Karnataka High Court Affirms Murder Conviction, Finds Eyewitness and Forensic Evidence Coherent

A bench of Justice H.P. Sandesh and Justice Venkatesh Naik T heard an appeal against a conviction under Section 302 IPC, challenging the judgment and sentence dated 10.01.2018 and 18.01.2018 of the LIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in S.C. No.158/2015. The appeal raised issues of ocular reliability, delays in registration and dispatch of FIR, alleged contradictions in prosecution evidence, and the sufficiency of forensic proof.

The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the trial court's conviction and life sentence for murder. The High Court re‑appreciated oral and documentary evidence and found the testimony of the primary eyewitness (PW3) reliable, noting corroboration from medical and forensic reports and from the investigating officer's seizure records. The Court rejected the defence theory that the deceased had an illicit relationship with the eyewitness or that neighbours’ testimony created reasonable doubt. The judgment emphasised that suggestions in cross‑examination did not displace the prosecution case and that FSL reports and post‑mortem findings supported homicidal death. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Having reassessed both oral and documentary evidence, we have consciously re-appreciated the evidence available on record and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is consistent i.e., P.W.3 who is an eyewitness and no inconsistency with regard to witnessing the incident is concerned. Though defence was taken that husband of P.W.3 and P.W.3 inflicted the injuries on the deceased, the same is not proved by the defence and even preponderance of probabilities is not enough and there must be cogent evidence before the Court to come to an other conclusion that P.W.3 and her husband committed the murder and all the evidence available before the Court points out the very act of the accused and there is no any inconsistent evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.3 has narrated how an incident has taken place and even suggestion made to P.W.3 also goes against the defence. The medical evidence and other circumstantial evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and also seizure of articles at the spot is consistent, particularly the witness P.W.5 deposes regarding the same. P.W.10 and P.W.12- FSL witnesses also point out the role of the accused and the evidence of P.W.11-Investing Officer is also corroborated by the evidence of P.W.5, P.W.10 and P.W.12. Hence, we do not find any ground to come to an other conclusion as against the finding of the Trial Court." The Court also recorded that "The incident is not disputed."

Background The prosecution alleged that on the night of 13–14 September 2014 the deceased, a family friend of the occupants of the first floor, was returning to that house when the ground‑floor tenant (accused) confronted and stabbed him repeatedly; the deceased succumbed to chest injuries. PW3 (occupant of the first floor) and her husband claimed to have witnessed the assault; PW1 and PW2 (brother and wife of the deceased) assisted in taking the injured to hospital. The investigating officer drew spot and inquest panchanamas, seized a blood‑stained knife, footwear and soil samples, and forwarded exhibits to the FSL. Post‑mortem and medical certificates recorded stab injuries and death due to hemorrhage and shock.

At trial the Sessions Court convicted the accused for Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life with a fine. Before the High Court the defence relied on alleged contradictions among prosecution witnesses, delay in FIR registration/dispatch, the absence of fingerprint analysis on the weapon, and defence witnesses who spoke of a neighbouring reception and recurring marital quarrels at the first‑floor house. The defence also relied on a voluntary statement (challenged as inadmissible in part). The State relied on eyewitness testimony, post‑mortem and FSL reports (blood group B on several exhibits) and the police panchanamas. The High Court re‑evaluated credibility, found the ocular and forensic evidence mutually supportive, rejected the defence narrative as unproved, and dismissed the appeal. The registry was directed to pay Rs.10,000 to the Amicus Curiae.

Case Details: Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.513/2018 Case Title: SAJJAD KHAN v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Sri N.S. Sampangi Ramaiah, Advocate (appointed as Amicus Curiae) For the Respondent(s): Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, Additional State Public Prosecutor