http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2

CASE NO.:

Appeal (crl.) 1678 of 1995

PETITIONER:

State of Karnataka

RESPONDENT:

M.V.Mahesh

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/03/2003

BENCH:

S. RAJENDRA BABU & AR. LAKSHMANAN

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

RAJENDRA BABU, J. :

This case bristles with mystery over mystery as to the disappearance of

Beena, wife of the respondent. On a complaint lodged about the missing of the

said Beena, investigation was taken up by the police and on recovery of human

bones M.O.13 to M.O. 20 which were subjected to DNA examination, in order to

establish the identity of the said bones as that of Beena, laid a charge sheet

against the respondent and his father in the Court of Sessions at Bangalore

which Court, after an elaborate trial, found that there are incriminating

circumstances involving the respondent and his father in the offence alleged

against them, namely, murder of Beena and convicted both of them who

successfully appealed against the same. Hence this appeal. During pendency

of this appeal father of the respondent died.

The first circumstance relied upon by the Trial Court is that the said Beena

was last seen in the company of the respondent. The second circumstance relied

upon by the Trial Court is that the respondent gave false explanation as to her

disappearance stating that she was in the family way and she insisted upon

visiting her parents on 28.11.1988 and at 5.45 A.M. he took her on his two-

wheeler and dropped her at the residence of her relatives and thereafter he did

not hear anything about her. The DNA examination resulted in matching of the

bones with that of the grouping of her close relatives.

Even if we proceed on the basis that the DNA examination resulted in

identifying the bones found by the police as that of Beena, still what has to be

established is involvement of the respondent in the commission of her murder.

For that purpose reliance is placed upon the evidence of PWs. 2, 6, 17, 28 and

29 who claim to have seen Beena in the company of the respondent. The

explanation sought to be offered by the respondent is that he took her to the

place of her relatives next morning at about 5.45 A.M. while the evidence of the

witnesses referred to just now is that they saw her last on 28.11.1988. The

statement made by the respondent was false is not established. Merely being

seen last together is not enough. What has to be established in a case of this

nature is definite evidence to indicate that Beena had been done to death of

which the respondent is or must be aware as also proximate to the time of being

last seen together. No such clinching evidence is put forth. It is no doubt true

that even in the absence of the corpus delicti it is possible to establish in an

appropriate case commission of murder on appropriate material being made

available to the court. In this case no such material is made available to the

court.

Further the so-called statement given by the respondent leading to

discovery of the bones of Beena does not seem to have been appropriately put

forth before the court. The statement given by the respondent is a very lengthy

one narrating various circumstances as to how he fell in love with the said

Beena, thereafter got married much against the wishes of his parents and she

was in the family way at the relevant time and so on. So far as the respondent is

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2

concerned, no motive appears to have been established. Further the statement

of the respondent as such leading to the discovery is neither marked nor put to

the witnesses for prosecution. Indeed, whether the statement made by him really

led to the discovery itself is in doubt inasmuch as the police had already

information through another witness and that circumstance was strongly relied

upon by the High Court. The High Court held that the statement made by the

respondent, if at all, will not lead to any discovery inasmuch as the information

was already in possession of the police and that reasoning cannot be faulted

with. The whole prosecution case is a chain of circumstances connecting one

with another with many missing links in between. These aspects were noticed by

the High Court and, therefore, did not accept the case put forth by the

prosecution.

In this view of the matter, we do not think any case is made out by the

appellant to interfere with the order made by the High Court. The appeal,

therefore, stands dismissed.