2024 Supreme(SC) 357

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar And Others – Appellants
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No(S). 985 of 2010
Decided on : 19-04-2024

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Motive acts as a double-edged sword.
(2) Disclosure statement – Statement of an accused recorded by a police officer under Section 27 of Evidence Act is basically a memorandum of confession of accused recorded by Investigating Officer during interrogation which has been taken down in writing – Confessional part of such statement is inadmissible and only part which distinctly leads to discovery of fact is admissible in evidence.

Headnote:

(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 378 – Appeal against acquittal – Scope of interference by Appellate Court for reversing judgment of acquittal recorded by trial Court in favour of accused has to be exercised within four corners of principles that judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and that no two reasonable views are possible and only view consistent with guilt of accused is possible from evidence available on record – Appellate Court, in order to interfere with Judgment of acquittal would have to record pertinent findings on these factors if it is inclined to reverse Judgment of acquittal rendered by Trial Court. (Paras 39 and 40)

(B) Indian Penal Code,1860 – Section 302 read with Section 34 – Murder – Common intention – Life sentence – Judgment of High Court causing interference with acquittal of accused appellants as recorded by trial Court is contrary to principles established by law – Testimony of complainant suffers from patent infirmities, contradictions and inherent loopholes which brings him within category of wholly unreliable witness – There is a grave contradiction on this important aspect as to whether report was submitted by complainant in form of a written complaint or whether oral statement of complainant was recorded by police officials – Non-production of Daily Dairy maintained at police station assumes great significance in backdrop of these facts – FIR is a post investigation document and does not inspire confidence – There is no logical explanation for presence of deceased and servants in their field on the date and time of incident – Motive acts as a double-edged sword – Investigating Officer nowhere stated that disclosure statement of accused resulted into discovery of weapons – Neither disclosure memos were proved in accordance with law nor recovery of weapons from open spaces inspire confidence and were wrongly relied upon by High Court as incriminating material so as to reverse finding of acquittal recorded by trial Court – Prosecution did not procure any serological opinion to establish blood group – Recoveries are otherwise also meaningless and an exercise in futility – High Court was not justified in reversing well reasoned Judgment of trial Court thereby turning acquittal of accused appellants into conviction – Accused appellants acquitted of all charges. (Paras 42, 45, 47, 53, 55, 67, 69, 71, 73 and 74)

(C) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27 and 60 – Disclosure statement – Statement of an accused recorded by a police officer under Section 27 of Evidence Act is basically a memorandum of confession of accused recorded by Investigating Officer during interrogation which has been taken down in writing – Confessional part of such statement is inadmissible and only part which distinctly leads to discovery of fact is admissible in evidence – When Investigating Officer steps into witness box for proving such disclosure statement, he would be required to narrate what accused stated to him – Investigating Officer essentially testifies about conversation held between himself – No secondary/hearsay evidence can be given in case of oral evidence, except for circumstances enumerated in the section – In case of a person who asserts to have heard a fact, only his evidence must be given in respect of the same – While testifying on oath, Investigating Officer would be required to narrate sequence of events which transpired leading to recording of disclosure statement. (Paras 59, 60, 61 and 65)

Facts of the case:

Division Bench of High Court vide its judgment dated 14th September, 2009 proceeded to allow appeal; reversed acquittal of A-1, A-2 and A-3 and convicted these accused for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- each within a period of six months and in default, to further undergo imprisonment for two years. Appeal as against A-5 and A-6 was dismissed, while appeal qua A-4 stood abated on account of his death. Out of the fine amount to be realised, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was ordered to be paid to State Government and balance amount of Rs. 1,40,000/- was ordered to be paid to the complainant(PW-1).

Findings of Court:

Impugned judgment dated 14th September, 2009 rendered by the High Court cannot be sustained and is hereby reversed. Accused appellants are acquitted of all the charges. They are on bail and need not surrender. Their bail bonds are discharged.

Result : Appeal allowed.