Karnataka High Court Acquits Husband Convicted In Wife's Murder Case Over Allegedly Objectionable Facebook Post Against His Paramour

The Karnataka High Court allowed an appeal and acquitted Arun Kumar M, who had been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for allegedly murdering his wife after she made an objectionable post on Facebook against his alleged paramour.A Division Bench of Justice K.S. Mudagal and Justice Venkatesh Naik T observed, “The chain of events being sought to be projected is laden with deficiency, creating a significant gap, leading to other possible hypotheses. Due to such missing links, the finding of guilt cannot be recorded. The benefit of doubt must be extended to accused No.1 (Kumar).”Kumar was charged under Sections 498A, 120B, 109, 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.A complaint was filed by Muniswamigowda on 30.12.2014 stating that when he had gone to his land, he found the dead body of a woman near the compound and security room of the said land. The body had visible crushed injuries on the face and head, the chest bones were exposed, and due to deep injuries on the head and chest, the body was not identifiable.On 02.01.2015, the investigating officer arrested Kumar and, pursuant to his alleged voluntary statement, other accused persons were also arrested.It was alleged that Kumar had fallen in love with the victim, Ramya, and married her in November 2013. Subsequently, he developed an illicit relationship with accused No.8, Asha P., and subjected Ramya to physical and mental cruelty. It was further alleged that accused No.8, with the intention of marrying Kumar, instigated him to torture the victim.According to the prosecution, Kumar and Asha used to chat on Facebook, and Kumar had decided to divorce Ramya and marry Asha. It was alleged that the victim had forwarded messages to friends of accused No.8, Asha, stating that she was available to all, following which Asha decided to teach her a lesson. On learning about these posts, Kumar and Asha allegedly hatched a plan to eliminate the victim, pursuant to which all the accused conspired to murder Ramya.The trial court convicted Kumar, holding that although the case was based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution had established that accused No.1 and the victim were last seen together, that the death was homicidal, that there was a strong motive behind the crime, and that witnesses PWs 3, 7, 8 and 9 had clearly spoken about the incident. The official witnesses were also held to have supported the prosecution case.Before the High Court, the appellant contended that there were no direct witnesses to the crime and that the case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence. It was argued that the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution were not proved by cogent and consistent evidence, and that the impugned judgment was based on surmises and conjectures, with presumptions creeping into the conviction of the appellant.Opposing the appeal, the prosecution submitted that all material and official witnesses had supported its case and that the trial court, upon proper appreciation of evidence and applicable law, had rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant. It was argued that the judgment did not warrant interference.FindingsOn examining the medical evidence, the Court noted that the testimony of PW15, the doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination, disclosed that the victim's face was not identifiable as it was disfigured due to peeling of skin from the top of the head to the upper part of the chest. The dead body was never subjected to DNA examination, and therefore, apart from the version of PW2, there was no material to establish the identity of the body.The Court further observed that the incident had occurred at an isolated place which did not belong to accused No.1, and the dead body was not discovered at his instance. Consequently, no presumption could be raised under Section 106 of the Evidence Act.It was thereafter observed, “There is no eyewitness to the alleged incident. This case, thus, is one of circumstantial evidence. It is a well-settled principle that to base a conviction on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish all incriminating circumstances by reliable and clinching evidence, and the circumstances so proved must form such a chain of events as would permit no conclusion other than the guilt of the accused.”Emphasising caution, the Bench stated, “Suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot be a substitute for proof, and the Court must take utmost care while finding an accused guilty solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence.”The Bench ultimately held, “In the overall view of the matter, we are convinced that the trial Court has committed an error in holding accused No.1 guilty of the offence of murder. If an iota of doubt creeps in at any stage in the sequence of events, the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. Mere suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof. When there is a missing link, a finding of guilt cannot be recorded.”Appearance: Advocate C.H...

Karnataka High Court Acquits Husband Convicted In Wife's Murder Case Over Allegedly Objectionable Facebook Post Against His Paramour

Mustafa Plumber

Tags