and one was short and the person who was short itself assaulted her and the fact that she also sustained injury is not in dispute and wound certificate is also produced.Hence, it is clear that she is an eye witness to the incident.”
On the contention relating to media publication of photographs prior to the Test Identification Parade, the Court recorded: “nothing is elicited in the cross-examination that before Test Identification Parade, the same was published in the newspaper.” It stated: “Hence, it cannot be contended that P.W.1 has already seen the photos prior to Test Identification Parade.” It further recorded: “Though, this answer is elicited, it is not specific that she had seen the photos prior to the Test Identification Parade.”
The Court stated: “Hence, the very contention of learned counsel appearing for accused Nos.1 to 4 that she had seen the accused persons in the media prior to Test Identification Parade cannot be accepted and no such question was put to the witness P.W.1 that prior to Test Identification Parade, photos were published and also cross-examined to the effect Test Identification Parade was conducted.” It added: “She also categorically identifies the accused persons thrice when they were made to stand along with other persons and though suggestion was made that such incident has not taken place, but witness categorically denied the same.”
In addressing the “stray admission” argument, the Court recorded: “This Court while considering the evidence of P.W.1 with regard to the admission that it has come in media, but no specific question was put to the witness that whether their photographs were published in media prior to the identification or subsequent to the identification and hence, the said stray admission that it has come in the media will not comes to the aid of the accused,” and further stated: “though a stray admission is given that it has come in media photographs, but not put specific question that it has come in the media prior to the Test Identification,” along with: “the very contention that identification of the accused subsequently to the splashing of the photographs of the accused in media and to that effect no positive evidence. Hence, the contention of the counsel cannot be accepted.”
The Court directed that “The appeal filed by accused No.1 to 3 and accused No.4 in Crl.A.No.1994/2019 connected with Crl.A.No.1918/2019 are dismissed. We do not find any error on the part of the Trial Court in convicting the accused for the offences which have been invoked and sentencing the accused and sentence also commensurate with the gravity of the offence.”
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Sri Rajesh Rao K., Advocate; Sri Dinesh Kumar K. Rao, Advocate
For the Respondents: Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, Additional SPP
Case Title: Sandeep & Ors. v. State of Karnataka
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No.1994/2019 c/w Criminal Appeal No.1918/2019
Bench: Justice H.P. Sandesh and Justice Venkatesh Naik T
