Criminal Appeal, the Supreme Court reviewed the conviction of the appellant, Vishwanatha, by the High Court of Karnataka for the murder of Devaki, aged 86, under Sections 302 and 450 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The High Court had reversed the Trial Court's acquittal based on eye-witness testimonies and other evidence. The appellant challenged the High Court's decision, citing contradictions in the testimonies and the absence of a Test Identification Parade (TIP). The Supreme Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt due to inconsistencies and identity doubts. The Court allowed the appeal, acquitted the appellant, and upheld the Trial Court's acquittal.

Background

Incident and Initial Complaint

• Date of Incident: 26.12.2000
• Victim: Devaki, aged 86, was strangulated to death.
• Accused: Vishwanatha (appellant) and Ravikumar.
• Location: Kudupu, Mangalore
• Complainant: Rohini (PW-1), daughter of the deceased.
• FIR Filing: Registered at PS: Mangalore Rural Circle around 3:00 p.m., naming Ravikumar and Vishwanatha.

Trial Court Proceedings

• Chargesheet Filed: 05.03.2001.
• Charges Framed: 20.09.2001 under Sections 450 and 302 read with 34 IPC.
• Prosecution Evidence: 18 witnesses and 11 documents.
• Sessions Court Verdict: Acquitted both accused on 18.12.2001 due to contradictions between testimonies and autopsy report.

High Court Proceedings

• State Appeal: The High Court reversed the acquittal on 06.06.2009.
• Conviction: Found both accused guilty under Sections 302 and 450 read with Section 34 IPC.
• Sentencing: Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 years and life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000.

Supreme Court Proceedings

Appellant's Arguments

• Witness Credibility: Contradictions in testimonies and autopsy report.
• Test Identification Parade (TIP): Absence of TIP to establish the identity of the appellant.

State's Arguments

• Identification: TIP was unnecessary.
• Witness Credibility: Minor discrepancies do not affect the prosecution's case.

Supreme Court's Analysis

• Death Confirmation: Devaki's death was homicidal.
• Witness Testimonies vs. Autopsy Report: Discrepancies in the description of ligature marks.
• Identity of the Appellant: Doubts due to lack of TIP and absence of description in the FIR.
• Prosecution's Burden of Proof: Failure to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

Verdict

• Acquittal: Appeal allowed, appellant acquitted with the benefit of doubt.
• Reinstatement of Trial Court's Decision: Order of acquittal by the Trial Court is upheld.
• Release of Appellant: Appellant need not surrender; bail bonds and sureties are discharged.

Conclusion

• The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's conviction of the appellant due to inconsistencies in the prosecution's case and doubts regarding the appellant's identity.