1. Murder of an elderly man and theft — Conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC — Appeal against concurrent findings of Trial and High Courts. (Para 1 , 2 , 8 )
Back
Next 
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
Important Points
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.
(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.
Subject
Criminal Law - Homicide
Act Referred
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.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
-
constitutional law
-
fundamental rights
- right against self-incrimination (Para 13)
-
fundamental rights
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
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
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to conviction based on the inadmissibility of confessional statements and the failure of the prosecution to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence. (Para 1 , 13 )
3. Reliance on inadmissible confessional statements and videography — Doubtful recovery of weapon and stolen property — Incomplete chain of circumstantial evidence. (Para 10 , 11 , 13 , 14 , 15 )
4. Confessions to police are inadmissible under Section 25, Evidence Act and Article 20(3), Constitution; circumstantial evidence requires a complete, unbroken chain to prove guilt. (Para 12 , 13 )
5. Appeals allowed — Convictions and sentences set aside — Appellants ordered to be released. (Para 17 )
6. Are confessional statements made by an accused to a police officer admissible as evidence?
No. Under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, a confession made to a police officer is inadmissible and an accused cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself. (Para 13 )
7. What is the required standard of proof in cases based solely on circumstantial evidence?
The circumstances must be fully established and consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt, forming a complete chain of evidence that excludes every other reasonable hypothesis and leaves no ground for a conclusion consistent with innocence. (Para 12 )
8. Can video-recorded voluntary statements made to the police be used as corroborative evidence in a criminal trial?
No. Such statements are in the nature of confessions to a police officer and are hit by the principles of the Evidence Act. If a confession is desired, the accused must be produced before a Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (Para 13 , 14 )
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.
