2007 INSC 0948
                                    SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                                                  Narasappa

                                                      Vs.

                                             State of Karnataka

                                           Crl.A.No. 951 of 2002

                   (B.N. Agrawal, C.J. Tarun Chatterjee and V.S. Sirpurkar, JJ.)

                                                 08.08.2007

                                                   ORDER

B.N. Agrawal, C.J.

1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of both the parties.

2. The appellant, along with accused Poojappa, was tried and as during trial, accused
Poojappa died, the proceeding in relation to him abated and the d trial proceeded in relation
to the appellant alone, upon conclusion of which, the trial court convicted the appellant under
Section 302 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. On appeal
being preferred, the High Court upheld the conviction. Hence, this appeal by special leave.

3. In the present case, it appears that the only evidence against the appellant is that of PW 2
(Govinda Nayaka), who is nobody else than the son e of the deceased. This witness is not an
eyewitness. He stated in his evidence that since his father did not return home, he along with
PW 1 (Roopla Nayaka) and PW 3 (Chandra Nayaka) rushed towards the temple with a
torchlight and on the road near the temple they saw the cycle, can, lungi and muffler of his
father lying on the floor. He further stated that the witnesses heard the sound of movement of
some people near the temple and saw that f the accused persons were dragging his father in
the land of one Muniyappa. These witnesses screamed and reached towards the accused
persons whereupon they left the deceased Krishna Nayaka on the ground and fled away. This
shows that the accused persons were carrying the dead body. This may at the highest raise
strong suspicion against the appellant to show his complicity with the crime, but the
suspicion, howsoever strong it may be, cannot take the place of proof. In the absence of any
other evidence to & connect the appellant with the crime, we are of the view that the
prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the High Court was not
justified in upholding conviction of the appellant.

(2007) 10 SCC770                                                  SpotLaw
                                                               1
4. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, conviction and sentence of the appellant are set aside

and he is acquitted of the charge. The appellant, who is on bail, is discharged from the

liability of bail bonds.  ^

(2007) 10 SCC770                                                  SpotLaw
                                                               2