1. Multiple murders and robbery — Conviction under Sections 302, 396, 397, 120B, 201, 109 IPC — Appeal against death sentence. (Para 1 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2019 Supreme(SC) 640
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ranjan Gogoi, CJI., L. Nageswara Rao, Sanjiv Khanna, JJ.
Basavaraj @ Basya - Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1031-1032 of 2016
Decided On : 23-01-2019
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Correct identification of the accused and recovery of weapon at the instance of accused needs to be established and corroborated by medical evidence for conviction and sentence u/s 302 IPC.
Correct identification of the accused and recovery of weapon at the instance of accused needs to be established and corroborated by medical evidence for conviction and sentence u/s 302 IPC.
Subject
Criminal Law - Murder
Act Referred
Headnote
(a) Criminal trial - Identification of accused persons - PW 6 and 7 identifying the accused in TI parade held 27 days after the crime - Identification not convincing - No corroborative evidence - Conviction held not justified. (Para 12, 15)
(b) Criminal trial - Recovery of looted articles, cash and weapons - Not satisfactorily proved by prosecution - Conviction not justified (Para 13, 15)
(c) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Identification of the appellant-accused satisfactorily established - Recovery of weapon at the instance of the accused also established - Evidence corroborated by medical evidence - Conviction justified. (Para 16, 17, 18)
(d) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Sentence - Accused-appellant sentenced to death - In view of circumstances of the case and three co-accused having been acquitted, sentence needs modification - Death sentence commuted to life imprisonment. (Para 18, 19)
Facts of the case:
The appellants were convicted u/s 302 IPC and sentenced to death.
The High Court affirmed the conviction and confirmed the sentence.
Finding of the Court:
Conviction of all accused except Palya is not justified.
Death sentence of Palya needs to be modified.
Result: Appeals disposed of.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant : S. N. Bhat, Priyank Jain, D.P. Chaturvedi, Advs.
For the Respondent: Devadatt Kamat, Addl. Adv. Gen., V.N. Raghupathy, Rajesh Inamdar, Javedur Rahman, Aditya Bhat, Parikshit P. Angadi, Ashwin G. Raj, Advs.
For the Appellant : S. N. Bhat, Priyank Jain, D.P. Chaturvedi, Advs.
For the Respondent: Devadatt Kamat, Addl. Adv. Gen., V.N. Raghupathy, Rajesh Inamdar, Javedur Rahman, Aditya Bhat, Parikshit P. Angadi, Ashwin G. Raj, Advs.
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to the conviction and death sentence based on the reliability of witness identification and the validity of recoveries. (Para 1 , 4 )
3. Identification was compromised by police influence and witness trauma; recoveries of looted items were not proved according to Section 27, Evidence Act. (Para 8 , 10 , 11 , 13 , 14 )
4. Identification evidence must be scrutinized with circumspection when witnesses are influenced or traumatized, and recoveries under Section 27, Evidence Act, require strict proof. (Para 10 , 11 , 14 )
5. Accused Nos. 1, 3, and 4 acquitted; death sentence of Accused No. 2 commuted to life imprisonment. (Para 15 , 19 )
6. How does police influence on a witness before a Test Identification Parade (T.I.P.) affect the evidentiary value of the identification?
If a witness is told by police who the perpetrators are before the T.I.P., the identification is unreliable, especially for witnesses from vulnerable social strata, as the police's impression creates a lasting impact on the mind. (Para 9 , 10 )
7. What standard of scrutiny is applied to identification evidence provided by a witness who has suffered severe trauma and injuries?
Identification evidence from a traumatized witness, especially in night-time incidents with gruesome circumstances, must be scrutinized with the greatest circumspection and requires corroborative evidence to be sustainable. (Para 11 , 12 )
8. What is required to prove the recovery of articles as admissible evidence under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872?
The prosecution must prove exactly how and in what manner the recovery was made; evidence that items were already on display at the police station renders the recovery unsatisfactory and inadmissible. (Para 13 , 14 )
ORDER :
1. The appellants herein (four in number) have been convicted, inter alia, under Section 302 IPC and have been sentenced to death by the learned trial Court which has been affirmed by the High Court. Aggrieved, the present appeals by special leave have been filed.
2. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 14th February, 2009 at about 11.45 p.m. the Police Sub Inspector/Circle Inspector Hanamantraya s/o Bhimaraya (P.W.26), Saidapur Police Station of Yadgir District received information of multiple murders in Gondadagi village. Proceeding to the spot, P.W.26 found Suryakanthamma (P.W.7) lying near a shed with injuries. She (P.W.7) was removed to Raichur Government Hospital for treatment, whereafter, P.W. 26 recorded the statement of one Srinivas @ Seenu (P.W.6), the complainant, who was present at the spot. The said statement was treated as a complaint.
3. In the complaint, it was stated that at about 9.30 p.m. when the complainant (P.W.6) was in his shed watching television, Basannagouda (since deceased) joined him. The aforesaid person, according to the complainant, left the shed at about 11.00 p.m. to sleep in his own shed. Thereafter, according to the complainant (P.W.6), he heard commotion and going there he found that Basannagouda had been murdered and he was lying on a cot outside the shed. Looking into the shed the complainant (P.W.6) found/heard people conversing in Telugu language and thereafter he saw a blaze inside the shed. At that point of time, according to the complainant (P.W.6), three persons had come out from the shed wearing vests and shorts. Going inside the shed, the complainant (P.W.6) found Suryakanthamma (P.W.7) lying on the floor with severe injuries and her two sons Shivareddy and Srinivasreddy lying dead/murdered. Thereafter, the Police was informed and investigation commenced in the course of which the accused appellants were arrested. Their statements allegedly leading to the recovery were recorded. On completion of investigation the accused appellants were charge-sheeted for commission of offences punishable under Sections 120B, 396, 397, 302, 201, 109 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC" for short) and under Section 98 of the Karnataka Police Act.
4. The learned trial Court and the first appellate Court having held the accused appellants guilty, inter alia, of the offence of commission of murder and having imposed sentence of death the present appeals have been filed before this Court.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered the materials on record.
6. Srinivas @ Seenu (P.W.6) and Suryakanthamma (P.W.7) are the eye 5 witnesses to the occurrence. Both have given a graphic and vivid description of the manner in which the offence was committed by the accused persons.
7. Even if we are to accept the aforesaid part of the evidence of Srinivas @ Seenu (P.W.6) and Suryakanthamma (P.W.7), what would be further required is proof of identification of the accused persons to sustain the case of the prosecution that it is the accused who had committed the crime.
8. So far as the identification of the accused persons is concerned, the Test Identification Parade ("T.I.P." for short) was held after 27 days of the arrest of the accused. Both the courts below accepted the delay by taking note of the grounds assigned, namely, the requirement to complete some procedural formalities. Even if the period of delay in holding the T.I.P. is to be discounted, what would be required is the satisfaction of the Court that the eye-witnesses (P.W.6 and P.W.7) had correctly identified the accused appellants to be the perpetrators of the crime. This would be, particularly, significant in view of the admitted case of the prosecution that the accused persons and the deceased as well as the eyewitnesses were not known to each other from before.
9. Srinivas @ Seenu (P.W.6) in his deposition had very clearly stated that he was told in the Police Station that the four accused
