- (1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The appellant herein was convicted by the trial court under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life. He was further convicted under S. 25 and S. 30 of the Arms Act, 1959, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and six months respectively. The sentences, however, were ordered to run concurrently. On appeal being preferred, the High Court of Karnataka upheld the convictions and sentences. Hence, this appeal by special leave.
(3.) Undisputedly, the present case is not a case of direct evidence, but it is a case of circumstantial evidence and in order to convict the accused, the prosecution has relied upon the following circumstances: (A) Prior to the date of occurrence, there was a partition between the accused and the deceased, who were full brothers, but in spite of partition, a dispute was going on between them over the allocation of shares in the said partition which led to the commission of the present crime at the instance of the appellant. (b) The accused was found present in the house at the time of occurrence wherein the accused and his mother were residing. (c) Extra-judicial confession of the accused said to have been made by him before PW 9, who is the maternal uncle of the accused as well as the deceased. (d) According to the report of the ballistic expert, firing was resorted to from a gun, which was seized from the house in which the accused and his mother were residing and the said gun belonged to the father of the accused as well as the deceased. (e) Hand wash was taken from the accused and the same was sent to the Chemical Examiner, who reported that the same contained gunshot residue.;