SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(SC) 1097

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Uday Umesh Lalit, CJI., S. Ravindra Bhat, Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ.
Munikrishna @ Krishna Etc. - Appellant
Versus
State by Ulsoor PS – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1597-1600 OF 2022 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos.8792-8795 of 2022)
Decided On : 30-09-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Lakshmeesh S. Kamath, AOR, Mr. Kaustubh Shukla, Adv., Ms. Samriti Ahuja, Adv., Ms. Nancy Shamim, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR

IMPORTANT POINTS
(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 case beyond reasonable doubt.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/34 – Murder – Common intention – Life imprisonment – Circumstantial evidence – There is no direct evidence in the case – Criminal Trial – There is no forensic or scientific evidence which links any of present appellants to crime – So-called discovery of weapon of crime and discovery of stolen gold material is also severely flawed – In a case of circumstantial evidence, entire chain of evidence must be complete and conclusions which is arrived after examining chain of evidence must point towards culpability of accused and to no other conclusion – This is clearly missing from case of prosecution – Statement given by accused to Police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. is not admissible as evidence – So-called evidence discovered under Section 27 of Evidence Act, 1872, i.e., recovery of stolen items and recovery of weapon are also very doubtful – Gold which has been recovered has not been identified as one which was stolen from house of deceased – Recovery of knife is also doubtful – In a case of circumstantial evidence, very heavy duty is cast upon prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt – Order of Sessions Judge and High Court set aside. (Paras 10, 11, 12, 13 and 17)

Facts of the case:

Appellants have challenged the judgment and order dated 31.8.2010 passed by High Court of Karnataka in a Criminal Appeal which has upheld order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court against the appellants which convicted the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, and has sentenced them for life imprisonment.

Findings of Court:

This Court in its order dated 19.04.2022 has allowed the appeal and has set aside the order of Sessions Judge as well as of the High Court which had placed its reliance almost completely on the statement made by the accused before the Police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. This is exactly what has been done in the present case as well and consequently this too must meet the same fate.

Result : Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT :

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.

The appellants before us have challenged the judgment and order dated 31.8.2010 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in a Criminal Appeal which has upheld the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court against the appellants which convicted the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, and has sentenced them for life imprisonment. We had heard Shri Lakshmeesh S. Kamath, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Nikhil Goel, learned Additional Advocate General for the State at length on 24.08.2022 and granted leave in the case, which was then reserved for judgment.

2. An FIR was lodged on 12.10.2000 at 1:15 PM mid night, which was the intervening night between 11th October and 12th October, 2000 by the son-in-law of the deceased, S. Ramakrishnan. As per the FIR, his father-in-law, who was seventy-two years of age, and was living alone in house No.19/1 Haudin Road, Ulsoor, was murdered by some unknown persons. The deceased last spoke to his daughter (wife of the informant), at about 6:30 PM that evening. Informant then says that his wife and him left their house in the evening that day (11.10.2000) to attend a dinner engagement. They returned home at about 11:15 PM. On their return they received a call from a cousin Dr. B. Anarth Narayan, of the Indian Institute of Sciences. Dr. Narayan informed him that he had received a telephone call at about 10.00 PM, from one Sundar who is a neighbour of his father-in-law. Sundar had informed that the gates of the house of his father-in-law were open and lights were also on, which seemed unusual at that hour in the night. On this information, the informant and his wife rushed to the house of his father-in-law. He was apprehending that his father-inlaw may have collapsed, since he had a history of heart disease. When they reached the house at around 11.30 PM, they immediately had an impression as if something was burning in the kitchen. This drew them to the kitchen, where they found the dead body of S. Ramakrishnan. They also noticed that the cupboards of the living room were open and the purse of her father was missing where he normally kept approximately Rs.3000/-. They immediately informed the Police and the FIR was lodged and Criminal Case No.600 of 2000 was registered for the offence punishable under Section 302 at Police Station, Ulsoor, Bengaluru and investigation commenced.

3. Meanwhile, Inquest had started at about 07:00 AM in the morning of 12.10.2000, and it is completed at 09:30 AM that day. The inquest report states that a male person about 72 years old by the name of S. Ramakrishnan s/o Subbaraya Ayyer, found dead at No. 19/1, Haudin Road, Ulsoor, Bengaluru on the day of 12.10.2000.

Then it records: -

    “The dead body is lying in blood pool in kitchen at Door No. 19/1, Haudin Road, Ulsoor, facing the sky. Head facing West and legs towards East. Eyes are open. A 4” long bleeding injury is found in deceased’s neck; it is found to be cut with a sharp weapon. Both the hands are stretched on the body. Cut injury caused in neck is found to be caused by some antisocial elements. Deceased is wearing 1) A cross-belt, 2) White full arm banyan, 3) White underwear, 4) White dhothi. All clothes are full of blood.

    The dead body is found in kitchen at door No. 19/1, Haudin Road, Ulsoor, the main door of the house is facing North, ‘kitchen door is to the West, on entering the kitchen, the dead body is lying on the floor facing the sky with head towards West and legs towards East. Not found in water. Not in well.

    On 12-10-2000 at 9.30 AM, Sri. NS. Ramachandrappa, Police Inspector of Ulsoor Police Station, in order to know the actual cause for deceased’s death, sent the dead body to Bowring Hospital Doctor through Sri. Giriyaiah PC-2539.

    Sri. N.S. Ramachandra, P.I. has ordered PC 2539 to handover the dead body to deceased’s blood relatives after postmortem, to perform obsequies.

    On 11-10-2000. Some culprits have murdered the diseased Sri. S.


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top