T.M.A. Pai Foundation and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- indian evidence act, 1872 section 3 :[dr.arijit pasayt, dr.mukundakam sharma & h.l.dattu,jj] circumstantial evidence murder case all incriminating facts and circumstances found to be incompatible with innocence of accused held, inference of guilt can be drawn. section 3: circumstantial evidence murder case - held, circumstances have to be shown to be connected with principal fact sought to be inferred. section 3: circumstantial evidence held, conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence. but it should be tested by touchstone of law relating to circumstantial evidence laid down by supreme court indian penal code, 1890 sections 300 & 304,part i : murder or culpable homicide - circumstantial evidence - deceased was doing money-lending business - accused persons and deceased were quarrelling over issue of payment of commission - after half an hour, dead body of deceased was found - evidence of witness who had business transaction with deceased, that both parties were quarrelling and appellant was holding handle of soil cutter at time of quarrel held, mere exchange of hot words by deceased and accused would not give him impression that appellant would take life of deceased. fact that he left the place on being told by deceased to do so, cannot be a ground to disbelieve his evidence. time gap when deceased was last seen alive in company of appellant and when his dead body was seen was not very large. conviction of appellant under section 304, part i instead of section 302 is proper. order1. since a doubt has arisen during the course of our arguments as to whether this bench would feel itself bound by the ratio propounded in - in re. kerala education bill, 1957 1959 scr 955 and the ahmedabad st. xavier's college society vs . state of gujarat, : [1975]1scr173 , it is clarified that this sized bench would not feel itself inhibited by the views expressed in those cases, since the present endeavour is to discern the true scope and interpretation of article 30(1) of the constitution, which being the dominant question would require examination in its pristine purity. the factum is recorded.

Judgment:
ORDER

1. Since a doubt has arisen during the course of our arguments as to whether this Bench would feel itself bound by the ratio propounded in - In Re. Kerala Education Bill, 1957 1959 SCR 955 and The Ahmedabad St. Xavier's College Society Vs . State of Gujarat, : [1975]1SCR173 , it is clarified that this sized Bench would not feel itself inhibited by the views expressed in those cases, since the present endeavour is to discern the true scope and interpretation of Article 30(1) of the Constitution, which being the dominant question would require examination in its pristine purity. The factum is recorded.