1. Murder of a child — Charge under Section 302 IPC — Prosecution based on circumstantial evidence including last seen, presence at scene with weapon, and abscondance. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
1998 Supreme(SC) 1010
1998(7) Supreme 551
Supreme Court of India
(From Karnataka High Court)
G.T. Nanavati & S.P. Kurdukar, JJ.
Uday Kumar -Appellant
versus
State of Karnataka -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1216 of 1995
Decided on 21-9-1998
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : R.K. Jain, Sr. Advocate, Manoj Goel, T. Raja, Advocates.
For the Respondent : K.R. Nagaraja, and K.K. Tyagi, Advocates.
Important Points
A conviction based on circumstantial evidence is sustainable when the proved circumstances form a complete chain pointing unmistakably to the accused's guilt, justifying the reversal of an acquittal if the trial court's reasoning was based on mere surmise and conjecture rather than a proper appraisal of evidence.
Subject
Criminal Law - Murder
Act Referred
Headnote
Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 302-Murder-Conviction on basis of circumstantial evidence-Victim four year old son of sister of accused-Accused took victim and another to his room under pretex to give a coconut-Detained victim sent another out and closed door-After some time P.W. 2 entered into room of accused and found victim lying on floor with his head severed-Accused standing there holding kathi (knife) preparing to put severed head into kitbag-Immediately thereafter accused absconded until arrest next day-Weapon recovered at instance of accused-Accused very much obsessed with superstitious belief-P.W. 1’s evidence in all material particulars corroborated evidence of P.W. 2-Proved circumstances unmistakably pointed out guilt of accused-Defence as to false implication not acceptable-High Court correct in convicting accused on reappreciation of evidence. (Paras 9 to 19)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Accused challenged the reversal of acquittal, contending the trial court's view was probable and that lack of motive and family disputes indicated false implication. (Para 6 , 16 , 17 , 18 )
3. The court found the trial court's acquittal based on surmise, whereas the High Court correctly appraised the unimpeachable evidence and the completed chain of circumstantial evidence. (Para 6 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 )
4. In cases of circumstantial evidence, if the chain of proved circumstances is complete and unmistakably points to guilt, the absence of a proven motive is not fatal. (Para 15 , 16 )
5. Appeal dismissed; conviction under Section 302 IPC and sentence of life imprisonment upheld. (Para 19 )
6. How does the court treat the absence of a clear motive in a case based on circumstantial evidence?
While motive is an important circumstance, it is not indispensable if other proved circumstances are sufficient to complete the chain and unmistakably point to the guilt of the accused. (Para 16 )
7. Under what conditions can a court justify reversing an order of acquittal?
An acquittal can be reversed if the trial court's reasons are legally unsustainable, based on mere surmise or conjecture, and do not represent a probable view of the evidence. (Para 6 )
8. How is the significance of abscondance evaluated in a criminal trial?
Abscondance, even for a short duration, is relevant because an innocent person would typically remain to console grieving family members, provided the evidence of abscondance is credible. (Para 13 )
9. What is the evidentiary value of witness testimony regarding the presence of an accused at the crime scene?
Unimpeachable witness testimony that places the accused at the scene with the weapon and the body immediately after the occurrence is highly credible and supports a conviction. (Para 11 , 12 )
Judgment
S.P. Kurdukar, J.-Parthasarthi (P.W. 1) alongwith his wife Gangabai (P.W. 2) and two children, namely, Suresh and Manjunath (P.W. 3) came to the house of mother of P.W. 2 at B.M.L. Nagar K.G.F on 19.4.1988 to attend the Seemantha ceremony of the wife of the brother-in-law of Parthasarthi to be held on 20.4.1985. The parents of Gangabai (P.W. 2) reside at B.E.M.L Nagar K.G.F. The appellant-accused is the real brother of Gangabai (P.W. 2). Parthasarthi (P.W. 1) was sleeping in one of the rooms in that house. Gangabai (P.W. 2) between 4 and 5.00 P.M. came to the room where Parthasarthi (P.W. 1) was sleeping and told him that their son Suresh had been killed. On hearing this news, Parthasarthi (P.W. 1) and Gangabai (P.W. 2) rushed to the said room where dead body of Suresh with head severed was lying on the floor and the appellant was standing there with a kathi in his hand. Parthasarthi (P.W. 1) then immediately rushed to the police station and lodged a complaint against the appellant. The police reached the place of occurrence immediately and carried out the necessary investigation.
2. The appellant was put up for trial for committing the murder of Suresh aged about 4 years, an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The accused denied the charge and claimed to be tried. He pleaded innocence and stated that he did not know who committed the murder of Suresh. His further plea was that the dead body was found in the bath room and not in the room. He also denied that he was standing near the dead body in the room with kathi. The substance of his defence was that he is innocent and he be acquitted.
3. At the outset, it be stated that there is no eye witness to the occurrence in question. The prosecution case entirely rested on circumstantial evidence. The circumstances sought to be proved upon by the prosecution were :
(1) Suresh died a homicidal death
(2) Suresh was hale and hearty when he was taken by the appellant in his room just a few minutes before the incident.
(3) The dead body of Suresh with his head severed from the body was found in the room of the appellant and he was standing there with the blood stained kathi in his hand.
(4) Abscondance of the appellant after the occurrence.
(5) Recovery of the weapon at the instance of the appellant.
4. The learned Principal Sessions Judge at Kolar, after appraisal of oral and documentary evidence on record, by her judgment and order dated 23.1.1993 acquitted the appellant holding that the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt the complicity of the appellant in the present crime.
5. The State of Karnataka being aggrieved by the order of acquittal preferred a criminal appeal to the Karnataka High Court at Bangalore. The Division Bench of the High Court on re-appraisal of the evidence on record did not agree with the order of acquittal passed by the trial court and held that the prosecution has conclusively established all the circumstances which would complete the chain thereof and these proved circumstances would unmistakably point out to the guilt of the appellant. The High Court thus allowed the appeal and set aside the order of acquittal and convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment. It is against this judgment and order of conviction the appellant has filed this appeal to this Court.
6. Mr. R.K. Jain, learned Senior Counsel, appearing in support of this appeal, contended that the High Court was wholly unjustified in reversing the order of acquittal. The view taken by the trial court was equally probable and reasonable one. Learned counsel took us through the judgment of the courts below. The reasons given by the trial court for acquittal in our considered view were totally unsustainable in law. The order of the trial court proceeded or mere surmise and conjectures without assessing the
