circumstances:- (i) deceased Jagdeesha was last seen alive in the Company of A1 to A3- respondents; (ii) recovery of Car having Registration No. MEC 8344 and (iii) recovery of material objects from the houses of accused – one golden chain (MO-8) at the behest of A1, one Rado watch (MO-6) at the behest of A2 and one golden ring (MO-7) at the behest of A3. = Insofar as the recovery of the car, the evidence of PW-4 (garage owner) and evidence of PW-20 S.I. of Gudlur Police Station are totally contradictory to each other and it is difficult to be reconciled. Pointing out the inconsistency in the evidence of PW-4 and PW-20, the High Court rightly held that the case of the prosecution is highly doubtful and this circumstance cannot form the basis for conviction.; recovery of the material objects namely, gold chain (MO-8), Rado watch (MO-6) and golden ring (MO-7) recovered from the houses of the respective accused, they were identified by PW-3 (father of the deceased) on 18.06.2000; whereas as per version of the investigating officer they were recovered on 23.06.2000. Here again there is a material contradiction as to the recovery of the above material objects and also the identification of those material objects by PW-3. The High Court has pointed out that the inconsistent version between the evidence of I.O and PW-3 (father of the deceased) raises serious doubt about the alleged recovery and the case 4 of the prosecution. = Based on the above inconsistencies and contradictions when the High Court has acquitted the accused, this Court can not interfere with the acquittal unless there are serious and substantial error or compelling reasons warranting interference

1
 REPORTABLE
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1133- 1135 OF 2010
STATE OF KARNATAKA ...APPELLANT(S)
 VERSUS
A.B.MAHESHA & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S)


J U D G M E N T
R. BANUMATHI,J.
1. The appeals by the State of Karnataka are
against the acquittal of the respondents/accused.
2. The case of the prosecution revolves around the
following circumstances:- (i) deceased Jagdeesha was
last seen alive in the Company of A1 to A3-
respondents; (ii) recovery of Car having Registration
No. MEC 8344 and (iii) recovery of material objects
from the houses of accused – one golden chain (MO-8)
at the behest of A1, one Rado watch (MO-6) at the
behest of A2 and one golden ring (MO-7) at the behest
of A3.
3. The trial Court convicted all the accused under
Section 302, 201, 392 and 397 IPC and sentenced to
them, inter alia, to undergo life imprisonment. The
High Court by the impugned judgment allowed the appeal
2
and set aside the conviction and acquitted all the
accused.
4. We have heard Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, learned
counsel appearing for the State of Karnataka and
perused the impugned judgment and materials on record.
In spite of service of notice none entered appearance
on behalf of the respondents-accused.
5. Insofar as the first circumstance that the
deceased was last seen alive, the prosecution relies
upon the testimony of P.Ws 5 and 6 who were also
running the taxi at Chikkamagalur Car Stand. PW-5
stated that even though the accused wanted to engage
his car, deceased Jagdeesha expressed his intention to
go on hire as his wife’s house is in Thanneruhalla
near Hasan so that he could go to the house of his inlaws
where his wife was staying. Subsequently the
body was found near the bridge on NH-48 near Kirisave
Village on 08.05.2000. The body was found in a
decomposed state on 08.05.2000. The evidence of PWs 5
and 6 is only limited to the extent that the deceased
was last seen alive in the company of the accused.
6. So far as the second circumstance - recovery of
the car, prosecution relies upon the evidence of PW-4
(garage owner) and PW-20 S.I. of Gudlur Police
Station (Tamil Nadu). In his evidence PW-4 (garage
owner) has stated that the accused nos. 2 and 3 had
left the car in his garage for repairs and for
3
effecting repairs he issued quotation under Ex.P-6 on
09.05.2000. Contrarily, PW-20 S.I. of Gudlur Police
Station has stated that the car was abandoned in front
of “Hot and Cold Hotel” and he seized the car on
07.06.2000 and reported the matter to the Taluk
Executive Magistrate. Insofar as the recovery of the
car, the evidence of PW-4 (garage owner) and evidence
of PW-20 S.I. of Gudlur Police Station are totally
contradictory to each other and it is difficult to be
reconciled. Pointing out the inconsistency in the
evidence of PW-4 and PW-20, the High Court rightly
held that the case of the prosecution is highly
doubtful and this circumstance cannot form the basis
for conviction.
7. Insofar as the recovery of the material objects
namely, gold chain (MO-8), Rado watch (MO-6) and
golden ring (MO-7) recovered from the houses of the
respective accused, they were identified by PW-3
(father of the deceased) on 18.06.2000; whereas as
per version of the investigating officer they were
recovered on 23.06.2000. Here again there is a
material contradiction as to the recovery of the above
material objects and also the identification of those
material objects by PW-3. The High Court has pointed
out that the inconsistent version between the evidence
of I.O and PW-3 (father of the deceased) raises
serious doubt about the alleged recovery and the case
4
of the prosecution.
8. Based on the above inconsistencies and
contradictions when the High Court has acquitted the
accused, this Court can not interfere with the
acquittal unless there are serious and substantial
error or compelling reasons warranting interference.
We do not find any such serious infirmity in the
judgment of the High Court warranting interference.
9. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.
….......................J.
[ R. BANUMATHI]
…......................J.
[VINEET SARAN]
NEW DELHI
14TH AUGUST, 2018