Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 33440
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM, G BASAVARAJA, JJ
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Appellant
Versus
CHANNABASAPPA S/O. NINGAPPA NEGALUR – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100180 OF 2021 | CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100326 OF 2020
For the Appellants/Petitioners:SRI. ASHOK T.KATTIMANI, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE
For the Respondents:SRI. A.M.GUNDAWADE, ADVOCATE
Confessions must comply with procedural safeguards; otherwise, they are inadmissible, affecting the prosecution's case integrity.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 201 and 302 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 164 - Conviction under Section 201 IPC for assisting in evidence destruction set aside - No direct evidence of involvement or recovery - Confession found inadmissible due to serious procedural violations impacting voluntariness. (Paras 34-51)
(B) Confession - Made under oath, failing to meet necessary procedural requirements of CrPC - Inadequate reflection time and violation of constitutional safeguards resulted in confession being ruled out. (Paras 13, 18, 36, 39)
(C) Prosecution’s Case - Several witnesses turned hostile, inconsistent timelines raised significant doubts in the prosecution's narrative - The absence of the deceased's body crucially undermined the case against the accused. (Paras 20, 25, 30, 32)
Findings of Court:
The court ruled that all confessions and evidence presented did not meet the burden of proof required in criminal proceedings, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
Issues: The court examined procedural integrity of confessions, corroborative evidence supporting prosecution claims, and overall evidence admissibility impacting defendant rights.
Ratio Decidendi: Confessions should adhere strictly to procedural rules safeguarding against coercion and self-incrimination; failure leads to inadmissibility impacting the integrity of the conviction.
Result: Appeals allowed, conviction of Accused No. 2 set aside, accused acquitted.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. review of conviction based on procedural violations. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. prosecutorial claims on timelines assessed for inconsistencies. (Para 3 , 5) |
| 3. evaluating the admissibility of evidence. (Para 4 , 8 , 10 , 12) |
| 4. confession necessitates adherence to specific procedural safeguards. (Para 36 , 40) |
| 5. importance of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 42 , 44) |
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
The present criminal appeal has been filed by Accused No. 2, challenging the judgment and order of conviction passed in Sessions Case No. 76 of 2016, whereby the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for having assisted in the destruction of evidence pertaining to the murder of one Kumaraswamy Viraya Hiremath.
2. A connected appeal has been preferred by the State seeking enhancement of sentence, contending that the Trial Court erred in convicting the appellant only under Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC, instead of under Section 302 IPC.
3. Prosecution’s Case:
The prosecution alleges that Accused No. 1 shared a strained relationship with the deceased, Kumaraswamy, arising out of the deceased having reprimanded Accused No. 1 for misbehaving with his wife. This admonishment purportedly led to animosity.
4. On the morning of 20th September 2015 at about 8:30 AM, Accused No. 1 took the deceased in his Tata Ace vehicle (bearing registration number KA-27/B- 1044) to Byadagi, where he allegedly made the deceased consume alcohol. Subsequently, Accused No. 1 contacted Accused No. 2 via phone. Later that evening, both accused allegedly drove Kumaraswamy near the Tungabhadra bridge. Between 11:00 PM and 11:30 PM, it is alleged that the accused persons, sharing a common intention, forcibly made the deceased consume alcohol until he became unconscious. Thereafter, Accused No. 1 is said to have run the vehicle over Kumaraswamy and then dropped a large stone on his head, resulting in his death. The two accused allegedly disposed of the body in the Tungabhadra River to conceal the offence.
5. Both accused were charged under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 IPC. The prosecution examined 30 witnesses and produced documentary and material evidence, including a stone marked as MO1. After the prosecution closed its case, the statements of both accused under Section 313 CrPC were recorded. Accused No. 2 also stepped into the witness box and produced two documents, marked as Exhibits D1 and D2.
6. The Trial Court, relying upon the confessional statements of both accused, including the judicial confession recorded under Section 164 CrPC by the Magistrate (PW-30), found Accused No. 1 guilty of murder and Accused No. 2 guilty of destruction of evidence. The following points would arise for determination by this court.
i) Whether the confessional statement of Accused No. 2 violates Section 5 of the Karnataka Criminal Rules of Practice, 1968 and Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, and is thereby inadmissible?
ii) Whether non-compliance with the procedural mandates of Section 164 CrPC renders the confessional statement unreliable or inadmissible?
iii) Whether the conviction and sentence imposed upon Accused No. 2 under Section 201 r/w Section 24 of IPC suffers from legal infirmities warranting interference by this Court?
Findings on Point Nos. (i) and (ii):
7. Before scrutinizing the admissibility of the confessional statement of Accused No.2 marked as Exhibit P48, it is necessary to refer to Rules 4 and 5 of Chapter V of the Karnataka Criminal Rules of Practice, which govern the procedure for recording statements under Section 164 CrPC. These Rules, designed to safeguard the voluntariness and authenticity of confessional statements, impose strict procedural obligations on Magistrates. Section 164 of CrPC and rule 4 and 5 of
