Legal Provisions Involved: Sections 302, 307, 120B, 323, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 374(2) of CR.PC 

Judgment by: Karnataka High Court.

Judge/Bench: Justice H.P. Sandesh and Justice Venkatesh Naik T. 

Facts

On 03.10.2017, the accused allegedly came to the deceased’s house after he refused to give them sand. Accused No.1 attacked him on the neck, Accused No.2 stabbed him in the stomach, and Accused No.3 assaulted the wife when she tried to stop them. The husband later died in the hospital. It was also alleged that Accused No.4 had planned the murder and paid money to get it done.

Key Legal Provisions

Sections 302, 307, 120B, 323, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 374(2) of CR.PC 

Issues Raised

Whether the wife (eye witness) had already seen the accused persons’ photos in newspapers before the Test Identification Parade, making the identification doubtful.

Arguments

The defence argued that the witness had seen the accused in the media before TIP. The prosecution said no proper question was asked in cross-examination to prove this claim.

Judgment

The High Court upheld the life sentence. It held that the wife was a reliable eye witness and there was no proof that she saw the accused’s photos before TIP.

Click here to VIEW the full judgment.