Karnataka HC Acquits Man Convicted of Killing Woman Grazing Cattle, Finding Last-Seen and Recovery Evidence Insufficient

The prosecution alleged that the appellant and a juvenile robbed Gangamma of her gold ornaments and mobile phone and murdered her in a forest on 20 August 2015; they were also alleged to have attempted to screen the offence by washing a machete and breaking the deceased’s SIM card

The Sessions Court convicted the appellant under Sections 302, 392 and 201 IPC and imposed sentences including life imprisonment

The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, including last-seen evidence, recovery of ornaments and a mobile phone, and recovery of a machete and shirt

The appellant appealed against his conviction and sentence

In a case based on circumstantial evidence, each relied-upon circumstance must be firmly established, and the circumstances cumulatively must form a complete chain pointing unerringly to the accused’s guilt and excluding every reasonable alternative hypothesis; suspicion, however strong, is not proof

The last-seen circumstance does not, by itself, complete that chain or sustain a conviction

Motive may be relevant in a circumstantial case, but proof of motive alone cannot sustain conviction, and its absence is not necessarily fatal

An electronic record requiring proof under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 cannot be relied upon as substantive evidence without the requisite certificate

The alleged offences were under Sections 302, 392 and 201 IPC

The Court accepted that Gangamma died a homicidal death but found that the evidence did not reliably identify the appellant as the perpetrator

Conflicting testimony about whether the deceased wore the alleged ornaments, together with inconsistencies in the recovery witnesses’ accounts and the timing of the seizures, undermined the alleged robbery and recovery evidence

The last-seen evidence was also materially inconsistent: witnesses differed about who accompanied the deceased, and the forest was commonly used by villagers for grazing cattle; the evidence did not establish that the deceased was in the appellant’s exclusive company shortly before her death

The recovery and forensic evidence did not provide a reliable link between the appellant and the killing, while the call records lacked a Section 65B certificate

Considered cumulatively, the circumstances raised suspicion but did not establish a complete chain proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt

It set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitted the appellant of the offences under Sections 302, 392 and 201 IPC, and directed his release forthwith if his custody was not required in another matter