Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

iv) tracing the skeleton at the instance of the accused so as to prove the link. When the prosecution is basing its entire claim on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution is required to prove the continuation of chain of links and high standard of proof is required. With these cardinal principles of law in mind, we will have to assess the evidence led by the prosecution.

14. It is the case of the prosecution that there was animosity between the deceased Mahadevappa and accused No.1 in respect of carrying the labourers from Hanchatageri to Budnal pickle factory in the respective goods vehicles and there was professional rivalry. Hence, the prosecution is attributing the motive in this regard. According to the prosecution, with this motive, the accused No.1 developed grudge against deceased and he conspired along with accused Nos.2 to 4 and on 08.08.2011, secured the deceased near Aishwarya Hotel, Kalaghatagi and later on kidnapped him in his goods vehicle at 9.30 p.m. and thereafter committed his murder. It is the specific case of the prosecution that the accused have kidnapped the deceased in his own vehicle but absolutely no piece of evidence is forthcoming regarding kidnapping of the deceased. This material evidence and material link itself is missing and none of the witnesses are able to disclose the act of kidnapping.

42. Learned counsel for appellant lastly placed reliance on the decision in the case of A.N. Venkatesh & another vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2005 (7) SCC 714. It was a case for kidnapping for ransom, committing the murder and dead body was identified and found at the instance of the accused and recovery was clearly established. But in the instant case the said material aspect itself are not established and identity of the deceased itself is under dispute. Under such circumstance, the principles enunciated in the above said decision will not come to the aid of the prosecution in any way.