Back
2014 Supreme(SC) 53
Supreme Court of India
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA & RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, JJ.
Revutappa
Versus
State of Karnataka
Criminal Appeal No. 760 of 2005
Decided On : 24-01-2014
IMPORTANT POINT
Mother's evidence should be relied upon because a mother would not spare the person who killed her child and she would not involve a wrong person.
Headnote:(a) Criminal Trial - Related witness - Mother - A mother would never allow the person who killed her child escape punishment - She would also not involve a wrong person - Such testimony inspires confidence and should be relied upon - More so when it is corroborated notwithstanding some witnesses turning hostile - There was a strong motive - Prosecution successfully establishing its case. (Para 7, 8)
(b) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 313 r/w section 106 Evidence Act, 1872 - Appellant not disputing incriminating circumstances put before him - Appellant not discharging his burden of rebutting the circumstances u./s 313 - Adverse inference should be drawn against him u/s 106, Evidence Act. (Para 9)
Facts of the case:
Soon after his marriage the appellant started suspecting his wife of infidelity. A son was born to his wife and when he was one and half years old one day the appellant threw his son in a well. The boy died of drowning.
The trial court convicted the appellant and his mother under Sections 323, 506, 201 read with Section 34, IPC. In addition the appellant was convicted u/s 302 IPC.
The High Court set aside the conviction and sentence of appellant's mother but affirmed his conviction and sentence.
Finding of the Court:
There is no merit in the appeal.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
Judgment :-
Mrs. Ranjana Prakash Desai, J.
1. This appeal is forwarded to this Court by the Jail Authorities. It is directed against the judgment and order dated 8/10/2012, passed by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Criminal Appeal No.1721 of 2001, whereby the High Court confirmed the judgment of the Sessions Court convicting the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 302, 323, 506, 201 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code and sentencing him, inter alia, to life imprisonment.
2. The prosecution story could be shortly stated. Complainant Siddakka was married to the appellant, five years prior to 25/8/2000 i.e. from the date of the incident. After the marriage, the appellant started suspecting Siddakka’s fidelity and when she gave birth to a male child, he told her that the child is not of his lineage and is an illegitimate child. Prosecution story further goes on to say that during the relevant time, Siddakka and the appellant were staying in a hut situated in the land belonging to the appellant along with their child. On 25/8/2000, when Siddakka was plucking the green gram fodder along with her son and the appellant was ploughing the other portion of the field, she saw the child going towards the appellant. The appellant stopped ploughing and took the child towards the farmhouse. After sometime, when Siddakka could not find her child, she went near the hut. She overheard the appellant telling his mother that he had thrown the child in the well of Allisab. On hearing this, she ran towards the well of Allisab, picked up the dead child from the well and returned to the hut. The appellant threatened her with dire consequences if she disclosed the incident to anyone. She was forced to tell others that the child died of snake bite. Thereafter the child was buried. Out of fear she did not disclose the incident to anyone. On 27/8/2000, when her close relatives came from Jadarbabaladi to console her, she mustered courage and told them that the appellant had thrown her child in the well which resulted in his death. They immediately took her to the Police Station and lodged a complaint. Offences under Sections 323, 302, 201, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC were registered. The body of the deceased child was exhumed after getting appropriate permission. The dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. The post-mortem report stated the cause of death as “asphyxia as a result of drowning”.
3. On completion of investigation, the appellant was charged and tried for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 302, 201, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC along with his mother Kallawwa who was arraigned as Accused 2. The prosecution examined 19 witnesses. It’s most important witness is PW-1 Siddakka, who lost her one-and-half year old son because of the appellant’s cruel act. Her evidence is corroborated by her brother PW-10 Chanabasappa and uncle PW-13 Ishwarappa. The appellant did not adduce any evidence. He denied all allegations. The defence suggested that the child saw a peacock; followed it; went to the field where the well was situated, fell into it and died.
4. The trial court acquitted Accused 2, the mother of the appellant of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. It, however, convicted the appellant for the said offence and sentenced him to life imprisonment. Both of them were found guilty of offences punishable under Sections 323, 506, 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC and were sentenced for the said offences. On appeal, the High Court set aside the conviction and sentence of Accused 2. The appellant’s conviction and sentence was, however, confirmed in its entirety. Hence, this appeal.
5. Shri Mithilesh Singh, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. However, the circumstances do not point unerringly to the guilt of the appellant. They may at the most raise some suspicion, but suspicion, however, strong cannot take the p
