2021 Supreme(SC) 667

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. NAGESWARA RAO, SANJIV KHANNA, B.R. GAVAI, JJ.
IRAPPA SIDDAPPA MURGANNAVAR - APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF KARNATAKA - RESPONDENT
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1473-1474 OF 2017
DECIDED ON : 08-11-2021

IMPORTANT POINT
Defence is entitled to rely upon contradictions in ocular evidence furnished by eye-witnesses and highlight any incongruity between their versions and prosecution’s case – It is not a universally affirmed position that witnesses must be confronted by defence to seek advantage of contradictions.

Headnote:

(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 376, 364, 366A, and 201 – Kidnapping, rape, murder and disappearance of body of victim-girl child – Death sentence – Circumstantial evidence – Based on disclosure statement of appellant, dead body of victim was recovered – Defence is entitled to rely upon contradictions in ocular evidence furnished by eye-witnesses and highlight any incongruity between their versions and prosecution’s case – It is not a universally affirmed position that witnesses must be confronted by defence to seek advantage of contradictions – Witnesses are village residents and as their evidence was recorded nearly a year after occurrence, they may not have possibly remembered date of sighting, for reason that dates, especially those in Gregorian calendar, may not be of much relevance or consequence in rural areas – Inconsistency of dates can be explained as inadvertence or strained memory due to passage of time, not resulting in displacing case against appellant that prosecution has made out – Medical evidence is filly consistent with prosecution case – Post mortem report and inquest Panchanama confirm date when crime was committed and fully corroborate and support ocular evidence – On an overall view of evidence and witness statements adduced by prosecution, chain of circumstances affirmatively establishes guilt of appellant – Decision of High Court as well as District and Sessions Court convicting appellant for rape and murder of victim upheld. (Paras 12, 14, 15, 18, 20 and 21)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 235(2) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 376, 364, 366A, and 201 – Kidnapping, rape, murder and disappearance of body of victim-girl child – Death sentence – Appellant had no criminal antecedents, nor was any evidence presented to prove that commission of offence was pre-planned – Conduct of appellant in jail has been satisfactory – Young age of appellant at the time of commission of offence (23 / 25 years), his weak socio-economic background, absence of any criminal antecedents, non pre-meditated nature of crime and fact that he has spent nearly 10 years 10 months in prison have weighed with Court as other extenuating factors, which add up against imposition of death penalty which is to be inflicted only in rarest of rare cases – Conviction of appellant for offences under Sections 302, 376, 364, 366A and 201 of Code and sentences awarded for offences under Sections 376, 364, 366A and 201 of Code – Appeals partly allowed by commuting death sentence to that of life imprisonment with stipulation that appellant shall not be entitled to premature release/remission before undergoing actual imprisonment of 30 years for offence under Section 302 of Code – Sentences awarded shall run concurrently and not consecutively. (Paras 28, 29 and 30)

(C) Criminal Law – Medical evidence – Rate of putrefaction of body in water is more reliable than of body exposed to air as temperature in water is more uniform and body is protected from air – Ordinarily, body takes twice as much time in water as in air to undergo same degree of putrefaction – Process is retarded, when a body is lying in deep water and is well-protected by clothing – However, it is hastened when body is lying in water contaminated with sewage – Flotation of body takes place when gases of decomposition or putrefaction develop within submerged body – In India, submerged body comes to surface within 24 hours in summer and within two to three days or more, and sometimes in more than a week, in winter – In temperate climates a submerged body floats within a week in summer and in about a fortnight in winter – Power of flotation of a decomposed body is so great that in certain cases it may float to surface in spite of being weighted with a heavy stone – Duration required for flotation of body depends upon age, sex, condition of body, season of year and water – Bodies which are light in weight have low specific gravity and float sooner. (Para 19)

Facts of the case:

Judgment under challenge, passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Dharwad on 6th March 2017, affirms the conviction of appellant under Sections 302, 376, 364, 366A, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and confirms the sentence of death for the offence under Section 302, rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 376, rigorous imprisonment for six years and a fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation for the offences under Sections 364 and 366A each, and rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation for the offence under Section 201 of the Code. Sentences under Sections 376, 364, 366A, and 201 of the Code are directed to run consecutively. Case of the prosecution is that the appellant subjected the deceased R to rape, killed her by strangulation, and then disposed of her body, tied in a gunny bag, into the stream named Bennihalla. As there are no eye witnesses to the commission of the offences, in order to prove these postulations, the prosecution has relied on three-fold circumstances: (i) that the appellant took away R from a neighbour’s house on 28th December 2010; (ii) that the appellant was last seen by certain witnesses carrying R and a gunny bag towards Bennihalla stream; and (iii) that based on the disclosure statement of the appellant on 1st January 2011, dead body of R was recovered in a gunny bag from Bennihalla.

Findings of Court:

There is no doubt that appellant has committed an abhorrent crime, and for this we believe that incarceration for life will serve as sufficient punishment and penitence for his actions, in the absence of any material to believe that if allowed to live he poses a grave and serious threat to society, and the imprisonment for life in our opinion would also ward off any such threat. We believe that there is hope for reformation, rehabilitation, and thus the option of imprisonment for life is certainly not foreclosed and therefore acceptable.

Result : Appeals Partly allowed.