The Supreme Court upheld the appellant’s conviction for murder (Section 302 IPC) and misappropriation of a gold chain (Section 404 IPC), and under the Arms Act, 1959 (Sections 25 and 27). The conviction relied on circumstantial evidence, including the “last seen” theory and forensic evidence linking the recovered weapon to the deceased’s gunshot injury.
Facts Of The Case:
The case originated from an appeal against a High Court judgment upholding the appellant’s conviction for murder and other offenses. The conviction was based on circumstantial evidence, including the “last seen” theory, which placed the appellant with the deceased before the crime. Key evidence included the recovery of articles, such as the weapon used in the crime, and forensic findings that linked the appellant to the murder. The appellant’s abscondence after the incident also played a role in the court’s decision. The trial court initially convicted the appellant under Sections 302 and 404 of the IPC, and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. The High Court affirmed these convictions, leading to the appeal in the Supreme Court, which primarily scrutinized the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence.
Procedural History:
The case’s procedural history began with the judgment of the F.T.C.-II & Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum, in Sessions Trial No. 267 of 2006, which convicted the appellant under various sections of the IPC and Arms Act, 1959. This conviction was challenged in the High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench at Dharwad, through Criminal Appeal No. 666 of 2007. The High Court, by its judgment and order dated December 6, 2010, affirmed the trial court’s decision. Subsequently, the appellant filed Criminal Appeal No. 1568 of 2013 before the Supreme Court of India, challenging the High Court’s ruling. The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, largely upholding the convictions for murder and under the Arms Act, while granting benefit of doubt for a specific charge of misappropriation of a mobile phone, thus confirming the High Court’s judgment to that extent.
READ ALSO :Supreme Court Takes Strong Stand : No Bail for Accused in Vengeful Mob Attack
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court observed that the conviction was primarily based on circumstantial evidence, particularly relying on the “last seen” theory which placed the appellant with the deceased shortly before the murder. The Court noted that the recovery of the weapon of crime and subsequent forensic and ballistic reports corroborated the prosecution’s case, linking the appellant directly to the offense. Furthermore, the appellant’s act of abscondence after the incident was considered an additional incriminating circumstance. The Court affirmed that there was no misreading or ignoring of material evidence by the lower courts and found no gross injustice caused to the appellant. While largely upholding the convictions, the Supreme Court meticulously analyzed each piece of circumstantial evidence, concluding that the chain of events established by the prosecution was complete, allowing for the inference of guilt.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court, in its final decision, dismissed the appeal, thereby largely upholding the impugned judgment and order of the High Court of Karnataka. The Court sustained the appellant’s conviction under Sections 302 (murder) and 404 (misappropriation of a gold chain) of the Indian Penal Code, and under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, for unlawful possession and use of the gun. However, the conviction under Section 404 of the IPC pertaining to the recovery of a Nokia Mobile Phone was set aside, with the benefit of doubt extended to the appellant on that specific charge. As a result, the bail bonds furnished by the appellant were cancelled, and the appellant was directed to surrender before the Trial Court immediately to serve the remainder of the sentence.
Case Details:
Case Title: Chetan Versus The State of Karnataka
Citation: 2025 INSC 793
Criminal Appeal No.: 1568 of 2013
Date of Judgment:May 30, 2025
Judges/Justice Name: Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, and Surya Kant
Download The Judgement Here