Mere Registration Of FIR Does Not Result In Conviction; Incriminating Material Must Appear In Substantive Evidence: Karnataka HC
The Karnataka High Court observed that the incriminating material must appear in substantive evidence brought before the Court while explaining the power of the Court to examine the accused under Section 313 CrPC.
The Court was hearing an appeal after three accused were convicted by the lower Court for an offence under section 302 IPC.
The bench of Chief Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar and Justice S Rachaiah observed, “Mere registration of FIR does not result in conviction. The incriminating materials must appear in the substantive evidence brought before the court.”
Advocate B.V. Pinto appeared for the Appellant and SPP Vijaykumar Majage appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts-
It is the case of the Prosecution that Victim Manjula was murdered by accused M.N.Prasada along with his parents. It is alleged that Manjula had extramarital affairs with the accused. All three accused asked Manjula to come to their house and when she went there, she was set on fire by the accused by pouring kerosene on her body. Manjula sustained 90 to 95% burn injuries. She died after some days.
The Court assessed the evidence and stated that the eyewitnesses had not at all supported the prosecution case.
The Court noted that the trial court had held that the accused should have explained the incriminating materials brought on record against them. The Court wondered as to what kind of incriminating materials are there on record to be explained by the accused.
The Court stated that the trial court had placed reliance on many a case law on the concept of statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C, but it failed to grasp the real object of section 313 of Cr.P.C.
As per the Court, though the lower Court observed that the prosecution witnesses have not supported, it proceeded to hold that the defence ought to have proved its case which is against the principles of criminal jurisprudence.
“It appears that the trial court has morally convicted the accused in the absence of legal proof,” the Court added.
The impugned judgment was set aside and the accused were acquitted of offences charged against them.
Finally, the Court allowed the appeal.
Cause Title: Ninganna v. State (Neutral Citation: 2024:KHC:14384-DB)
Appearance:
Appellant: Adv. B.V. Pinto, Adv. C.N. Raju
Respondent: SPP Vijaykumar Majage
