Two rebel MLAs fail to appear before Speaker for hearing
Bengaluru, Jul 15: Two rebel legislators, one each from the Congress and JD(S), failed to appear before the Karnataka Assembly Speaker K R Ramesh Kumar Monday for a personal hearing over their resignations from the House, official sources said.
The speaker had last week asked Ramalinga Reddy (Cong) and Gopalaiah (JDS) to appear before him at his office.
Both Reddy and Gopalaiah had called up the Assembly Secretary's office and informed that they will not be able to appear Monday and sought another date, assembly secretariat sources said.
"Speaker is yet to fix another date for them to appear before him," the sources added.
While Gopalaiah remained in Mumbai along with other disgruntled MLAs, Reddy is said to have cited personal reasons.
Earlier in the day, Reddy, a seven time Congress legislator, had tweeted clarifying that he was in Bengaluru, amid reports that he was on his way to Mumbai where other rebel MLAs are camped.
"Some people are unnecessarily spreading the news that I am flying to Mumbai. I have made it very clear that I am in #Bengaluru. Request media friends to abstain from the rumours," he said in a tweet.
The Congress has considered Reddy an "exception" and has not made any disqualification plea against him, as he has stated that he was not quitting the party.
Coalition leaders including Chief Minister H DKumaraswamy, CLP leader Siddaramaiah and AICC general secretary K C Venugopal had made attempts to pacify Reddy and convince him to withdraw resignation.
Congress leaders feel that if Reddy withdraws, at least three Congress MLAs from Bengaluru city, S T Somashekar, Munirathna and Byrathi Basavaraj may also follow suit.
Earlier, three rebel MLAs Narayana Gowda of JDS and Anand Singh and Prathap Gouda Patil of Congress had failed to appear before the Speaker on July 12.
Reddy and Gopalaiah were part of the first batch of 13 legislators of the ruling Congress-JDS combine who resigned from the assembly on July 6, dealing a blow to the coalition government. Later, three other MLAs also quit.
Ramesh Kumar had held that the resignation letters of only five of the 13 MLAs were in proper format.
In addition to that of Gopaliah and Reddy, resignations of Gowda, Patil andSingh were found in order.
The speaker had then fixed July 12 and 15 for hearing MLAs whose resignations were in order,while asking others to submit their resignations properly.
Ten MLAs who moved the Supreme Court alleging that the speaker was not accepting their resignations had appeared before him Thursday as directed by the court and submitted resignations afresh.
After the MLAs met him, the speaker ruled out any immediate decision on the resignation.
When the matter came up Friday, the apexcourt restrained the speaker from taking any decision on the resignations as well as disqualification of MLAs till July 16.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court Monday agreed to hear a plea of five more rebel Congress MLAs along with the pending petition of 10 legislators seeking a direction to the speaker to accept their resignations.
Five more rebel Congress MLAs from Karnataka had moved the top court on July 13 against the speaker not accepting their resignations.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Circumstantial evidence can be used for conviction if it leads to guilt only: SC
New Delhi(PTI): Circumstantial evidence can be used to convict an accused in a criminal case if it is of such a nature that is "consistent only with his guilt", the Supreme Court said on Thursday.
Setting aside the conviction and life sentence of a man accused in a 2004 murder case, a bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra reiterated the legal principle that the "last seen together" theory alone is insufficient to sustain a conviction in cases resting entirely on circumstantial evidence.
"It is a well-established rule in criminal jurisprudence that circumstantial evidence can be made the basis of the conviction of an accused person if it is of such a character that it is wholly inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and is consistent only with his guilt," Justice Mishra, who authored the judgement, said.
The verdict said in a case that lacks direct evidence, the incriminating circumstances being used against the accused must be such as to lead only to a hypothesis of guilt and must exclude every other possibility of the innocence of the accused.
ALSO READ: Red Fort blast: Court sends ninth arrested accused to NIA custody till Dec 26
"And if the circumstances proved against the accused, in a particular case, are consistent with the innocence of the accused, he will be entitled to the benefit of the doubt," it said.
The bench acquitted appellant Manoj alias Munna, granting him the benefit of the doubt after finding significant gaps in the prosecution's chain of evidence.
Referring to the facts of the case, the court said, "We are of the opinion that the nature of circumstantial evidence available against the appellant though raises a doubt that he may have committed the offence but the same is not so conclusive that he can be convicted only on the evidence of the last seen together (theory)."
It is a settled proposition that whenever any doubt emanates in the mind of the court, the benefit shall accrue to the accused and not the prosecution, it added.
"The present case is one where except for the evidence of last seen together, there is no other corroborative evidence against the appellant. Therefore, the conviction only on the basis of last seen together cannot be sustained," it said while setting aside the impugned judgments.
The case dates back to June 2004. The prosecution had alleged that Manoj, along with five co-accused, killed one Yuvraj Singh Patle, a tractor driver, to steal the vehicle and sell it.
The deceased was found with burn injuries and ligature marks on his neck.
While the trial court acquitted the five other co-accused, Manoj was convicted under sections 302 (murder) and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) of the Indian Penal Code, primarily based on the testimony of witnesses who saw him leaving with the deceased on the evening of June 6, 2004.
The Chhattisgarh High Court upheld his conviction in 2011.
