"Yeddyurappa's PA was helping Roshan Baig escape" Kumaraswamy blames BJP for destabilizing govt
Bengaluru: Responding to the former minister Roshan Being detention by Special Investigation Team on Monday night, Karnataka CM HD Kumaraswamy tweeted that Baig was being assisted by BJP State President BS Yeddyurappa’s Personal Assistant, Santhosh.
The tweet added that Baig was leaving on a chartered flight to Mumbai along with Santhosh and that the latter ‘ran away’ when the SIT apprehended Baig.
Baig was on Monday night detained at BIAH Airport by SIT probing the multi-crore IMA fraud case when he was reportedly flying to Mumbai.
Kumaraswamy also attached details of the chartered flight submitted to airport authorities where Santhosh's name is also mentioned as the passenger along with Baig.
In another tweet on Tuesday morning, Kumarswamy further alleged that BJP’s Yogeshwar was present at the airport when Baig was detained. He blamed BJP for helping ‘a former minister escape, who is facing a probe in the IMA case’.
“This clearly shows BJP’s direct involvement in destabilizing the govt through horse trading” (SIC) he posted in the tweet.
Today SIT probing the #IMA case detained @rroshanbaig for questioning at the BIAL airport while he was trying leave along with @BSYBJP's PA Santosh on a chartered flight to Mumbai. I was told that on seeing the SIT, Santhosh ran away while the team apprehended Mr. Baig. 1/2 pic.twitter.com/MmyH4CyVfP
— H D Kumaraswamy (@hd_kumaraswamy) July 15, 2019
BJP's Yogeshwar was present at the time there.Its a shame that @BJP4Karnataka is helping a former minister escape, who is facing a probe in the #IMA case. This clearly shows #BJP' s direct involvement in destabilizing the govt through horse trading.2/2@INCIndia @INCKarnataka
— H D Kumaraswamy (@hd_kumaraswamy) July 16, 2019
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.
