Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Uday Umesh Lalit, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ.
Venkatesh @ Chandra & Anr. Etc. - Appellants
Versus
State of Karnataka - Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1476-1477 of 2018
Decided On : 19-04-2022
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 396/34 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 27 – Dacoity with murder – Common intention – Circumstantial evidence – Death sentence commuted to life sentence by High Court – Recovered gold ornaments were not subjected to any Test Identification Parade but were stated to have been identified by relations of deceased in police station – Only that part of statement which leads to discovery of certain facts alone could be marked in evidence and not entirely of statement – If at all accused were desirous of making confessions, Investigating Machinery could have facilitated recording of confession by producing them before a Magistrate for appropriate action in terms of Section 164 of Code – Any departure from that course is not acceptable and cannot be recognized and taken on record as evidence – A mere chart cannot be taken as proof of involvement of accused in other crimes either at stage of conviction or sentence – Prosecution has not been able to discharge burden to such an extent that presumption of innocence weighing in favour of accused stands displaced – They do not form a consistent chain leading to a hypothesis sought to be proved by prosecution – Appellants acquitted by granting them benefit of doubt. (Paras 11, 18, 20, 22, 28 and 33)
(B) Criminal Law – Administration of Criminal Justice – All matters relating to crime and whether a particular thing happens to be a conclusive piece of evidence must be dealt with by a Court of Law and not through a TV channel – If at all there was a voluntary statement, matter would be dealt with by Court of Law – Public platform is not a place for such debate or proof of what otherwise is exclusive domain and function of Courts of law – Any such debate or discussion touching upon matters which are in domain of Courts would amount to direct interference in administration of Criminal Justice. (Para 21)
(C) Criminal Law – Appreciation of evidence – Approach at certain stages including stage of considering bail application may be qualitatively different – At stage of consideration of bail, primary concern is to weigh in balance liberty of an accused and possible prejudice that may get visited upon societal interest in case he is released – It would be apt and proper to consider his involvement in other crimes – But at stage of final assessment whether conviction be recorded or not, matter must be considered purely on its merits unless very membership of a gang or a group or an outfit itself can amount to an offence or as an aggravated form of an offence – Again, at stage of sentencing, his involvement in other crimes may be a relevant factor provided concerned material in form of concluded judgments in other matters are brought on record in a manner known to law – Established involvement in other matters would then certainly be relevant while dealing with question whether concerned accused is required to be dealt with sternly or leniently. (Para 23)
Facts of the case:
Appellants along with original accused Nos.5 to 9 were tried by Trial Court in Sessions Case No.443 of 2001 and Sessions Case No.55 of 2004 for having committed offence punishable under Sections 396/34 of IPC. By its judgment and order presently under challenge, High Court did not find sufficient reasons to affirm the death sentence. It found that the appellants were guilty of having committed the offence under Section 394 of the IPC and sentenced them to suffer life imprisonment.
Findings of Court:
We may hold the fourth circumstance to be proved. It is not as if that prosecution was unaware about the place of occurrence but the fact that appellants could point the house where incident had occurred may show knowledge on their part about the place of occurrence.
Result : Appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Uday Umesh Lalit, J.
1. These appeals by special leave filed by original accused Nos.1 to 4 are directed against the common judgment and order dated 04th September 2017 passed by the High Court1 [The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru], in Criminal Reference Case No.14 of 2010; and in Criminal Appeal No.799 of 2011 and Criminal Appeal No.637 of 2012.
2. The appellants along with original accused Nos.5 to 9 were tried by the Trial Court2 [XXXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (Special Court), Central Prison Premises, Bengaluru] in Sessions Case No.443 of 2001 and Sessions Case No.55 of 2004 for having committed offence punishable under Section 396 of the IPC, 3[The Indian Penal Code, 1860]. Accused No.9 died during the pendency of the trial and the proceedings against her stood abated. The Trial Court 2 [XXXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (Special Court), Central Prison Premises, Bengaluru] acquitted original accused Nos.5 to 8 by its judgment dated 17.09.2010 but convicted the appellants for having committed offences punishable under Section 396 read with Section 34 of the IPC3[The Indian Penal Code, 1860]. By a subsequent order of punishment dated 30.09.2010, the Trial Court imposed death sentence upon all the appellants for the offence committed by them.
3. This resulted in Criminal Reference Case No.14 of 2010 for confirmation of death sentence before the High Court. The convicted accused, namely, the appellants herein also preferred Criminal Appeal Nos.799 of 2011 and 637 of 2012 in the High Court. By its judgment and order presently under challenge, the High Court did not find sufficient reasons to affirm the death sentence. It found that the appellants were guilty of having committed the offence under Section 394 of the IPC3[The Indian Penal Code, 1860] and sentenced them to suffer life imprisonment.
4. The instant proceedings arise out of Crime No.874 of 1999 registered pursuant to FIR dated 28.10.1999 lodged with Vijayanagar Police Station, Bengaluru. The reporting made by one Dr. Prakash Vishnu was:-
“I, Dr. Prakash Vishnu, hereby inform that today at about 9.15 AM, I left home as usual to attend my work in Bowring Hospital. At that time, my father and mother both were alright. In our house only myself, my father and mother are staying. Each one of us are keeping separate key with us. My father is working as an Imposer in Indian Express. My mother runs a Novelty Store near our house.
Today afternoon when I returned home after work, some burnt smell was coming from kitchen. I called my mother 2-3 times. There was no reply. I myself went and opened the door, in kitchen, stove was on. I left it as it is and open the room door, when I opened room door, I saw my mother lying in blood pool. Pan was also lying there, hoping that she is alive, I tried Resuscitation. But her heart beat was stopped (I did not get pulse). Entire body was turned bluish. Tongue was stretched out. I was very much shocked and screamed very loudly. Then neighboring people came and gathered there. I humbly request you to kindly trace out the culprits who have murdered my mother and take suitable action against them. Yesterday, my father had night duty and he was back at 6.00AM.”
Accordingly, crime under Section 302 of the IPC was registered against unknown persons.
5. During investigation, statements of the mother, sister and husband of the deceased were recorded, who stated that the deceased normally used to wear certain gold ornaments which were stolen as part of the transaction. The Inquest Report, later marked as Exh.P-2 conducted on the body of the deceased also showed injuries on the ear, presumably caused while taking away the earrings.
6. The post-mortem on the body was conducted by Dr. S.B. Patil and the Post-Mortem Report, later marked as Exh. P-14 indicated that the deceased had suffered 13 injuries. According to
(1) All matters relating to crime and whether a particular thing happens to be a conclusive piece of evidence must be dealt with by a Court of Law and not through a TV channel.(2) Appreciation of evi....
(1) Statement given by accused to Police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. is not admissible as evidence.(2) In a case of circumstantial evidence, very heavy duty is cast upon prosecution to prove its cas....
Circumstantial evidence must form an unbroken chain pointing solely to the guilt of the accused; confessions made in police custody are inadmissible unless they lead to the discovery of facts.
Murder Charge - When a murder charge is to be proved solely on circumstantial evidence, as in this case, presumption of innocence of the accused must have a dominant role.
The judgment underscores the necessity of establishing a complete chain of circumstances and the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt in cases based on circumstantial evidence.
Circumstantial evidence must establish a complete and unbroken chain pointing to the guilt of the accused, with no plausible alternative explanations.
In cases of circumstantial evidence, a complete chain of proof is essential for conviction; mere suspicion is insufficient, and the presumption of innocence must be maintained.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
