# Chetan v. The State of Karnataka

- **Citation:** 2025 INSC 793
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2025-05-30
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1568 of 2013
- **Bench:** Surya Kant, Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/chetan-v-the-state-of-karnataka-38431
- **Pages:** 55

## Headnote

Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the courts
below convicting and sentencing the appellant u/ss.302, 304 IPC,
and u/ss.3, 5 of the Arms Act, 1959.
Headnotes†
Penal Code, 1860 - ss.302, 304, 404 - Murder - Conviction on
basis of circumstantial evidence, last seen theory, and recovery
of articles - Prosecution case that homicidal death of the victim
due to gunshot injury by the appellant - Appellant had a grudge
against the victim because of certain monetary dispute -
After committing the offence, the appellant misappropriated
the mobile phone and gold chain belonging to the victim -
Appellant used gun belonging to his grandfather without a
valid license - Courts below convicted and sentenced the
appellant u/ss.302, 304 and ss.3, 5 of the Arms Act, on basis
of the circumstantial evidence, last seen theory, recovery of
articles, forensic evidence and the act of abscondence by the
appellant - Interference with:
Held: It was unnatural death due to gunshot injury, thus, case of
homicide - Evidence of witnesses supports the last seen theory
and strengthens the circumstance - Appellant's link to the death
of the deceased established based on the circumstances and
the established facts - Possibility of the deceased being with
another person other than the appellant before he was shot quite
remote - Prosecution's case not mere conjecture, but rather based
on established circumstances and facts - Forensic evidence
based on ballistic tests established that the gun recovered at
the instance of the appellant used in causing the bullet injury to
the deceased which led to his death - Weapon of crime directly
* Author
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
907
Chetan v. The State of Karnataka
traceable to appellant - Failure to explain the recovery of the gun
and its discharge, and recovery of the spent cartridge implicates
the appellant - Absence of evidence of any witness seeing the
gun being carried by the appellant, not fatal to the prosecution
case - Act of absconding by appellant, rather than helping and
cooperating with the family of his friend, in spite of persistent
enquiries from the father of the deceased, clear indication of his
guilt - Furthermore, failure to prove monetary transaction between
the appellant and the deceased, may not materially affect the
prosecution case - Thus, a clear pattern emerges out of the
circumstances so proved with inferential and logical links which
unmistakably points to the guilt of the appellant for committing
murder of the deceased punishable u/s.302 and also for committing
offences u/s.404 and ss.3 and 5 punishable u/ss.25 and 27 of the
Arms Act - These proved circumstances considered individually
or taken together do not indicate the involvement of anyone else
other than the appellant - Prosecution has been able to prove
the charges against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt - No
material illegality committed by the courts below in appreciating
the evidence against the appellant nor any gross injustice caused
to the appellant by the impugned judgment by misreading or
ignoring any material evidence - Thus, the conviction of the
appellant by the courts below does not warrant any interference
except for setting aside the conviction u/s.404 as regards recovery
of the mobile phone, of which the benefit of doubt given to the
appellant, however, the conviction of the appellant u/ss.302 and
404 as regards murder of the deceased and misappropriation
of gold chain by the appellant and u/ss.25 and 27 of the Arms
Act for unlawful possession and use of the gun, sustained -
Arms Act, 1959 - ss.3, 5, 25, 27 - Evidence Act - ss.27, 106.
[Paras 10.3, 10.5.1, 10.5.9, 10.6.1, 10.6.8, 10.6.12, 10.7, 10.7.4,
10.7.6, 10.7.9, 10.9.1, 10.11.2, 11.1-11.3]
Evidence - Circumstantial evidence - Scope and nature:
Held: Circumstantial evidence as opposed to direct evidence, is the
inference one draws from the existence of a fact based on certain
established fact/circumstance - This process invariably involves
intuitive

## Text

_Characters 0–39,592 of 109,143. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39592 for what follows._

[2025] 5 S.C.R. 906 : 2025 INSC 793
Chetan
v.
The State of Karnataka
(Criminal Appeal No. 1568 of 2013)
30 May 2025
[Surya Kant and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the courts
below convicting and sentencing the appellant u/ss.302, 304 IPC,
and u/ss.3, 5 of the Arms Act, 1959.
Headnotes†
Penal Code, 1860 - ss.302, 304, 404 - Murder - Conviction on
basis of circumstantial evidence, last seen theory, and recovery
of articles - Prosecution case that homicidal death of the victim
due to gunshot injury by the appellant - Appellant had a grudge
against the victim because of certain monetary dispute -
After committing the offence, the appellant misappropriated
the mobile phone and gold chain belonging to the victim -
Appellant used gun belonging to his grandfather without a
valid license - Courts below convicted and sentenced the
appellant u/ss.302, 304 and ss.3, 5 of the Arms Act, on basis
of the circumstantial evidence, last seen theory, recovery of
articles, forensic evidence and the act of abscondence by the
appellant - Interference with:
Held: It was unnatural death due to gunshot injury, thus, case of
homicide - Evidence of witnesses supports the last seen theory
and strengthens the circumstance - Appellant's link to the death
of the deceased established based on the circumstances and
the established facts - Possibility of the deceased being with
another person other than the appellant before he was shot quite
remote - Prosecution's case not mere conjecture, but rather based
on established circumstances and facts - Forensic evidence
based on ballistic tests established that the gun recovered at
the instance of the appellant used in causing the bullet injury to
the deceased which led to his death - Weapon of crime directly
* Author
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
907
Chetan v. The State of Karnataka
traceable to appellant - Failure to explain the recovery of the gun
and its discharge, and recovery of the spent cartridge implicates
the appellant - Absence of evidence of any witness seeing the
gun being carried by the appellant, not fatal to the prosecution
case - Act of absconding by appellant, rather than helping and
cooperating with the family of his friend, in spite of persistent
enquiries from the father of the deceased, clear indication of his
guilt - Furthermore, failure to prove monetary transaction between
the appellant and the deceased, may not materially affect the
prosecution case - Thus, a clear pattern emerges out of the
circumstances so proved with inferential and logical links which
unmistakably points to the guilt of the appellant for committing
murder of the deceased punishable u/s.302 and also for committing
offences u/s.404 and ss.3 and 5 punishable u/ss.25 and 27 of the
Arms Act - These proved circumstances considered individually
or taken together do not indicate the involvement of anyone else
other than the appellant - Prosecution has been able to prove
the charges against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt - No
material illegality committed by the courts below in appreciating
the evidence against the appellant nor any gross injustice caused
to the appellant by the impugned judgment by misreading or
ignoring any material evidence - Thus, the conviction of the
appellant by the courts below does not warrant any interference
except for setting aside the conviction u/s.404 as regards recovery
of the mobile phone, of which the benefit of doubt given to the
appellant, however, the conviction of the appellant u/ss.302 and
404 as regards murder of the deceased and misappropriation
of gold chain by the appellant and u/ss.25 and 27 of the Arms
Act for unlawful possession and use of the gun, sustained -
Arms Act, 1959 - ss.3, 5, 25, 27 - Evidence Act - ss.27, 106.
[Paras 10.3, 10.5.1, 10.5.9, 10.6.1, 10.6.8, 10.6.12, 10.7, 10.7.4,
10.7.6, 10.7.9, 10.9.1, 10.11.2, 11.1-11.3]
Evidence - Circumstantial evidence - Scope and nature:
Held: Circumstantial evidence as opposed to direct evidence, is the
inference one draws from the existence of a fact based on certain
established fact/circumstance - This process invariably involves
intuitive reasoning, proper understanding of human behavior and
psychology - Based on lived human experiences and human
behaviour, if any supposition of fact is clearly inferable from an
established fact, the inferred position of fact should be adopted as
908
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
correct - Law does not require that a fact requires to be proved
on absolute terms bereft of all doubts - Law contemplates that for
a fact to be considered proven, it must eliminate any reasonable
doubt - Fact is considered proved if the court, after reviewing the
evidence, either believes it exists or deems its existence probable
enough that a prudent person would act on the assumption that it
exists - Each of the circumstances from which certain inferences
are sought to be drawn, is required to be proved in accordance
with law, and there cannot be any element of surmise and
conjecture, and each of the circumstances so proved must form a
complete chain to clearly point to the guilt of the accused - If the
combined effect of all these circumstances, each of which has been
independently proved, establishes the guilt of the accused, then
the conviction based on such circumstances can be sustained - If
upon evaluation of a set of proved circumstances consistent with
understandable and socially recognised human behavior, as a
cumulative consequence, a clear and definitive pattern emerges
which irresistibly points to the culpability of the accused, such an
inferred conclusion can be accepted to be correct to fasten criminal
liability on accused. [Paras 10.12-10.12.1]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.313 - Significance of -
Examination of accused u/s.313 - Explained. [Para 10.16.1]
Case Law Cited
Mekala Sivaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh [2022] 6 SCR
989 : (2022) 8 SCC 253; Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of
Maharashtra [1985] 1 SCR 88 : (1984) 4 SCC 116; Rajesh Yadav
and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2022] 16 SCR 967 : (2022)
12 SCC 200; State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran and Anr. [2007] 3
SCR 507 : (2007) 3 SCC 755; Mukesh & Anr. v. NCT of Delhi &
Ors. [2017] 6 SCR 1 : (2017) 6 SCC 1; Matru @ Girish Chandra v.
State of Uttar Pradesh [1971] 3 SCR 914 : (1971) 2 SCC 75; G.
Parshwanath v. State of Karnataka [2010] 10 SCR 377 : 2010 (8)
SCC 593; Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra [2006]
Supp. 7 SCR 156 : (2006) 10 SCC 681; Manu Sao v. State of
Bihar [2010] 8 SCR 811 : (2010) 12 SCC 310 - referred to.
List of Acts
Penal Code, 1860; Evidence Act, 1872; Arms Act, 1959; Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973.
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
909
Chetan v. The State of Karnataka
List of Keywords
Murder; Carrying and using gun without valid license; Unlawful
possession of gun; Circumstantial evidence; D.B.B.L. gun;
Weapon of crime; Recovery of articles; Forensic evidence; Act of
abscondence; Gunshot injury; Motive; Last-seen theory; Beyond
reasonable doubt; No direct evidence; Ballistic injuries to vital
organs; Ballistic test; Not ordinary weapon of crime; Special
knowledge; Misleading family of deceased; Element of grudge
against deceased; Human experiences and human behavior; No
element of surmise and conjecture; Fatal injury by use of firearms;
Chain of circumstantial evidence; Examination of accused; Monetary
dispute; Misappropriation of mobile phone and gold chain belonging
to victim; Unnatural death; Homicide; Bullet injury; Recovery of
gun and its discharge; Recovery of spent cartridge.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
1568 of 2013
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.12.2010 of the High Court
of Karnataka Circuit Bench at Dharwad in CRLA No. 666 of 2007
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
D.N.Goburdhun, Sr. Adv., Mrs. Rajani K Prasad, Ms. Abha R.
Sharma.
Advs. for the Respondent:
Muhammad Ali Khan, A.A.G., Ms. Eesha Bakshi, Prashant Pratap
Singh, Kamran Khan, V. N. Raghupathy.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, J.
1.
The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and
order dated 06.12.2010 passed by the Division Bench of the High
Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench at Dharwad in the Criminal Appeal
No. 666 of 2007, whereby the High Court upheld the conviction
910
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
and sentence imposed upon the present appellant under Sections
302 and 304 of the IPC and for offences under Sections 3 and 5
punishable under Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act,1959 by judgment
dated 28/29.03.2007 passed by the F.T.C.-II & Addl. Sessions Judge,
Belgaum in Sessions Trial No 267 of 2006.
2.
The conviction is based on circumstantial evidence relying on the
last seen theory supported by the recovery of articles including the
weapon of crime and forensic evidence and the act of abscondence
by the appellant.
3.
As the appellant is seeking reversal of the concurrent findings by
the two courts below, the Sessions Court and the High Court, this
Court has to tread very cautiously, as observed by this Court on
numerous occasions including in Mekala Sivaiah v. State of Andhra
Pradesh, (2022) 8 SCC 253, wherein it has been held that unless the
findings are perverse and rendered in ignorance of material evidence,
this Court should be slow in interfering with concurring findings. It
was thus observed by this Court in Mekala Sivaiah (supra) in the
following words:
"15. It is well settled by judicial pronouncement that Article
136 is worded in wide terms and powers conferred under
the said Article are not hedged by any technical hurdles.
This overriding and exceptional power is, however, to be
exercised sparingly and only in furtherance of cause of
justice. Thus, when the judgment under appeal has resulted
in grave miscarriage of justice by some misapprehension
or misreading of evidence or by ignoring material evidence
then this Court is not only empowered but is well expected
to interfere to promote the cause of justice.
16. It is not the practice of this Court to re-appreciate
the evidence for the purpose of examining whether the
findings of fact concurrently arrived at by the trial court
and the High Court are correct or not. It is only in rare and
exceptional cases where there is some manifest illegality
or grave and serious miscarriage of justice on account of
misreading or ignoring material evidence, that this Court
would interfere with such finding of fact."
4.
Keeping the aforesaid cautionary approach in mind, this Court would
proceed to examine the appeal at hand by considering whether
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
911
Chetan v. The State of Karnataka
there is manifest error or illegality in the impugned judgment and
whether any grave and serious miscarriage of justice on account of
misreading or ignoring material evidence has occurred in the present
case. This would invariably require a proper examination of the facts
and context of the case, for which we must revisit the background
facts of the case and the evidence adduced, considered by the Trial
Court as well as the High Court.
5.
FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
5.1 The Prosecution case in brief is that the appellant and the
deceased Vikram Sinde were friends. About eight months prior
to the incident which occurred on 10.07.2006, the appellant had
borrowed a sum of Rs. 4000/- (Rupees Four Thousand only)
from one Ravindra Chavan (PW19), in order to lend the same
in turn to the deceased, which however, was not returned by
the deceased to the appellant even after a lapse of about 7-8
months, despite repeated demands to return the same. In that
connection, there was an argument between the appellant and
the deceased in which the deceased had apparently insulted
the appellant, because of which the appellant bore a grudge
against the deceased.
5.2 It is further the case of the Prosecution that the appellant on
10.07.2006 at about 20.30 hours after taking a 12 Bore D.B.B.L
Gun with cartridges belonging to his grandfather on the pretext
of going for hunting, took the deceased along with him on his
Hero Honda motorcycle to the sugarcane grove located in
Shahapur village, which belonged to the complainant, namely,
Arun Kumar Minache (PW1). It has been alleged that at about
22.00 hours on the same night, the appellant shot the deceased
dead with the said D.B.B.L gun and thus, committed the offence
under Section 302 of the IPC.
5.3 It was further alleged that after committing the said offence, he
took the Nokia mobile phone and gold chain belonging to the
deceased and misappropriated the same, thus committing the
offence under Section 404 of the IPC.
According to the Prosecution, since the appellant carried and
used the D.B.B.L gun belonging to his grandfather without a
valid license, he committed the offence under Section 3 read
912
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
with Section 25 of the Arms Act. The appellant was also charged
with committing an offence punishable under Section 5 read
with Section 27 of the Arms Act.
5.4 As per the Prosecution, as the deceased did not return after
he left home at around 7.45 PM of 10.07.2006, the father of
the deceased telephoned the house of the appellant but was
informed that he was not at home. He then went to the house
of the appellant early morning next day on 11.07.2006 and
enquired from him about the whereabouts of his son, to which
the appellant gave false information that he had parted ways
with the deceased at about 8.00 PM the previous evening. The
father of the deceased also received a call from one Chandrakant
Shinde informing him that the deceased had gone to Pune
and would return within two days. Thereafter, the father of the
deceased started searching for his missing son and filed a
missing report.
5.5 It is the case of the Prosecution that on 13.07.2006 the dead
body of the deceased was found in the sugarcane field belonging
to Arun Kumar Minache (PW -1), who informed the police
about the discovery of the body. However, since the dead body
was decomposed, his identity could not be ascertained. Upon
recovery of the dead body, a police case was registered at
Kagawad Police Station, and necessary messages were flashed
to other police stations to seek information about the identity of
the deceased. Thereafter, an investigation was launched and
an inquest was held. The post-mortem examination of the dead
body was also conducted on 13.07.2006. Since the identity of
the dead body could not be ascertained, the discovery of the
dead body was published in the newspaper which was noticed
by the father on 14.07.2006 and then he went to Kagawad
Police Station and identified the dead body through photographs,
handkerchief, motorcycle key found in the pant pocket, and
sweater on the dead body.
5.6 In the course of the investigation, it was revealed that the
appellant and the deceased were last seen together near
Mahishyal bus stand and thereafter seen on a motorcycle
going towards Shahapur, as noticed by one Ashok Shinde,
the prosecution witness (PW-4), Ashok Jamadar (PW-5) and
Jamir Mulla (PW-3).
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
913
Chetan v. The State of Karnataka
5.7 On the basis of the said information, the police arrested the
appellant on 22.07.2006 at Miraj after making search for him in
several locations and was brought to Kagawad Police Station.
During the investigation, the appellant confessed to the crime
and volunteered to produce the gun with which he committed
the crime and also volunteered to show the place where he
shot the deceased and the place where he sold the mobile
phone belonging to the deceased. The appellant also produced
the gold chain, which purportedly belonged to the deceased
which was seized by the Inspector. Thereafter, the appellant
led the police to the house of his grandfather, Ramchandrarao
Chavan (PW-20), and produced one 12 Bore D.B.B.L gun, two
empty cartridges, one live cartridge, one torch, Hero Honda
motorcycle and one empty handbag which were all seized. The
appellant then led the police to the sugarcane field from where
the left chappal of the deceased was recovered. He then led
the Investigation Officer and the panchas near Bellanki Saravu
(back water falls) and showed the spot where he had shot the
deceased dead. Thereafter, the appellant led the police to Srigiri
Complex at Dilukh Nagar, Hyderabad, where he pointed out an
electronic shop of S. Samba Shivakumar (PW-25) to whom he
had sold the mobile phone. According to the Prosecution, the
shop-owner identified the appellant and admitted the transaction
and handed over the mobile phone along with a xerox copy of
the driving license of the appellant, which was kept as proof
of address given by the appellant to the shop keeper, which
were seized by the police.
5.8 During the trial the Prosecution sought to prove the case against
the appellant by examining as many as 31 witnesses and
exhibited a number of documents and articles as mentioned
above. The appellant took the plea of total denial. The appellant
also did not lead any evidence in his defence.
5.9 The Trial Court, Fast Track Court II and Additional Sessions
Judge, Belgaum, in Sessions Case No.267/2006 after hearing
the Prosecution and defence and on consideration of the
materials produced before it, convicted the appellant under
Sections 302 and 404 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 5 punishable
under Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.
914
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Accordingly, upon being convicted under Section 302 of the IPC,
the Court sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment,
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.
The appellant was also sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for one year to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in
default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
three months for the offence under Section 404 IPC.
Furthermore, the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-(Rupees
five hundred) and in default of payment of fine, to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for three months for contravention of
Section 3 punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act.
The appellant was also sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-
(Rupees one thousand) and in default of payment of fine
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for
contravention of Section 5 punishable under Section 27 of the
Arms Act.
All these sentences were directed to run concurrently.
5.10 Being aggrieved by the conviction by the Additional Sessions
Judge, Belgaum, as above, the appellant preferred an appeal
before the Karnataka High Court Circle Bench at Dharwad
by filing Criminal Appeal No. 666/2007. The said appeal was
dismissed by the impugned order dated 06.12.2010, against
which the appellant has preferred this appeal before us.
Since the conviction by the Trial Court was affirmed by the High
Court, it may be appropriate first to examine the basis on which
the Trial Court convicted the appellant and how it was upheld
by the High Court upheld it.
6.
CONSIDERATION BY THE TRIAL COURT:
6.1 As can be seen from the narration of the incident by the
Prosecution, the case is based on circumstantial evidence, as
no eyewitness had seen the shooting of the deceased by the
appellant with a gun, which led to his death.
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
915
Chetan v. The State of Karnataka
As we embark upon the exercise to scrutinize the correctness
of the conviction based on circumstantial evidence, we may
recollect the five golden principles of law governing trials based
on circumstantial evidence, which this Court had dealt with from
time to time, and succinctly explained in the celebrated case of
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984)
4 SCC 116 as follows:-
"152. Before discussing the cases relied upon by the
High Court we would like to cite a few decisions on
the nature, character and essential proof required
in a criminal case which rests on circumstantial
evidence alone. The most fundamental and basic
decision of this Court is Hanumant v. State of Madhya
Pradesh [(1952) 2 SCC 71 : AIR 1952 SC 343 :
1952 SCR 1091 : 1953 Cri LJ 129] . This case has
been uniformly followed and applied by this Court
in a large number of later decisions up-to-date, for
instance, the cases of Tufail (Alias) Simmi v. State of
Uttar Pradesh [(1969) 3 SCC 198 : 1970 SCC (Cri)
55] and Ramgopal v. State of Maharashtra [(1972)
4 SCC 625 : AIR 1972 SC 656] . It may be useful to
extract what Mahajan, J. has laid down in Hanumant
case [(1952) 2 SCC 71 : AIR 1952 SC 343 : 1952
SCR 1091 : 1953 Cri LJ 129] :
"It is well to remember that in cases where
the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the
circumstances from which the conclusion of
guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance
be fully established, and all the facts so
established should be consistent only with the
hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again,
the circumstances should be of a conclusive
nature and tendency and they should be such
as to exclude every hypothesis but the one
proposed to be proved. In other words, there
must be a chain of evidence so far complete
as not to leave any reasonable ground for a
conclusion consistent with the innocence of the
accused and it must be such as to show that
916
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
within all human probability the act must have
been done by the accused."
153. A close analysis of this decision would show
that the following conditions must be fulfilled before
a case against an accused can be said to be fully
established:
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion
of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
It may be noted here that this Court indicated that
the circumstances concerned "must or should"
and not "may be" established. There is not only a
grammatical but a legal distinction between "may
be proved" and "must be or should be proved"
as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao
Bobade v. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC
793 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 1033 : 1973 Crl LJ 1783]
where the observations were made: [SCC para
19, p. 807: SCC (Cri) p. 1047]
"Certainly, it is a primary principle that
the accused must be and not merely may
be guilty before a court can convict and
the mental distance between 'may be'
and 'must be' is long and divides vague
conjectures from sure conclusions."
(2) the facts so established should be
consistent only with the hypothesis of the
guilt of the accused, that is to say, they
should not be explainable on any other
hypothesis except that the accused is
guilty,
(3) the circumstances should be of a
conclusive nature and tendency,
(4) they should exclude every possible
hypothesis except the one to be proved,
and
(5) there must be a chain of evidence so
complete as not to leave any reasonable
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
917
Chetan v. The State of Karnataka
ground for the conclusion consistent with
the innocence of the accused and must
show that in all human probability the act
must have been done by the accused".
6.2 As can be seen from the records, the Trial Court formulated
five points for consideration which are reproduced as follows: -
"1.
Whether the prosecution has proved that on
10.07.2006 at about 2200 hours the deceased
had died homicidal death due to gunshot injury?
2.
Whether the prosecution has proved that it is
the accused who has caused homicidal death
of the deceased by firing shot through D.B.B.L
gun marked as MO.9.?
3.
Whether the prosecution has proved that on the
said date, the accused after causing the murder
of deceased Vikram Shinde, dishonestly misappropriated or converted to his own use gold
chain and mobile which were in possession of
Vikram Shine at the time of death and thereby
committed any offence punishable u/s 404 of
IPC?
4.
Whether the prosecution has proved that on
the same day at about 2030 hours the accused
carried 12 bore BBL gun belonged to his
grandfather Ramachandra Chavan, from his
house to the land of complainant Arun Kumar
and he was in possession of the said gun and
cartridges without possessing required licence
and thereby contravened provisions of Sec.3 of
Arms Act punishable u/s 25 of the Arms Act?
5.
Whether the prosecution has proved that on the
said date at about 2200 hours in the land of Arun
Kumar complainant situated within Shahapur
village limits the accused used 12 Bore DBBL
gun (MO.9) to cause death of the deceased
Vikram Shine and thereby contravened the
918
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
provisions of sec.5 punishable u/s 27 of the
Arms Act?"
6.3 The Trial Court consolidated all these issues together and
considered the same in the light of the evidence adduced and
held that the Prosecution had proved their case.
6.4 While it may not be necessary to deal in detail at this stage of
the analysis of the evidence by the Trial Court, nevertheless,
it would be desirable to briefly refer to the findings of the Trial
Court for better appreciation of the case.
6.5 Since the case revolves around circumstantial evidence, the
Trial Court identified the following circumstances/aspects for
consideration:
(1) Motive.
(2) Homicidal death of the deceased by gunshot injury.
(3) The deceased was last seen in the company of the accused
in between 8 and 9.30 p.m. on 10.07.2006.
(4) False information given by the accused to the father of
deceased and his uncle.
(5) Abscondence of the accused from 11.07.06 till his arrest
on 22.07.06.,
(6) Extrajudicial confession on 12.07.06 before PW.18 by
going over to the room of his friend Yuvaraj Bennalkar
situated at Dharwad.
(7) Recovery of gold chain belonged to the deceased from
the possession of the accused after his arrest on 22.07.06
and recovery of Nokia mobile belonging to the deceased
from PW.25 at the instance of the accused.
(8) Recovery of the DBBL gun, 2 spent cartridge cases, one live
cartridge, Eveready battery and star gutka empty handbag
from the house of PW-20, Ramachandra Chavan, the
grandfather of the accused at the instance of the accused.
(9) Discovery of the place of murder and recovery of left foot
chappal of the deceased from sugarcane field situated
near the place where the dead body was found at the
instance of the accused.
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
919
Chetan v. The State of Karnataka
(10) Discovery of fact i.e. where mobile sim card was thrown
at the instance of the accused.
6.6 As regards the motive that impelled the appellant to commit the
crime, the Prosecution case is that since the deceased failed to
return Rs.4000/- which was lent by the appellant and was also
insulted by the deceased, the appellant bore a grudge against
the deceased and, as revenge, killed the deceased.
As regards this issue of motive, the Trial Court, on consideration
of the evidence on record, concluded that the monetary
transaction, which was the basis for constituting the motive for
committing the crime, was not fully established.
The Trial Court, however, was of the view that the Prosecution
case cannot be thrown out merely because the motive could
not be established.
6.7 The Trial Court concluded based on the evidence that the death
of the deceased was not accidental or suicidal but homicidal.
6.8 To link the appellant with the said homicidal death, the Trial
Court relied on the last-seen theory, for which the Trial Court
referred to the evidence of a number of witnesses, including
the brother of the deceased, Digvijay Shinde (PW-12), who
had seen the appellant and the deceased near Mahishyal bus
stand in the evening of the incident, which was also noticed by
another witness, Anil (PW-11), a friend of PW-12.
The Trial Court also relied on the evidence of another witness,
namely Jamir Mulla (PW-3), who deposed that when he was
standing by the side of the road, he saw the deceased riding
on the pillion of a motorcycle.
The Trial Court also considered the evidence of Ashok Shinde
(PW-4) who was an autorickshaw driver who testified to have
seen the deceased and appellant together at about 5.45 PM on
the fateful day when he was standing near Karamveer Vidyalaya
High School ground.
The evidence of another witness, namely Ashok Jamadar (PW-5)
was also relied upon, who, while he was returning to Mahishyal
and standing near the Kagawad Circle, saw the deceased
920
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
and the appellant on a motorcycle going towards Shiraguppi
at around 9.15 PM on 10.07.2006. The said witness, PW-5,
after coming to know about the death of Vikram Shinde, went
to Kagawad Police Station and identified the body. Though
PW-5 was declared hostile by the Prosecution as he resiled
from his previous statement on other aspects of the incident,
the Trial Court held that the versions of PW-12, PW-11, and
PW-5 regarding the deceased and the appellant being last seen
together cannot be disbelieved.
6.9 The Trial Court, thereafter, considered the other circumstance
that the appellant had given false information to his uncle and
his friend Devaraj Sutar (PW-14), which, according to the Trial
Court proved his guilty mind.
6.10 The Trial Court held that another incriminating circumstance
was the abscondence of the appellant from 11.07.2006 till he
was arrested on 22.07.2006 at Miraj.
6.11 The Trial Court, thereafter, took into consideration the extrajudicial
confession allegedly made by the appellant on 12.07.2006 in
the room of one Yuvaraj Bennalkar in Dharwad where the
witness namely Sandip Sandalage (PW-18) was staying. The
appellant apparently made the extrajudicial confession to the
said witness, PW-18, that he took the deceased on 10.07.2006
on the pretext of going for hunting and killed him by shooting
him with the gun as the deceased did not repay the loan of
Rs. 4000/- and insulted him when he demanded the money.
6.12 The Trial Court also considered the other incriminating
circumstances, i.e., recovery of gold chain belonging to the
deceased from the possession of the appellant, recovery of
Nokia mobile phone belonging to the accused, recovery of
D.B.B.L gun, 2 spent and 1 live cartridges case, Everready
battery and Star Gutka empty handbag from the residence of his
grandfather where the appellant was staying, left foot chappal
of the deceased from the sugarcane field and discovery of the
place of murder at the instance of the appellant.
The Trial Court, accordingly, held based on said evidence
adduced that the aforesaid circumstances/facts have been
proved.
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
921
Chetan v. The State of Karnataka
6.13 However, the Trial Court held that the Prosecution was not able
to prove the motive, and the extrajudicial confession said to
have been made by the appellant. Nevertheless, in the light of
the other circumstances that, according to the Trial Court were
proved, despite noticing certain irregularities and lapses in the
course of the investigation, which according to the Trial Court
were not material nor could be fatal to the prosecution case
and by holding that irregularities in the investigation would not
entitle the accused to be acquitted, held that the charges under
Sections 302 and 404 of the IPC, Section 3 and 5 of the Arms
Act punishable under Section 25 and 27 Arms Act have been
proved and proceeded to convict that the appellant as above.
7.
CONSIDERATION BY THE HIGH COURT
7.1 The High Court noticed that of the 31 witnesses examined by
the Prosecution, several witnesses namely PW-1, PW-3, PW-5
to PW-9, PW-16, PW-18 to PW-20, PW-25 and PW-26 had
turned hostile to the case of the Prosecution. Nevertheless,
based on the testimony of the other remaining witnesses and
other evidence, the High Court held that the Prosecution had
been able to prove the charges against the appellant.
As regards the motive for the commission of the crime, though
the same was held not proved by the Trial Court, the High
Court based on the evidence of PW-12 and PW-4 held that
the Prosecution had been able to prove the motive for the
commission of the crime.
7.2 The High Court held that the circumstance of the last seen
together of the appellant with the deceased has been proved
by the evidence of PW-4, PW-11 and PW-12.
7.3 The High Court considered the evidence of PW-14, (Devraj
Sutar) who was a friend and classmate of the appellant who
stated that the appellant had contacted him on the phone on the
day of the incident and told him that if his uncle contacted him,
to inform his uncle that he (PW-14) is in Pune, though PW-14
was in Ahmednagar. Thus, the appellant sought to mislead his
relatives about his whereabouts.
7.4 As regards the seizure of the gun, the High Court held that the
appellant had led the Police to the house of the grandfather
922
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
and the same was seized from his house. As per the evidence
of the ballistic expert PW-30, it was proved that the said
gun was functional and had shown discharge, which could
not be explained either by the appellant or his grandfatherRamachandrarao, PW-20, which would go to prove that the
gun seized had been used for shooting the deceased. The
gunshot injuries, pellets and wads found in the skull of the
deceased would show that the deceased had died due to
gunshot injuries.
7.5 The High Court on consideration of the expert witness N.G.
Prabhakar (PW-30), the Assistant Director of Forensic Science
Laboratory, Bangalore, who examined the D.B.B.L gun,
cartridges, pellets and wads found in the skull of the dead body,
held that it was proved that the death of the deceased was
caused by the gunshot fired from the said D.B.B.L gun which
was recovered at the instance of the appellant.
7.6 The High Court also held that the Prosecution has been able
to prove from the evidence of PW-31, Investigation Officer (IO)
of the recovery of the gold chain from the possession of the
appellant immediately on his arrest, and seizure of the mobile
phone at the instance of the appellant in Hyderabad, which
the same witness corroborated. These, according to the High
Court would show that the appellant had secured possession
of the articles namely the gold chain, mobile phone immediately
after the death of the deceased, which clearly incriminates the
appellant.
7.7 The High Court, based on the presented evidence, determined
that the appellant and the deceased were last seen together. As
the appellant did not explain the whereabouts of the deceased
on the night of the incident, and in consideration of the recovery
of the gun and cartridges as well as the recovery of the gold
chain and Nokia mobile phone, the act of abscondence, evasive
behaviour, post-mortem report, ballistic report, and the chain
of circumstances, the High Court concluded that the incident
in which the appellant killed the deceased was proven beyond
reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeal.
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
923
Chetan v. The State of Karnataka
8.
SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT BEFORE US:
8.1 It was strenuously argued before us by Mr. D.N. Goburdhun,
learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that the Prosecution
had not been able to prove that the appellant and appellant
alone was responsible for the death of the deceased as there
was no eyewitness to the incident.
Ld. Sr. Counsel points out that no witness had spoken anything
about the appellant holding the gun when he was allegedly seen
together with the deceased in the evening/night of the incident.
8.2 Even the "last seen" incident on which the Prosecution has
heavily relied upon cannot be said to have been proved.
According to Ld. Sr. Counsel, the evidence of the witnesses
who had seen them together is not credible. One of the
witnesses, Digvijay Shinde (PW-12) was the younger brother of
the deceased. The other witness PW-11 (Anil Babarao Bagat)
was a friend of PW-12, hence, they were interested witnesses.
Consequently, their evidence cannot be relied upon.
As far as PW-4 (Ashok Shinde), the auto rickshaw driver is
concerned, he is certainly a chance witness and as such,
reliance cannot be placed on his evidence.
This leaves two other witnesses namely, Jamir Mulla (PW-3)
and Ashok Jamadar (PW-5).
PW-3 stated that he saw the deceased riding on the pillion of a
motorcycle, but he did not see who was riding the motorcycle.
Thus, this evidence cannot be invoked to support the last seen
theory as the deceased was not seen with the appellant.
As far as the other witness, namely PW-5 (Ashok Jamadar) is
concerned, he can also be said to be a chance witness, as he
saw the deceased and appellant together while he was standing
at Kagawad Circle.
Accordingly, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant
has submitted that the fact of the appellant and the deceased
being last seen together cannot be said to have been established
with cogent evidence. Thus, if this circumstance is held to be
not proved in accordance with law, nothing survives in the case,
as no one had seen the appellant shooting the deceased as
924
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
alleged by the Prosecution nor they were seen together in the
field where the dead body of the deceased was found.
8.3 It was submitted that the recovery of the mobile phone at
the instance of the appellant was not proved as S. Samba
Shivakumar, PW-25, the mobile shopkeeper, had categorically
denied purchasing any mobile from the appellant.
8.4 It was also submitted that the D.B.B.L gun was not seized at
the instance of the appellant and in fact, it was the grandfather
of the appellant who had produced the gun when the Police
came to his residence. According to the learned Senior Counsel
one of the seizure witnesses, Villas Macchendra Davari
(PW-7), had categorically denied that anything was recovered
in his presence, though he admitted that the signature on the
seizure memo was put as directed by the police.
8.5 The learned senior counsel has submitted that the ballistic report
itself is doubtful. Though it is the case of the Prosecution that one
live cartridge was recovered from the house of the grandfather
of the appellant, it was not given to the ballistic expert for his
opinion, and as regards the two cartridges that were used for
testing of the gun, it is not clear how these were purchased
and given to the ballistic expert. Thus, this important link in the
prosecution's case cannot be said to have been established.
8.6 Learned senior counsel also submits that since the Prosecution's
case is entirely based on the last seen theory, in absence of
any motive for committing the offence, which in the present
case has not been established, the foundation of the last seen
theory becomes shaky.
Learned senior counsel submits that even the Trial Court held
that the monetary transaction between the appellant and the
deceased had not been proved strictly. Thus, the very basis
of the case of the Prosecution that the appellant had killed the
deceased to take revenge after the deceased failed to repay
the loan taken from the appellant is absent. Since the motive
had not been established, the Prosecution's case based on
circumstantial evidence cannot stand.
8.7 It was also pleaded that it could not be proved conclusively
that the dead body recovered from the field was that of the
deceased as the dead body was in a highly decomposed state.
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
925
Chetan v. The State of Karnataka
8.8 Learned senior counsel for the appellant has also submitted
that there are so many inconsistencies and contradictions in
the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as had noted by the
Trial Court and the High Court.