Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Surya Kant, Aravind Kumar, JJ.
Siju Kurian – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 64 of 2021
Decided On : 17-04-2023
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 378 – Appeal against acquittal – It would be open for High Court to re-apprise evidence and conclusions drawn by Trial Court and in case of judgment of trial court being perverse that is contrary to evidence on record, then in such circumstances High Court would be justified in interfering with findings of Trial Court and/or reversing the finding of Trial Court. (Para 13)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 201, 404 and 419 – Murder, disappearance of evidence, dishonest misappropriation of money and cheating – Life sentence – Reversal of acquittal by High Court – When PWs have in clear terms deposed to have last seen accused with deceased, necessarily accused must offer explanation as to how and when he started living separately – Last seen theory propounded by prosecution to drive home guilt of accused requires to be accepted – Merely because translation of disclosure statement was made from Malayalam to Tamil and written down in Kannada would not suggest that such statement be held to be either not being voluntary – Other surrounding circumstances which prove accused being guilty of offence beyond reasonable doubt are recovery of articles belonging to deceased and sold by accused which were recovered on strength of voluntary statement of accused – Judgment of High Court upheld. (Paras 16.6, 19, 21, 22 and 23)
(C) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 27 – Disclosure statement – Section 27 permits derivative use of custodial statement in ordinary course of events – There is no automatic presumption that custodial statements have been extracted through compulsion – Statement of an accused recorded while being in police custody can be split into its components and can be separated from admissible portions – Such of those components or portions which were immediate cause of discovery would be legal evidence and rest can be rejected – In pursuance to a voluntary statement made by accused, a fact must be discovered which was in exclusive knowledge of accused alone – In such circumstances, that part of voluntary statement which leads to discovery of a new fact which was only in knowledge of accused would become admissible under Section 27. (Paras 18 and 19)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal arises from a judgment rendered by High Court of Karnataka in Criminal Appeal No.335 of 2014 filed by State of Karnataka against the judgment of Fast Track Court reversing order of acquittal and convicting appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201, 404 and 419 of IPC and sentencing him to simple imprisonment for life and also sentencing to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 years/2years for respective offences which has been ordered to run concurrently and also fine.
Findings of Court:
On re-appreciation of entire evidence by High Court in proper perspective it has resulted in arriving at a right conclusion viz. that accused alone has committed murder of deceased.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Aravind Kumar, J.
1. This appeal under Section 2(1)(a) of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 by the sole accused in Sessions Case No.96 of 2012 on the file of the Fast Track Court, Sagar Taluk, arises from a judgment rendered by the High Court of Karnataka in Criminal Appeal No.335 of 2014 filed by the State of Karnataka against the judgment of the Fast Track Court reversing the order of acquittal and convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘the IPC’), 201 of IPC, 404 of IPC and 419 of IPC and sentencing him to simple imprisonment for life and also sentencing to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 years/2years for the respective offences which has been ordered to run concurrently and also fine.
2. Brief facts of the case as put-forth by the prosecution are: accused was working as a labourer in the farmhouse of Mr. Jose Kafan (deceased) in Kerodi village of Sagar Taluk (Karnataka State) and on 02.12.2011 between 6:00 am to 6:30 am, said accused had entered the room of the deceased through the eastern side of the farm house while he was sleeping there and murdered him by hitting with iron rod on his face, upon his left eyebrow and on his left chin with force, then stole the articles in the farm house and sold the same and also sold the land of said farm house to others to make undue monetary gain. In order to conceal the act and with a deliberate intention to destroy the evidence, the accused then hid the dead body in a pit meant for storing ash manure in the garden land located at a short distance from the farm house in the western side of the farm house. The iron rod used for committing the murder, waist belt of the deceased person, his pant, shirt were also concealed below the upper crust of soil in the garden after which, he had sold the equipments stolen from the farm house to Sunil Kumar (CW-18) for consideration and likewise he had sold other items to Mr. Denis C Thomas (CW20). It was alleged that said amount released by way of sale was dishonestly misappropriated by the accused. It is further alleged by the prosecution that accused impersonating himself as the son of the deceased person had also attempted to sell the land of the deceased to others and to substantiate his false claims had also handed over the documents of the farm house of the deceased to CW-15 Mr. Lizo and thereafter he had absconded.
3. Mr. Sajid, son of the deceased lodged a missing complaint and in the backdrop of information regarding the accused, inquiry was conducted and accused confessed to the crime and showed where the dead body was concealed in the presence of witnesses. Hence, the prosecution alleged in this manner accused had murdered the father of the complainant, sold the belongings of the deceased and handed over the documents of the land owned by the deceased, proclaiming himself to be the son of the deceased and had made attempts to sell the land illegally to others. On completion of investigation the charge-sheet came to be filed against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 404 and 419 of IPC for committing a cognizable offence. Charge came to be framed against the accused and same having been denied resulted in trial being held and in order to drive home the guilt of the accused prosecution got examined 25 witnesses as PW-1 to PW-25 and got exhibited material evidence as per Ex.P-1 to P-51 and the material objects as MO1 to MO47. On conclusion of prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused person under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, came to be recorded and accused pleaded not being guilty and also reiterated his stand of being innocent. Learned Sessions Judge after having heard the arguments on both the sides formulated six points/issues of determination. The learned Trial Judge acquitted the accused by arriving at a conclusion that prosecution had failed to prove it
(1) Extra-judicial confession is a very weak type of evidence and solely on its basis a conviction is not ordinarily to be recorded.(2) Section 106 of Evidence Act does not absolve prosecution of dis....
Reliance can be based on solitary statement of a witness if court comes to conclusion that said statement is true and correct version of case of prosecution.
In murder cases based on circumstantial evidence, each link must be established beyond reasonable doubt, with all evidence consistently pointing to the guilt of the accused.
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
