Will follow constitutional principles, says speaker Ramesh Kumar
Bengaluru, Jul 17: Karnataka Assembly Speaker K R Ramesh Kumar on Wednesday welcomed the Supreme Court decision putting the onus on him to decide on the resignations of rebel MLAs, and said he would conduct himself responsibly in accordance with the principles of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court said the 15 rebel Congress and JD(S) MLAs of the state's ruling coalition "ought not" to be compelled to take part in the proceedings of the Karnataka Assembly, which is slated to decide the confidence motion moved by the H D Kumaraswamy-led state government on Thursday.
"With utmost humility I welcome and respect the Supreme Court decision," Kumar said soon after the apex court pronounced its order on the issue of resignations of the lawmakers that has pushed the state into political turmoil.
"The SC has put extra burden on me, I will conduct myself responsibly in accordance with constitutional principle," he told reporters in Kolar, his home town.
A Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi also said the speaker is free to decide on the resignations of the rebel legislators within the time-frame decided by him.
The court further said the speaker's decision be put before it.
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.
