Motive not established: Three convicts acquitted by HC

Bengaluru, NT Bureau: Three persons; the husband and inlaws who were convicted by a Trial Court in the murder of a married woman have been acquitted by the High Court of Karnataka because the motive for the murder was not proved.

The HC said, “It is not essential for the prosecution to establish a motive factor against the accused in all cases, but at some time it cannot be given to gain that without adequate motive speaking normally, none is expected to take the life of another human being.”

There were also two dying declarations by the deceased that were not corroborated by other witnesses. In the case, Manjamma aka Manjula had sustained 80-90 per cent burn injuries and given a dying declaration.

Her husband Thippeswamy, father-inlaw Nagendrappa and mother-in-law Jayamma were booked under Section 302 (Murder) 304B (Dowry death) and 498(A) (cruelty towards a married woman) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The Trial court had acquitted them of the charges under the Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 498(A) of the IPC. But it had convicted them for murder and sentenced them to imprisonment for life. The three had approached the HC against the 2016 verdict of the Sessions Court in Chitradurga.

The division bench of Justice K Somashekar and Justice Rajesh Rai K gave their judgment on the appeal recently. The HC pointed out that the accused have been acquitted under the Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 498A, 304B of IPC they could not have been convicted for Murder.

“The Trial Court has rendered conviction for offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. When offences under Section 498A, 304 B read with Section 34 IPC besides Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act ended in acquittal, the prosecution, ought not to have convicted the accused for offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC unless the prosecution has proved the guilt against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. If doubt is created in the mind of the Court, it must be extended in favour of the accused alone.”

The HC said that though motive for murder is not necessary to be established in all cases, “But the motive behind the crime is a relevant fact of which evidence can be given. The absence of a motive is also a circumstance which is relevant for assigning the evidence.”

In the case on hand there were two dying declarations made by the deceased that were “required to be re-appreciated and closely scrutinised”, the HC said.

“If there are two dying declarations giving two different versions, a serious doubt is created about the truthfulness of the dying declarations. The dying declaration does not reveal the entire truth, and it has to be considered only as a piece of evidence on which event conviction cannot be rested solely on the basis of such doubtful dying declaration. If the dying declaration was recorded in presence of the relatives of the deceased the possibility that the deceased was tutored cannot be ruled out,” the HC said.

Acquitting the three and setting aside the judgement of conviction and order of sentence imposed on them by the Sessions Court, the HC said, “The dying declaration cannot be treated as wholly trustworthy as it is shrouded by many doubts. The Court must be satisfied that the deceased was in a state of mind after a clear opportunity to observe and identify the assailant.” CrLa 829/2017