IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWA..D DATEL. THIS THE 16 th DAY OF DECEMBER 2011 PR ESENT THE HON’B LE MRJUSTICE MOHAN SHANTANAGOUDAR AND THE HON’BLE MRJUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH CRIMINAL APPE.AL No28i4/2010 BETWEEN: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY BELGAUM MARKET POUCE STATION. APPE. LLANT (BY SRI. VMBANAKAR, ASPP) AND: SMT. MAHADEVI W/O RAMESH MULE, RESIDING AT POUCE HQ BLOCK NOJ2 ROOM NO47, BELGAU M. RESPONDENT. (BY SRI. AM%GALI, ADV. FOR AG. MULAWADMATH, ADV) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1) AND (3) OF CR.PC. SEEKING TO GRANT LEAVE TO. FILE APPE.AL AGAINST THE.: JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 30 1 2010 PASSED BY THE III AD DITION.AL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELGAUM, IN SESSION.S CASE N0007/2010 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNIS:HABLE UjSS 3(2)(V)(VI)(VII) OF THE SC AND ST ACT 1989:: AND SET ASIDE THE AFO RSAID JUDGM NT AND ORDER OF ACQUITtAL AND CON 9ICT AND SENTENCE THE ACCUSED RESPONDENT OF THE OFFENCES WITH SHE HAS BEEN CHARGE SHEETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, MOHAN SHANTANAGOUDAR 1, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT The judgment and order of acquittal passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belgaum in SCNo307/2006 is called in question in this appeal by the State. By the impugned judgment, the trial Court has acquitted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(2)(v) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the accused was a divorcee. She was working as a police constable at Belgaum. The deceased w.as also wc.rking as a rciice constable at Beisaum. The accused had two children by h e.r first husband. Kurnar Nikhil is one of the t.o children an.: the said Nikhil was living with the accused. It is the fcrther case of the rosecution that the :3: accused and the deceased were living together and had married also. The accused had lent certain amounts to the deceased and as the deceased refused to pay back the said amount, there was ill-will between the two. The deceased was pressurIzIng the accused to send Nlkhll to live with the first husband. But the same was negatived by the accused. With this background, the accused allegedly squeezed the testacles of the victim at about 4.00 a.m. on 22/11/2006 and strangulated him. Consequent upon which, the deceased lost his life. The dead body was found In the house of the accused. 3. A complaint is lodged by the mother of the deceased. She Is examIned as PW-1. Complaint Is at Ex.P-1. The police after Investigation, laid the charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3(2)(v) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe(Prevention of AtrocItIes) Act, 1989. 4. In order to prove Its case, the prosecution in all examined 25 witnesses and got marked 29 exhIbits and jS) :4: 16 material objects. On behalf of the defence, two witnesses were examined including the accused as DW-1 and 3 exhIbits were marked. The trial Court on evaluation of the materIal on record, acquitted the accused. 5. Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor as well as Sri. A.M.Gaii, Advocate appearing on behalf of Sri. Muiawadmath, argued in support of their respective case. 6. The case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. The two circumstances on which the prosecution rely are: a. Extra judicial confession aiiegediy made by the accused before PWs.1 and 19. b. The dead body was found in the house of the accused. 7. The extra judicial confession was supposed to have been deposed by PWs.1 and 19. PW-1, as aforementioned, is the mother of the deceased. Though the complaint Ex.P-1 reveals that the accused made extra judicial confession before the complainant to the effect S that she has committed wrong, in her evidence before the Court, PW1 dd not depose so Before the Court, PW-1 has deposed that she came to know about the incident through PW-19 who had informed her that dead body of her son is found in the house of the accused. Even if the entire evidence of PW1 is perused meticulously, no where she alleges that the accused has confessed before her about the incident in question. PW49 has also turned hostile. Thus the evidence of PWsi. and 19 is of no help to the prosecution to prove the extra judicial confession allegedly made by the accused. 8 In the light of the above, the only circumstance that remains in favour of the prosecution is that the dead body found in the house of the accused The accused examined herself is DW 1. In her eviden e ,he has eposed th t he NC p eq ant ii r q ne In a t p t ne r j t as a ifi ii i n n an s p ,t fi or h as s y nq he a e f a cia t :6: during the relevant point of time. The evidence of DW-1 is supported by the evidence of DW-2 namely Rudrappa Basavantappa Karavinakoppa. DW-2 has deposed that his house is situated at Karadiguddi village which is at a distance of 18 kiiometers from Beigaum. According to him, the accused was staying in his house as she was pregnant and was unwell. He has further deposed that the accused used to attend for duties from his house situated at Karadiguddi viiiage. However, the trial Court has refused to believe the version of the defence with regard to alibi. Even if the evidence of the defence is disbelieved, the only circumstance i.e. found against the accused is the dead body that was found in the quarters. However, she has not kept quite without explaining the said circumstance. As aforementioned, she got examined herself as DW-1 and another witness ad DW-2. Be that as it may, having regard to the fact that only one circumstance is found in favour of the prosecution, it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved the guilt against the accused. It has also come on record that the accused and the deceased were living together in the :7: quarters of the deceased during the relevant point of time and the said fact is deposed by PWs.8 to 10. The case of the prosecution itself is that both the accused and the deceased had married and were living together in the quarters. According to the prosecution death has occurred on 22/11/2006. However, the dead body was found on 24/11/2006. The accused being the police constable would not have dared to stay in the very quarters in keeping the dead body in tact In the said house for two long days. Thus, the case as made out by the prosecution is artificial. In this context, the evidence of the defence assumes Importance. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, since we do not find adequate proof against the accused with regard to the offence of murder, no interference is called for in the order of acquittal passed by the Court below. 9. It Is by now well settled that where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the Inference of guilt can be Justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be Incompatible with the :8. innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person The circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances where the case depends upon the conclusion drawn from circumstances the cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such as to negative the innocence of the accused an bong the offences home beyond any reasonable doubt 10. Since the view taken by the trial Court cannot be sad to be an erroneous ;iew and such a view is possible view under the facts nd c rcumstances of the ase this i not fit ase t nterf e th n iq e ad de aqta a