Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JJ.
Kiran – Appellant
Versus
The State of Karnataka – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 5587 of 2025 [Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 15786 of 2024]
Decided On : 18-12-2025
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 428 – Constitution of India – Articles 72 and 161 – Murder of widow and her five children – Life imprisonment till end of natural life – Witnesses, including daughter of deceased, an eyewitness, turned hostile – Dying declaration is in a question-and-answer form, on the very next day of admission, again implicating accused, in accordance with prosecution story, as also speaking of detestable prior conduct of accused, resistance to which was motive projected – Dying declaration was taken in presence of duty Doctor – Deceased was conscious and coherent when statements were given – Conviction was entered into properly – Sentence of life imprisonment means entire life, subject only to remission and commutation provided under Cr.P.C. and also to Articles 72 and 161 of Constitution of India, which cannot be curtailed by Sessions Court – Nor can Sessions Court, a creation of Cr.P.C. curtail provision under Section 428, Cr.P.C, available in Cr.P.C. which created it. (Paras 4, 7 and 9)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 428 – Constitution of India – Articles 72 and 161 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Murder of widow and her five children – Life imprisonment till end of natural life – Though life sentence literally denotes imprisonment till last breath, it operates only as an imprisonment for 14 years with power of remission and commutation conferred on Government – Balancing, need to provide proportionate punishment at least in crimes which shocks human society, with need to avoid death; an irreversible penalty, a middle ground was found – In appropriate cases as an uniform policy, punishment of imprisonment for life beyond any remission can be awarded, substituting death penalty; not only by Supreme Court but also by High Courts – Power to impose punishment of imprisonment for life without remission was conferred only on Constitutional Courts and not on Sessions Courts – Sessions Court is not competent to interfere with or curtail effect of provisions of Cr.P.C. – Power to grant remission and commutation under Sections 432 to 435 Cr.P.C. cannot be curtailed by Sessions Court – Power of alternate sentencing to cover hiatus between 14 years and death, cannot be applied by Sessions Courts – Sentence of life imprisonment cannot be directed to be till end of natural life, by Sessions Court – Sentence as awarded by trial court and confirmed by High Court for offence under Section 302 of IPC confirmed as imprisonment for life – Sentence modified to imprisonment for life under Section 302, IPC and permitting set-off, as provided under Section 428, Cr.P.C. as also confirming sentence under other offences, which would run concurrently – Accused would be entitled to avail of remission/commutation, in due course, but subject to decision being taken by Government as per its policy. (Paras 12, 13, 14, 15 and 18)
(C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 428 – Set-off in sentence – Statutory imprimatur in Section 428, Cr.P.C. is that period of detention undergone by accused during investigation, inquiry or trial of a case, before date of conviction in the case shall be set-off against term of imprisonment imposed on accused, as sentence on such conviction – Direction of Sessions Court not to grant set-off under Section 428, Cr. PC will stand deleted, as there is no escape from it. (Para 16)
Facts of the case:
A widow, with five children was torched to death, for not having responded to the lustful advances of the accused, a relative by marriage. This Court had issued notice on 08.11.2024, limited to the question as to whether the trial court was correct in imposing life imprisonment meaning that it will be till the end of his natural life and directing the accused to be not granted the benefit of remission under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Findings of Court:
While upholding principle of alternative sentencing, it was also held that this would not affect power conferred under Articles 72 and 161 of Constitution of India. It is on same principle that Sessions Court is not competent to interfere with or curtail effect of provisions of Cr.P.C.
Result : Appeal partly allowed.
JUDGMENT :
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. A widow, with five children was torched to death, for not having responded to the lustful advances of the accused, a relative by marriage.
3. This Court had issued notice on 08.11.2024, limited to the question as to whether the trial court was correct in imposing life imprisonment meaning that it will be till the end of his natural life and directing the accused to be not granted the benefit of remission under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.1 [for short the Cr.P.C.]
4. Despite the limited notice, we have gone through the evidence to convince ourselves on the conviction, especially since the witnesses, including the daughter of the deceased, an eyewitness turned hostile. The crime was committed on 01.01.2014 at 11:30 pm when the accused was alleged to have entered the shanty in which the deceased was living with her daughters. The woman having not succumbed to the sexual advances made, which had been continuing for some time earlier, the accused poured kerosene over her and set her ablaze. The woman was rushed to the hospital, taken to a higher center but later, after ten days, she succumbed to death. That the death was due to 60% burns caused, has been established by the medical evidence, making a clear case of homicide.
5. The crucial witnesses, who were close relatives, including the father and daughter of the deceased, PW-1 and PW-7, turned hostile. PW-1 though did not support the allegation against the accused, deposed on the incident and spoke of the deceased having been taken to the hospital after having sustained burns, to which she succumbed. As found by the High Court, PW-7 though turned hostile with respect to the allegation against the accused, admitted the presence of PW-8 and PW-24, neighbors who had come to the crime scene immediately after it occurred, hearing the hue and cry. PW-24 was the brother-in-law of the deceased who shifted her to the hospital along with PW-8, a neighbor, who also spoke of this factum. PW-24, additionally spoke of having seen the accused running away from the scene of occurrence, known to him as a relative by marriage. The presence of PW-24 having been spoken of by the other prosecution witness, the presence of the accused and his flight from the scene of occurrence is established.
6. One other compelling circumstance is the dying declaration made by the deceased. Though there was a dying declaration made to PW-1, PW-9, PW-10 and PW-11 they resiled from their statements. However, it has been established from the testimony of PW-9, the sister of the deceased that the victim was conscious and could speak at the time when she was admitted in the Hospital and continued as an inpatient. Exhibit P-27 is the dying declaration given by the deceased on 02.01.2014 at Nikhil Hospital, Hyderabad to PW-25, the Head Constable deputed on medical intimation having been received from the Government Hospital, Bidar, to which place the deceased was first taken before transferring her to Hyderabad. PW-25 categorically stated that he was the Station House Officer of Santapur Police Station and on receiving intimation from the Government Hospital, Bidar, he had gone there when he was informed of the victim having been taken to Hyderabad. He then, after obtaining sanction from the higher authorities, proceeded to Hyderabad where he recorded Exhibit P-27, the dying declaration, categorically pinning the crime on the accused. He also stated that at Hyderabad he submitted a request to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to record the dying declaration which request was produced as Exhibit D-1. In Exhibit D-1, the recital was of a suicide having been committed by pouring kerosene over oneself. However, this was explained insofar as the crime scene was in the northernmost part of Karnataka and the victim having been taken to Hyderabad within the then State of Andhra Pradesh. It was the deposition of PW-25 that he could not communicate in Telugu, whi
Life imprisonment till end of natural life – Power to grant remission and commutation under Sections 432 to 435 Cr.P.C. cannot be curtailed by Sessions Court – Power of alternate sentencing to cover ....
Quantum of sentence – There can be no straitjacket formulae – A delicate balance has to be struck – Fundamental underpinning is principle of proportionality.
Point of Law : Crime is a pathological aberration. The criminal can ordinarily be redeemed and the state has to rehabilitate rather than avenge. The sub-culture that leads to ante-social behaviour ha....
Dying declarations may serve as the sole basis for conviction if deemed voluntary, consistent, and credible; inconsistencies must be assessed in light of surrounding facts.
Point of law : Section 28 of the Criminal Procedure Code empowers the Court to impose sentence authorised by law.
The court upheld the conviction based on credible dying declaration and corroborative evidence, affirming the accused's guilt in the murder case.
Court emphasized that a magistrate's dying declaration carries significant weight over oral declarations, affecting conviction in murder cases.
Dying declarations can be the sole basis for conviction if found to be voluntary and credible, regardless of minor inconsistencies.
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
