{"id":22429,"date":"1994-01-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1994-01-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/eshwariah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-27-january-1994"},"modified":"2018-07-14T15:33:34","modified_gmt":"2018-07-14T10:03:34","slug":"eshwariah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-27-january-1994","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/eshwariah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-27-january-1994","title":{"rendered":"Eshwariah vs State Of Karnataka on 27 January, 1994"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Eshwariah vs State Of Karnataka on 27 January, 1994<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1994 SCR (1) 387, \t 1994 SCC (2) 677<\/div>\n
Author: G Ray<\/div>\n
Bench: Ray, G.N. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nESHWARIAH\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF KARNATAKA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT27\/01\/1994\n\nBENCH:\nRAY, G.N. (J)\nBENCH:\nRAY, G.N. (J)\nREDDY, K. JAYACHANDRA (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1994 SCR  (1) 387\t  1994 SCC  (2) 677\n JT 1994 (1)   199\t  1994 SCALE  (1)219\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nRAY, J.– This appeal is directed against the conviction  of
\nthe  appellants under Section 302 read with Section  34\t IPC
\nand  imposing  sentence\t of life imprisonment  to  both\t the
\nappellants by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court
\nby  judgment dated April 1, 1987 in Criminal Appeal No.\t 138
\nof  1985.   By the aforesaid judgment, the  High  Court\t set
\naside  the  judgment of acquittal passed in  favour  of\t the
\naccused\t appellants  by VIII Additional\t City  and  Sessions
\nJudge,\tBangalore City on January 2, 1985 in  Sessions\tCase
\nNo. 32 of 1983.\n<\/p>\n
2.   The  prosecution  case in short is\t that  the  deceased
\nRamesh was a bachelor and was residing in House No. 6\/5, 9th
\nCross,\tAdarsha Nagar, Chamarajpet, Bangalore.\t During\t the
\nnight  between December 14 and 15, 1982, he was murdered  by
\nthe  accused persons.  It is undisputed that the  accused  2
\nSmt  Mayamma, was a mistress of the deceased for  about\t 3-4
\nyears prior to the date of the incident and she was residing
\nin  Ramachandra\t Rao’s\tVatara in which\t the  house  of\t the
\ndeceased  was  also situated.  The said\t accused  was  often
\nvisiting  the house of the deceased Ramesh during the  night
\ntime.\tShe  had filed an application  claiming\t maintenance
\nfrom  her  husband  PW 7 and had secured  an  order  in\t her
\nfavour.\t While the said accused Mayamma was attending to her
\ncase  for maintenance, she became acquainted with accused  I
\nEshwaraiah,  who  was  a Constable attached  to\t the  Wilson
\nGarden Police Station and intimacy developed between accused
\n2  and\taccused 1. On December 14, 1982,  both\tthe  accused
\nwitnessed  a  cinema  show  in\tUma  Talkies  and   returned
\ntogether.  They were seen near the house of the deceased  at
\nabout  I  or  1.15 -a.m. on December 15,  1982.\t  Accused  2
\ntapped on the front door of the house and Ramesh opened\t the
\ndoor.\tAt  that  time accused I was standing  at  a  little
\ndistance from the house.  After accused 2 entered the house,
\naccused\t I  followed her and also entered the house.   PW  I
\nRamachandra  Rao who was residing in the house\tadjacent  to
\nthe house of the deceased heard a sound of cries and he woke
\nup.   He  came out and went to the house  of  his  neighbour
\nHemoji Rao (PW 3), a retired Constable
\n679<\/span>
\nand requested him to accompany him to find out what was\t the
\ncause  for the sound.  Both of them went near the house\t but
\nthey  did  not\thear any sound from the said  house.   PW  4
\nSundaresh,  the elder brother of the deceased had his  house
\nnearby and PWs I and 3 went to his house and woke him up and
\ninformed  him  about the sound which PW I  had\theard.\t The
\nthree  of them then came near the house of the deceased\t and
\nPW 4 tapped the door of the house but there was no response.
\nPW  4 thereafter left the place saying that he would  inform
\nhis  brother Ramachandra Rao and also his  cousin  Inderesh.
\nThe  said  two\tpersons\t were  informed\t and  they  returned
\nimmediately to the house of the deceased.  Seetharama  Reddy
\nPW  2,\twas a neighbour of the deceased and he\twoke  up  on
\nhearing\t the barking of a dog and he came near the house  of
\nthe  deceased.\t Then PW I and PW 3 told him what PW  I\t had
\nheard.\tPW 2 also tapped the door of the house but there was
\nno  response.  By that time, PW 4 returned.  One Raju  known
\nto  PW 4 happended to come there and PW 4 requested Raju  to
\ngo  and\t inform the police.  Raju thereafter went  away\t and
\nreturned with two Police Constables PW 5, H. Nanjundappa and
\nanother\t Police Constable Basavaraju.  After the two  police
\nconstables  came to the place of incident, PW 4\t broke\topen
\nthe window-pane and flashed the torch inside.  They did\t not
\nsee  anything.\t Then  the front door of the  house  of\t the
\ndeceased  was broken open with the size stone MO I  and\t all
\nthe  said  persons entered the house.  By  that\t time  other
\nresidents  of the Vatara also awoke including PW 13  Vijaya.
\nThe  light of the front door of Ramesh was switched  on\t but
\nnothing was seen there.\t The door leading to the bedroom was
\nlittle\topen.  They entered the bedroom and switched on\t the
\nlight but they did not see anything.  When PW 2 flashed\t the
\ntorch underneath the cot they noticed accused I and  accused
\n2  couched  below  it, shivering all the  while.   On  being
\ncalled,\t both  of  them came out.  They were  given  to\t the
\ncustody\t of  the said two police constables.   The  deceased
\nhowever,  could not be seen there.  The light of  the  Pooja
\nroom which was adjacent to the kitchen was switched on.\t  At
\nthat  stage,  they  saw\t the legs of  the  deceased  in\t the
\nkitchen.   When\t they switched on the light of\tthe  kitchen
\nroom, they saw the deceased lying on his back in the kitchen
\nand a bloodstained turkish towel (MO 5) was found lying at a
\nlittle distance away from the body of Ramesh.  Scratch marks
\nwere found on the face of Ramesh.  His neck was swollen\t and
\nblood  was  seen on the lips of Ramesh.\t PW 4  went  to\t his
\nhouse and wrote a complaint Ext.  P-3.\tHe then went to\t the
\npolice station where Pratap Singh Sub-Inspector of Police PW
\n14  was\t officer-in-charge.   The complaint  Ext.   P-3\t was
\npresented at the police station at 2.00 a.m. and the  police
\nofficer\t registered the crime and issued  first\t information
\nreport being Ext.  P-1 1. Both the accused were arrested  at
\n2.45  a.m.  The\t Circle\t Inspector who\ton  receipt  of\t the
\ninformation took over the investigation from PW 14,  noticed
\nthat the shirt and pant of accused I appeared to be  stained
\nwith  blood  and  he seized the\t said  bloodstained  wearing
\napparels  by securing Panchas.\tThe counterfoils of the\t two
\ncinema\ttickets were also recovered from the accused  I\t and
\nthe  said  tickets were also seized in the presence  of\t the
\nPanchas.   The bloodstained towel, the stick with which\t the
\nwindow-pane was broken, some
\n680<\/span>
\nnude  photos of accused 2 being MOs 12 to 89 were seized  by
\nthe  police.   The  dead body was  sent\t for  autopsy.\t The
\npostmortem was conducted jointly by PW 17 and PW 18 at about
\n12.00 noon on December 15, 1982 and postmortem was  prepared
\nbeing Ext.  P- 14.\n<\/p>\n
3.   Both  the\taccused made statements\t under\tSection\t 313
\nCriminal  Procedure  Code and they  also  submitted  written
\nstatements.  Accused I had denied all the circumstances\t and
\ncontended  that\t he  was taken to custody  from\t his  house.
\nAccused\t 2 though admitted that she was the mistress of\t the
\ndeceased  and  the  photos seized by  the  police  were\t her
\nphotos,\t she stated that the deceased was not  only  looking
\nafter  her but also looking after her children.\t She  denied
\nthat she had gone to the house of the deceased on the day of
\noccurrence.  She stated that the deceased had instructed her
\nnot  to\t visit him on December 13 and 14, 1982 as  he  would
\nhave guests on those dates.  Hence, she was all alone in her
\nhouse and the police picked her up from her house.  Dr\tC.B.
\nGopalakrishna  (DW  1)\ta  retired  Professor  in   Forensic
\nMedicine  was  examined by the accused as  witness  for\t the
\ndefence.  It was contended by the accused that the death  of
\nthe  deceased  was  not homicidal in nature but\t he  died  a
\nnatural\t death\tand the said doctor DW I  also\tgave  expert
\nopinion to that effect.\n<\/p>\n
4.   Learned  Sessions Judge held that the prosecution\tcase
\nwas  based  on\tcircumstantial evidence\t and  the  following
\ncircumstances had been noted by the learned Sessions Judge:\n<\/p>\n
\t      1.    Ramesh  was alone residing in his  house
\n\t      on  the night in between December 14  and\t 15,
\n\t      1982.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      2.    At\tabout 1.00 or 1.15 a.m. on  December
\n\t      15,  1982 Ramesh was found opening  the  front
\n\t      door  of\this  house when\t accused  2  Mayamma
\n\t      tapped on the said door.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      3.    Both the accused entered the said  house
\n\t      of Ramesh at about 1.00 or 1.  15\t  a.m.\t  on
\n\t      December 15, 1982.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      4.    Some sound like cries were heard by\t the
\n\t      next  door  neighbour  Raghunatha\t Rao,\tfrom
\n\t      inside the house of Ramesh.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      5.    Both the accused were found under a\t cot
\n\t      in the bedroom of Ramesh at about 1.00 or 1.45
\n\t      a.m.  when  the neighbours of the\t said  house
\n\t      including\t Sundaresh entered the\thouse  after
\n\t      breaking open the front door.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      6.    The presence of bloodstain on the  shirt
\n\t\t\t    and pant of accused 1 was found.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      7.    Ramesh  was\t found\tlying  dead  in\t the
\n\t      kitchen.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      8.    Abrasions  were  found on the  face\t and
\n\t      swelling on the neck of Ramesh.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      9.    Chappals  of  both\tthe  accused   found
\n\t      inside  the  house and on the terrace  of\t the
\n\t      said house.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      10.   Evidence of Dr Patil and Prof.   Somaiah
\n\t      who  had conducted the postmortem\t examination
\n\t      on the dead body of Ramesh opined that
\n\t      681<\/span>
\n\t      death  was  due  to asphyxia as  a  result  of
\n\t      smothering  (closing  mouth and  nostrils\t and
\n\t      pressure over the neck).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
5.   The  learned Sessions Judge held that  the\t prosecution
\nhad  satisfactorily established circumstances I to 5, 7\t and\n<\/p>\n
8.  The learned Sessions Judge however, did not\t accept\t the
\nevidence  of Panch witness PW 8 as he could not explain\t why
\nhe  was present in tailoring shop at 3.00 a.m.\tThe  learned
\nSessions Judge also held that the prosecution case could not
\nestablish that the blood of accused I was not of ‘A’  group.
\nHence the report of the Chemical Examiner and Serologist  in
\nregard\tto the bloodstain on shirt and pant of the  deceased
\nwould not be of any assistance.\t The learned Sessions  Judge
\nalso  did  not\tbelieve\t the statement\tas  to\trecovery  of
\nchappals  of the accused as deposed by PW 13.\tThe  learned
\nSessions  Judge\t also did not accept the  postmortem  report
\nthat  the  death  of the deceased was  due  to\tasphyxia  on
\naccount of smothering but he accepted the expert opinion  of
\nthe doctor DW I to the effect that it was a case of  natural
\ndeath.\t In that view of the matter, both the  accused\twere
\nacquitted by the learned Sessions Judge.\n<\/p>\n
6.   On appeal, the High Court has accepted the evidence  of
\nwitness\t PW 6 an advocate, who had stated that he  had\talso
\nwitnessed  the\tcinema\tshow  at  night\t and  while  he\t was
\nreturning  by the side of the house of Ramesh the  deceased,
\nhe had seen accused 2 tapping the door and on the door being
\nopened,\t accused  2  had entered the  house  of\t Ramesh\t and
\nthereafter  accused  I who was standing a little  away\talso
\nentered the house.  The High Court has held that PW 6 is  an
\nindependent  and  disinterested\t witness  and  nothing\t was
\nbrought\t out  in cross-examination to show that he  had\t any
\nanimosity against any of the accused persons which  prompted
\nhim to depose falsely.\tThe High Court has also accepted the
\nevidence that harsh sound was heard by one of the  witnesses
\nbeing  a  close neighbour of the deceased.  The\t High  Court
\nafter analysing the evidences and indicating reasons came to
\nthe finding that the evidence of PW 5 is to be accepted\t and
\nif such evidence is accepted, the depositions of PWs I to  4
\nthat the two accused were found in the house of the deceased
\nwhich  was closed from inside should also be accepted.\t The
\npresence of the accused in the house of the deceased had not
\nbeen explained by the accused because both of them came\t out
\nwith  a\t case that they had been picked up  by\tpolice\tfrom
\ntheir  respective residences.  The High Court  has  accepted
\nthe  evidence  that  the  front door of\t the  house  of\t the
\ndeceased was broken open and only on such breaking open\t the
\ndoor,  the neighbours and relations could gain entry to\t the
\nhouse of the deceased and on such entry they could find\t out
\nthat  both  the\t accused were hiding under the\tcot  in\t the
\nbedroom\t of  the deceased.  The High Court has come  to\t the
\nfinding\t that both the doctors PWs 17 and 18  had  performed
\nthe autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and the  expert
\nopinion of the doctor examined on behalf of the accused DW I
\nwas  not  acceptable.  It has also been noted  by  the\tHigh
\nCourt  that the said doctor DW I had not seen  the  deceased
\nbut he gave the expert opinion only from the papers,  namely
\nthe postmortem report.\tAnalysing the circumstances and\t the
\ninjuries found on the person of the deceased, the High Court
\ncame  to the finding that the case sought to be made out  by
\nthe accused
\n682<\/span>
\nthat the deceased had died on account of epileptic fit\tfrom
\nwhich he had been suffering cannot be accepted.\t The accused
\nhas not examined the doctor who according to the accused had
\nbeen  treating\tthe deceased for epileptic fits for  a\tlong
\ntime.  The High Court has also observed that at the dead  of
\nnight,\tboth the accused entered the house of the  deceased.
\nShortly\t after\ttheir entrance, cries were  heard  from\t the
\nhouse of the deceased and on tapping the door nobody  opened
\nthe  door  and on breaking open the door, both\tthe  accused
\nwere found under the cot in the bedroom of the deceased\t and
\nthe  deceased  was found dead in the kitchen with  marks  of
\ninjuries  and a bloodstained towel was lying near the  body.
\nThere were stains of blood on the shirt and pant of  accused\n<\/p>\n
1.  It has also been observed by the High Court\t that  there
\nwas  no reason for accused 2 to hide in the bedroom  of\t the
\ndeceased  without  opening the door if the deceased  had  in
\nfact  suffered\tan epileptic fit.  Admittedly, she  used  to
\nvisit the house of the deceased quite often at night.  Hence
\nif Ramesh had an epileptic fit in the presence of accused 2,
\nit  was only natural for the said accused to respond to\t the
\ncall of neighbours and seek their help to save Ramesh.\t The
\nHigh Court has also observed that if the blood had oozed out
\nfrom the body of the deceased when he was in epileptic\tfit,
\nit  is not likely that the deceased himself would  wipe\t out
\nsuch  blood with the turkish towel which was lying near\t his
\nbody.  The High Court has held that all these  circumstances
\nalso support the postmortem report of PWs 17 and 18 that  it
\nwas  a\tcase of homicidal death and the\t expert\t opinion  of
\nanother\t doctor DW I should not be accepted in the facts  of
\nthe case.  The, High Court has come to the finding that\t the
\nevidence, though circumstantial, clearly proves the guilt of
\nthe  accused  persons  and no  other  conclusion  about\t the
\ninnocence of the accused persons was possible.\tAccordingly,
\nthe order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions  Judge
\nwas  set aside by the High Court and both the  accused\twere
\nconvicted  for the offence of murder under Section 302\tread
\nwith  Section 34 IPC and the sentence of  life\timprisonment
\nwas awarded to both the accused persons.\n<\/p>\n
7.   At\t the  hearing  of  this appeal,\t it  has  been\tvery
\nstrongly contended that the factum of homicidal death itself
\nwas  not established beyond reasonable doubt.\tAccordingly,
\nthe  question  of conviction on a charge of murder  was\t not
\nsustainable  in law.  The learned counsel for the  appellant
\nhas  contended that the usual features suggesting  homicidal
\ndeath  were  absent and the facts which were  noted  by\t the
\ndoctors\t holding postmortem examination clearly fit in\twith
\nthe  case  of  natural death of the  deceased.\t The  expert
\nopinion of DW I should have been accepted by the High  Court
\nand if there was a reasonable basis for such opinion of DW I
\nabout the nature of death of the deceased and if the opinion
\nof  the\t said doctor was not wholly perverse  and  had\tbeen
\naccepted by the learned Sessions Judge, the same should\t not
\nhave been discarded by the High Court on reappraisal of\t the
\nevidences.  It has been contended by the learned counsel for
\nthe  appellant that it is a case of circumstantial  evidence
\nand  unless  from the circumstances fully  established,\t the
\nchain  is  full\t and  complete\twhich  only  points  to\t the
\ncommission of murder by the accused and no other  conclusion
\nis possible, then and then
\n\t\t    683<\/span>
\nonly the conviction on a charge of murder is permissible  in
\nlaw.   If  there is any doubt in any aspect,  the  chain  is
\nbroken\t and  the  circumstances,  however  intriguing\t and
\nsuspicious they may be, will not warrant conviction  because
\nno  conviction\tcan  be based on  suspicion.   It  has\tbeen
\ncontended by the learned counsel for the appellant that even
\nif  it\tis assumed and accepted that both the  accused\twere
\nfound  under  the cot in the bedroom of the  deceased,\tsuch
\nfinding by itself does not establish that they had committed
\nthe  murder  of the deceased.  It is not unlikely  that\t the
\naccused became frightened when the neighbours broke open the
\ndoor and entered the house and out of natural instinct\tthey
\nhid their presence but that by itself does not indicate that
\nthey had committed the murder.\n<\/p>\n
8.   It\t  has  also  been  contended  that  accused  2\t was
\nadmittedly  the\t mistress of the deceased for  a  number  of
\nyears  and  the\t deceased had supported\t her  and  also\t her
\nchildren.   Hence, there cannot be any motive for accused  2
\nto  hatch any conspiracy for the murder and to take part  in
\nthe  commission of the murder of the said  deceased.  Simply
\nbecause\t accused  2  was known to accused I  and  they\twere
\nfriendly,  there  was  no  occasion  for  them\tto  conspire
\nto murder the deceased and commit that murder as alleged  by
\nthe prosecution. The learned counsel has also contended that
\nit  has not been proved that the bloodstains on the  wearing
\napparel\t of accused I contained the same blood group  as  of
\nthe  deceased. In the absence of such evidence,the  presence
\nof  bloodstains\t on  the  wearing apparel,  even  if  it  is
\naccepted  is of no consequence. The learned counsel for\t the
\nappellant  has contended that in any event, it could not  be
\nestablished as to who among the accused had really  murdered
\nthe deceased even if the case of murder is accepted.  Unless
\nit can be pinpointed as to who had taken part in the murder,
\nno  conviction\tcan be awarded against the accused.  In\t the
\naforesaid  circumstances, the learned counsel has  contended
\nthat  the order of acquittal passed by the learned  Sessions
\nJudge was fully justified and no interference is called for.\n<\/p>\n
9.  After giving our anxious consideration to the facts\t and
\ncircumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by\t the
\nlearned counsel for the appellant, it appears to us that the
\norder of acquittal passed by the learned     Sessions  Judge
\nwas  not  at all justified and the same was  not  consistent
\nwith  the evidence adduced in the case. Tile High Court,  in
\nour  view,  has given very good reasons\t for  accepting\t the
\nevidences adduced in the case including the evidences of  PW
\n5  and\tPW  6.\tIt has been  clearly  established  from\t the
\nevidences adduced on behalf of the prosecution that  shortly
\nbefore\tthe  death of Ramesh, both the accused\tentered\t the
\nhouse at the dead of night and both of them had witnessed  a
\ncinema\tshow  and had come to the house. It is\tan  admitted
\nposition that accused 2 was the mistress of the deceased and
\nshe  used to visit the house of the deceased  frequently  at
\nnight. It has been established from the evidence in the case
\nthat  accused 2 tapped the door which was opened  by  Ramesh
\nand  she entered the house and accused I who had  also\tcome
\nwith  accused  2 and was waiting just at a  little  distance
\naway  had also entered the house.  When the door was  broken
\nopen  by the neighbours and the relatives, the deceased\t was
\nfound lying dead in the
\n684<\/span>
\nkitchen\t and under the cot in the bedroom of  the  deceased,
\nboth  the accused persons were hiding.\tDespite tapping\t the
\ndoor  repeatedly by the neighbours and the relations of\t the
\ndeceased, the accused persons who were inside the house\t did
\nnot open the same and the door had to be broken.  It may  be
\nnoted that both the accused had not given any explanation as
\nto  why both of them were present in the house at that\tlate
\nhours in the night.  On the contrary, they had taken a\tbold
\nplea  that  both  of  them had been  picked  up\t from  their
\nrespective  houses.  The learned Sessions Judge has  devoted
\nmuch  of his attention in considering the expert opinion  as
\nto  the\t cause of the death and he preferred to\t accept\t the
\nexpert opinion of the doctor examined by the accused  namely
\nDW 1. In our view, the High Court has rightly held that\t the
\nsaid  doctor  had no occasion to see the dead body  and\t the
\ninjuries  on  the person of the deceased and only  from\t the
\nreport\tof  the postmortem the said doctor  gave  an  expert
\nopinion.   On  the contrary, two doctors who  had  held\t the
\npostmortem on the deceased had occasion to look and  examine
\nthe  injuries  on the person of the deceased  and  they\t had
\ngiven a clear opinion that the death was due to asphyxia and
\nit  was a case of homicidal death.  We agree with  the\tHigh
\nCourt  in accepting prosecution case that it was a  case  of
\nhomicidal  death.   When  shortly before the  death  of\t the
\ndeceased  both the accused had entered the house and it\t was
\nbolted\tfrom inside and they did not open the  door  despite
\ntapping\t several times and the door had to be broken by\t the
\nneighbours and the relations and both the accused were found
\nhiding\tunder  the cot in the bedroom of  the  deceased\t and
\nRamesh\twas  lying  dead with injuries on  his\tperson,\t the
\naccused had an obligation to explain their presence and\t the
\ncircumstances under which Ramesh had died.  But they did not
\ngive  any  explanation whatsoever.  On\tthe  contrary,\tthey
\ntried  to  set up a false plea of their\t presence  in  their
\nrespective  houses.   The  High Court,\tin  our\t  view,\t has
\nrightly rejected the suggestion given by the accused that it
\nwas a case of natural death on account of epileptic fit.  If
\nthe   deceased\thad  suffered  from  epileptic\t fit   which
\nultimately  caused  his\t death,\t the  accused\tparticularly
\naccused 2 ought to have called the neighbours for help or at
\nleast  should have answered to their call when\tthey  tapped
\nthe door and should have requested the neighbours to  render
\nsome help to the deceased.  The High Court, in our view, has
\nrightly\t observed  that the turkish towel  with\t bloodstains
\ncould not have been found at a little distance from the dead
\nbody if the deceased had met natural death.  In an epileptic
\nfit, the blood was not expected to be found in that way\t and
\nin  any\t event there was no occasion to wipe  the  same\t and
\nthrow  it  away by the person who was under  epileptic\tfit.
\nThough\tthe group of the blood found on the wearing  apparel
\nof accused I  was not established as that of the blood group
\nof the deceased but the presence of the blood on the wearing
\napparel has not been explained in any manner by the accused.
\nIt  is\tnot the case of the accused that  when\taccused\t had
\ntapped the door of Ramesh, someone else had opened the door.
\nHence, it must be reasonably accepted that Ramesh opened the
\ndoor  and he was alive.\t Hence he had met his death  in\t the
\npresence  of  the accused in a house which was\tbolted\tfrom
\ninside thereby preventing anyone else to enter the house at
\n685<\/span>
\nthe time of his death.\tSince the murder of Ramesh has\tbeen
\nestablished in presence of both the accused, the accused are
\nrequired to explain such murder.  It is true that in a\tcase
\nwhich  is to be established by circumstantial evidence,\t the
\ncircumstances  must be very closely scrutinised and all\t the
\ncircumstances  must  form  an  unbroken\t chain\twhich  would
\nestablish  the\tguilt  of  the\taccused\t and  the  case\t  of
\nprosecution  should  not  lie in the realm  of\tsurmise\t and
\nconjecture  even  if the facts and  circumstances  are\tvery
\nintriguing raising serious suspicion.  In the instant  case,
\nas  rightly  analysed by the High Court,  the  circumstances
\nhave  formed  a complete chain which clearly point  out\t the
\ncomplicity of the accused in causing the murder and no other
\nconclusion suggesting innocence of the accused appears to be
\nreasonable  or justified.  Although, the  prosecution  could
\nnot  lead any evidence as to who had actually smothered\t the
\ndeceased but since both of them were present at the time  of
\ncommission of the offence, the conviction under Section\t 302
\nread with Section 34 is warranted against both the  accused.
\nWe, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the decision
\nof  the High Court and the instant appeal, therefore,  fails
\nand  is\t dismissed.   If the appellants are  on\t bail,\tthey
\nshould be taken into custody to serve out the sentence.\n<\/p>\n
686<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Eshwariah vs State Of Karnataka on 27 January, 1994 Equivalent citations: 1994 SCR (1) 387, 1994 SCC (2) 677 Author: G Ray Bench: Ray, G.N. (J) PETITIONER: ESHWARIAH Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF KARNATAKA DATE OF JUDGMENT27\/01\/1994 BENCH: RAY, G.N. (J) BENCH: RAY, G.N. (J) REDDY, K. JAYACHANDRA (J) CITATION: 1994 SCR […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-22429","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nEshwariah vs State Of Karnataka on 27 January, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/eshwariah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-27-january-1994\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Eshwariah vs State Of Karnataka on 27 January, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/eshwariah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-27-january-1994\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1994-01-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-07-14T10:03:34+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/eshwariah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-27-january-1994#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/eshwariah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-27-january-1994\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Eshwariah vs State Of Karnataka on 27 January, 1994\",\"datePublished\":\"1994-01-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-14T10:03:34+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/eshwariah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-27-january-1994\"},\"wordCount\":4101,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/eshwariah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-27-january-1994#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/eshwariah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-27-january-1994\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/eshwariah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-27-january-1994\",\"name\":\"Eshwariah vs State Of Karnataka on 27 January, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1994-01-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-14T10:03:34+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/eshwariah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-27-january-1994#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/eshwariah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-27-january-1994\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/eshwariah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-27-january-1994#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Eshwariah vs State Of Karnataka on 27 January, 1994\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Eshwariah vs State Of Karnataka on 27 January, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/eshwariah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-27-january-1994","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Eshwariah vs State Of Karnataka on 27 January, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/eshwariah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-27-january-1994","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1994-01-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-07-14T10:03:34+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/eshwariah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-27-january-1994#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/eshwariah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-27-january-1994"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Eshwariah vs State Of Karnataka on 27 January, 1994","datePublished":"1994-01-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-14T10:03:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/eshwariah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-27-january-1994"},"wordCount":4101,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/eshwariah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-27-january-1994#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/eshwariah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-27-january-1994","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/eshwariah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-27-january-1994","name":"Eshwariah vs State Of Karnataka on 27 January, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1994-01-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-14T10:03:34+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/eshwariah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-27-january-1994#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/eshwariah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-27-january-1994"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/eshwariah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-27-january-1994#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Eshwariah vs State Of Karnataka on 27 January, 1994"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22429","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=22429"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22429\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=22429"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=22429"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=22429"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}