Karnataka high court upholds conviction in abetment-to-suicide case based on prosecutor testimony
Bengaluru: The high court upheld the conviction and sentencing of a resident of Devanahalli taluk, noting that a conviction can be based on the testimony of a prosecutor alone unless there are compelling reasons for seeking corroboration.Justice HP Sandesh made this observation, while upholding a trial court's verdict in a case of one Murali, who was found guilty of abetment to suicide (Section 306 of IPC) and sentenced to five years in jail with a fine of Rs 3,000.The charges against him stated that during his stay in Channarayapatna for 18 months, he became intimate with the house owner's daughter, resulting in her pregnancy.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
To avoid marriage, he convinced her to kill herself and gave her a poisonous tablet, assuring her that he, too, would follow her in this suicide pact.Challenging the trial court's decision, Murali claimed that medical records show the victim was unconscious when taken to hospital and, that, she never regained consciousness to tell her sister and others present about what happened to her. He further claimed there is no material available before the trial court, such as DNA test, to show the victim was six months pregnant due to the relationship."The medical records clearly stated that the death was due to respiratory failure as a result of consumption of aluminium phosphate," he further contended.The additional state public prosecutor submitted that the second tablet given by the accused was traced after the victim revealed it when she regained consciousness, supporting the prosecution's case.The prosecutor added that a neighbour witnessed the accused visiting the victim's house before she consumed the tablet, connecting the accused's role in abetting the victim to take the extreme step.After reviewing the material on record, including the trial court's verdict, Justice Sandesh pointed out that the prosecution witnesses' evidence consistently showed the accused was responsible for the victim's pregnancy and that he stayed in her house, leading to her pregnancy.The recovery and disclosure statement of the victim that the accused gave her the tablet and she kept the remaining tablet in the kitchen, which was recovered, proves the prosecution's case, the judge noted."The tablet, which was recovered, and the material found in the victim's stomach are one and the same. When such linking evidence is available before the court, it is very clear that there is a proximity to the cause of the victim's death and the role played by the accused. Hence, I do not find any error committed by the trial court in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC," the judge noted, while dismissing Murali's appeal.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
25 minutes ago
- Indian Express
‘Law not a toy to be played with': Karnataka HC quashes case against man accused of abducting neighbour's cat
In an unusual turn of events, a pet cat named Daisy was the subject of criminal proceedings challenged before the Karnataka High Court on Tuesday, with the judge remarking that the pet seemed to have 'driven everyone crazy'. The court subsequently quashed the case against a person who was accused of 'kidnapping' his neighbour's pet cat. Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that the police deserved stern admonishment in this case, stating, 'Law is a solemn instrument and not a toy to be played at the altar of personal pique.' The defendant in the case had filed a complaint in 2022 against a person in the adjacent apartment complex, alleging that her cat Daisy had been kidnapped and confined, causing stress and emotional trauma to the complainant. The police subsequently filed a chargesheet under Indian Penal Code (IPC) provisions relating to intentional insult, intimidation, and insult to a woman's modesty. The accused petitioner's counsel argued that the cat could have jumped from house to house through the windows and might have gone to another place after getting into the petitioner's house, as it had not stayed there. The CCTV footage also demonstrated the cat jumping between windows. When the woman complainant had enquired about the cat, the accused questioned why he would keep her cat in his home. The counsel for the accused also raised the question of how the alleged offences could arise from a missing cat. The court noted that as per the Additional State Public Prosecutor, the complainant had not appeared before the court to answer questions, and it seemed to be a frivolous case. The bench stated, 'It shocks the conscience of the court as to how the jurisdictional police could have registered the complaint, as there is no offence indicated in the complaint, except missing cat and alleged wrongful custody of the cat in the house of the accused…' 'The entire police machinery gets involved in the case of a missing cat, records statements of neighbours, sees CCTV footage and finds nothing, but files a chargesheet dropping the offences under sections 428 and 429 (mischief by killing or maiming animal) of the IPC, but retaining the offences under sections 504, 506 and 509…,' it added. The judge observed that the chargesheet contained 'retrospective embellishments' of hurling abuses, which was not in the complaint, stating, 'The cat named Daisy appears to have driven everyone crazy and even the criminal justice system. The police ought not to have entertained the complaint, which did not indicate any cognisable offence at the outset. As a matter of fact, the complaint does not even indicate a non-cognisable offence. But the police entertained the complaint ostensibly, for extraneous reasons.'
NDTV
34 minutes ago
- NDTV
"Will Marry Raja Raghuvanshi But...": Sonam's Threat To Mother Before Wedding
Sonam Raghuvanshi was in love with Raj Kushwaha and had warned her family of "consequences" if she was pressured to marry Raja Raghuvanshi, who was brutally murdered days after he married the woman, police sources said. In his statement, Raja's elder brother Vipin said Sonam had told her mother about her affair with Raj, who was an employee at the family's business, but her mother objected to the relationship. "Vipin said Sonam had already informed her mother about her affair with Raj. She said she did not want to marry Raja. Her mother, however, objected to the relationship (with Raj) and persuaded her to marry within the society," one of the sources said. "Vipin alleged that Sonam agreed to compromise and marry Raja but warned of consequences. She said 'you will see what I do to that person. You all will have to bear the consequences'. No one thought she would kill Raja," the source added. The details of Vipin's purported statement to the police surfaced at a time when Raja's murder by Sonam, Raj and three of his accomplices have sent shockwaves across the country. Sonam and Raja were on their honeymoon to Meghalaya when the crime took place. The case initially began as that of a "missing couple", after Raja and Sonam could not be traced in the northeastern state, but took a tragic turn and revealed a shocking betrayal. Raj was later identified as the prime conspirator in the case. Vipin alleged that Sonam stayed in a hotel room with Raj after the murder. He later sent her to her hometown in Madhya Pradesh's Indore, where she stayed for two days. Twenty-four-year-old Sonam and 29-year-old Raja from Indore got married on May 11. According to the police, the wedding took place despite Sonam's relationship with Raj, who worked as an accountant at the furniture sheet unit owned by her family. Sonam used to look after the family business. After their wedding in Indore, Raja and Sonam travelled to Meghalaya for honeymoon. They disappeared on May 23, hours after checking out of a homestay at Nongriat village, 20 km from where Raja's body was found on June 2. Raja was killed by Sonam, who went "missing" after the murder, the police said. She had allegedly hired killers to get rid of her husband as she wanted to be with her lover. On Sunday night, Sonam surfaced in Uttar Pradesh's Ghazipur where she surrendered at Nandganj police station. This came hours after Akash Rajput (19), Vishal Singh Chauhan (22), and Anand Kurmi were arrested from Uttar Pradesh and Indore and Sagar towns (in Madhya Pradesh). Raj, the alleged conspirator, was arrested later. Police sources said Sonam offered Rs 20 lakh to the accused to carry out the crime, although an official confirmation or statement is awaited. The sources earlier said the hitmen met the newly wed couple in Bengaluru, from where they took their connecting flight to the northeast.
News18
an hour ago
- News18
Agra Man Murdered For Voting For ‘Wrong Neta'. His Killers Jailed For...
Last Updated: The incident took place in Ladam Mankeda village which falls under the Malpura police limits. Nearly two decades after a brutal murder over a local election dispute, a court in Agra has sentenced six men to life imprisonment. The case dates back to August 23, 2005, when Dharampal Singh, a 35-year-old villager from Ladam Mankeda under Malpura police station limits, was killed for refusing to vote for a particular panchayat candidate. According to a Times of India report, seven men were initially accused in the case: Jitendra Singh, Bablu Singh, Pawan Singh, Sattoo Singh, Girraj Singh, Govind Singh and Balvir Singh. One of them, Sattoo Singh, died during the trial in 2006. The court has now found the remaining six guilty of Dharampal's murder. Dharampal and his brother Dharamveer Singh had allegedly declined to support the candidate backed by the accused. 'They tried to force us to vote for their nominee, but we declined. That angered them," Dharamveer told the police during the investigation. The next day, police registered a case under relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Arms Act. All seven accused were arrested on September 15, 2005. Based on Bablu Singh's statement, a country-made .315 bore gun and two live bullets were recovered from a field the following day. After years of trial, the verdict was delivered by Additional District and Sessions Judge Rajendra Prasad. All six convicts—Jitendra, Bablu, Pawan, Girraj, Govind and Balvir—have been sentenced to rigorous life imprisonment. Each was also fined Rs 28,500, with 70 per cent of the amount directed to be given to the victim's family. If they fail to pay, they will face an additional three years in prison. 'He led us to the field and showed us where the weapon was hidden," the officer said. The chargesheet was filed on September 30, 2005. During the trial, Balvir Singh requested leniency. He told the court, 'This is my first offence. I have two children and am the sole breadwinner in my family." But the judge rejected his plea. After nearly 20 years, the verdict was delivered by an additional district and session judge (Agra), Rajendra Prasad. Jitendra, Bablu, Pawan, Girraj, Govind and Balvir were all sentenced to rigorous life imprisonment. Each convict was also fined Rs 28,500. If they fail to pay, they will face an extra three years in prison. The court directed that seventy per cent of the fine amount should go to Dharampal's family.
