Full Judgment Text
Crl.A. 411 of 2005
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 411 OF 2005
N.V. SASHIDHARA ..... APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF KARNATAKA ..... RESPONDENT
O R D E R
The High Court has found the following
circumstances against the appellant:
“The case of the prosecution fully
rests on the circumstantial evidence.
Looking to the material on record, the
following circumstances emerge against the
accused.
a) The accused was not affluent and
his financial condition was very bad at
the time of incident.
b) The accused was in possession of
the three pairs of bullocks and sold them
to P.Ws. 6, 7 and 8 which were entrusted
to deceased by P.Ws. 9, 12 and 13 for
transportation; and that those bullocks
were not belonging to accused.
c) Handwriting experts opinion
relating to the signatures and handwriting
of the accused found on the sale chits Ex.
P7, P10 & P12 executed by the accused in
favour of P.Ws. 6,7 & 8 respectively.
d) Non-explanation of the accused as
to how he came into possession of the
bullocks, which were sold by him to P.Ws.
6, 7 and 8.
e)Abscondance of the accused till
19.07.1992 i.e. for about six months from
the date of incident.
f) Recovery of the club (M.O.8) the
Crl.A. 411 of 2005
2
weapon used in the commission of the
offence on the basis of voluntary
statement of accused.”
We put up to the learned counsel as to why the
sale chits Exhibits P7, P10 and P12 had been executed
by the appellant in favour of P.Ws. 6, 7 and 8 who had
also identified the bullocks they are said to have
purchased. The learned counsel could give no
satisfactory answer. We also find that the findings
have been affirmed by both the courts below. No
interference is, therefore, called for in this appeal
which is, accordingly, dismissed.
The fee of the learned Amicus is fixed at Rs.
7000/-.
......................J
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI]
......................J
[C.K. PRASAD]
NEW DELHI
JULY 28, 2010.