Karnataka High Court Upholds Convict’s Life Sentence For Murdering Man Having Illicit Relationship With His Wife
Case: Sanju v. The State of Karnataka
Coram: Justice HP Sandesh and Justice Ramachandra D Hudda
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100297/2019
Court Observation: “When the accident occurred, he being the neighbour, if he had not indulged in an act of committing the murder and it was merely an accident, he ought not to have fled away from the place of accident. An ordinary prudent man, when there was an accident, he would have helped to shift injured persons to the hospital, since he is acquainted with victims 1 and 2 being his neighbours. But he has not done so. This conduct has to be taken note of.”
“Witnesses have spoken with regard to enmity between them on account of alleged illicit relationship between the accused wife and also the deceased Jyothiba. This might have prompted the accused no.1 to eliminate deceased Jyothiba. Therefore accused no.1 might have taken this step of causing an accident and might have assaulted the deceased. In his process the father of accused no.1 also became the victim in the hands of accused no.1.”
“From the evidence of this witness (Doctor), it is very much clear that, cause of death was due to assault and also accidental injuries. He gave his opinion as per Exs.P40 and P41 stating that, the injuries mentioned in Ex.P35 i.e. injury Nos.1 and 2 were due to assault and injury Nos.3 and 4 are due to road traffic accident. Other injuries found victims body Jyothiba i.e. injury Nos.1 to 3 found in Ex.P36 are due to assault and injury No.4 is due to RTA.”
“If it is an accident and when the victims are sitting on the motorcycle, questions of sustaining similar injuries by both the victims do not arise at all. Hence it is clear that these injuries are on account of assault. Medical evidence supports the case of the prosecution.”
“To disprove the case of prosecution, to prove the defence, there was no difficulty to examine the wife of accused no.1. She would have been the best witness to disbelieve the enmity brought on record by the prosecution if she is living along with the accused as contended in the defence while cross-examining the prosecution witnesses. Therefore a story of the defence cannot be accepted.”
Previous Posts
Keywords
Karnataka High Court Upholds Convict’s Life Sentence
