28 July 2010
Supreme Court
Download

N.V. SASHIDHARA Vs STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: HARJIT SINGH BEDI,CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, , ,
Case number: Crl.A. No.-000411-000411 / 2005
Diary number: 1348 / 2005
Advocates: C. K. SUCHARITA Vs


1

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

2

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.