State of Karnataka vs David Razario

Q: Key Points

Ratio Decidendi (w.r.t. Section 27, Evidence Act): Recovery evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is not required to be the sole basis for conviction in cases of murder and robbery, where it is sufficiently corroborated by other evidence including presumption of recent and exclusive possession of stolen property under Section 114 Illustration (a), witness identification of robbed articles, documentary proof of ownership, and forensic evidence linking blood stains; acquittal solely for non-reliance on such recovery or on grounds of article's low value is erroneous, as accused's conduct in disposing of the property soon after the crime establishes guilt. (!) [1000072320004][1000072320005][1000072320006]

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2002 Supreme(SC) 940

ARIJIT PASAYAT, UMESH C.BANERJEE
State of Karnataka – Appellant
Versus
David Razario – Respondent

Judgement Key Points

Ratio Decidendi (w.r.t. Section 27, Evidence Act): Recovery evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is not required to be the sole basis for conviction in cases of murder and robbery, where it is sufficiently corroborated by other evidence including presumption of recent and exclusive possession of stolen property under Section 114 Illustration (a), witness identification of robbed articles, documentary proof of ownership, and forensic evidence linking blood stains; acquittal solely for non-reliance on such recovery or on grounds of article's low value is erroneous, as accused's conduct in disposing of the property soon after the crime establishes guilt. (!) [1000072320004][1000072320005][1000072320006]

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.-An octogenarian old lady was the victim of robbery and murder allegedly committed by the respondents-David Rozario and Christopher David (hereinafter referred to as A1 and A2 respectively for convenience).

2. Prosecution version sans unnecessary details is as follows:

The deceased who had three children residing abroad, was staying alone in her house at No. 47, Stephen s Road, Frazer Town, Bangalore City. A maid-servant Tayarmma (PW5) was working in her house and also in the house of Mrs. Joyce wife of Holmes (PW10). In the evening of 20.12.1986 the fateful day, PW5 as usual served coffee to the deceased in her house and went to the house of PW10 to work there, and was there till about 8.00 p.m. Thereafter, she left the place to go to her house, which was situated on the back side of deceased s house. When she was near the house of the deceased, she saw the electric lights in the house of the deceased were burning, and also noticed that the front door of the house was closed. While the back door was open she entered the house of the deceased through back door and came to the hall, where she saw the deceased sitting on a chair with blood all over the body. T

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2002 Supreme(SC) 940

ARIJIT PASAYAT, UMESH C.BANERJEEState of Karnataka – AppellantVersusDavid Razario – Respondent

Cases Referred (4)

ARIJIT PASAYAT, UMESH C.BANERJEE
State of Karnataka – Appellant
Versus
David Razario – Respondent