Trial Court Cannot Morally Convict Accused In Absence Of Legal Proof: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Murder Conviction, Life Sentence
The Karnataka High Court has set aside the murder conviction and life sentence imposed on three accused of setting ablaze a woman. Citing prosecution's failure to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, a Division bench of Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar and Justice S Rachaiah remarked,“It appears that the trial court has morally convicted the accused in the absence of legal...
The Karnataka High Court has set aside the murder conviction and life sentence imposed on three accused of setting ablaze a woman. Citing prosecution's failure to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, a Division bench of Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar and Justice S Rachaiah remarked,
“It appears that the trial court has morally convicted the accused in the absence of legal proof.”
The woman, a married lay, allegedly had an affair with the third accused. As per prosecution, all three accused (including parents of third accused) invited the woman to their house and set her on fire. She succumbed to the burn injuries a week later.
The trial court found the evidence brought on record by the prosecution established its case beyond reasonable doubt and thus convicted and sentenced all three accused.
In appeal, they argued that the trial court ignored the fact that none of the eye witnesses supported the prosecution case and it relied on hostile witnesses to pass a conviction order.
The prosecution on the other hand contended that it was able to bring on record the reason for eye witnesses turning hostile. It was claimed that a panchayat had taken place in the village and the accused agreed for paying money to PW1 and provide education to his son. This was the reason for hostility of the witnesses.
The bench on going through the evidence of witnesses noted "Though it (trial court) observes that the prosecution witnesses have not supported, it has proceeded to hold that the defence ought to have proved its case which is against the principles of criminal jurisprudence.”
Court also said the public prosecutor made a "vain attempt" to discredit the witnesses by giving a suggestion to them that they had been won over by the accused.
Accordingly it allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction order and acquitted the accused.
Appearance: Advocate B.V. Pinto, for Advocate C.N. Raju for Appellants.
SPP – II Vijaykumar Majage for Respondent.
Citation NO: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 177
Case Title: Ninganna & Others AND State by Nanjangud Rural Police
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1229 OF 2019