Karnataka HC Affirms Life Imprisonment To Advocate Who Killed a Fellow Woman Lawyer in Court Corridor [Read Judgment]
Karnatka High Court has upheld the verdict of the trial court whereby the latter had convicted advocate S. L. Rajappa, who had killed a fellow lady advocate in the court corridor by stabbing her with a knife multiple times on her chest and neck. The Trial Court had sentenced accused to imprisonment for life.
Bench of Justice K. N. Phaneendra and Justice H .B. Prabhakara Sastry was hearing the criminal appeal in case of S. L. Rajappa v. State. The criminal appeal was filed to set aside the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial court.
Accused and deceased lady advocate were practicing as advocates in Bengaluru. The accused had obsessive love towards the deceased and intended to marry her. Deceased had initially agreed to the marriage proposal but had turned down the proposal later. Considering it as a betrayal on deceased's part, accused stabbed her with a knife in the corridor of court hall in High Court of Karnataka in 2010. Deceased got grievous injuries and slumped to the floor in a pool of blood and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. After stabbing deceased accused attempted to commit suicide but was saved by police.
Rejecting the defense advanced from appellant's side that alleged attack and assault was made by some third person using a sharp-edged weapon, court concluded that the defence of the accused could not in any manner imbibe any suspicion in the prosecution case or weaken the case of prosecution. It held that there is all the evidence to prove the alleged guilt against the accused and that the prosecution was able to prove its case beyond the reasonable doubt.
Court ascertained the intention of murder and then later to commit suicide himself on part of accused-appellant with a 'death note' recovered from the pocket of the accused. The forensic study had confirmed accused's handwriting and signature on the death note.
It accordingly maintained the conviction order of the trial court saying that there are no reasons for it to interfere or modify the sentence part of the impugned judgment too. Court dismissed the appeal.
Read the Judgment Here