Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ranjana Prakash Desai, Madan B. Lokur, JJ.
Prakash – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1682 OF 2005
Decided On : 15-04-2014
(2013) 14 SCC 266; (2012) 9 SCC 284; (1971) 2 SCC 715; (2010) 3 SCC 508; (1991) 1 SCC 286; (1979) 1 SCC 31; (2003) 5 SCC 746; (1970) 3 SCC 518; (2003) 6 SCC 73 – Relied upon
[1976] 1 SCR 763; (1986) 1 SCR 802 – Referred
(b) Criminal Trial – Presence of accused at place of occurrence – Doubtful – Deceased and accused not knowing each other – Allegation of accused going to house of deceased whom he did not know, to steal ornaments – Not believable – Trial court taking a plausible view – Not liable to be interfered. (Para 34, 35, 36)
(c) Criminal Trial – Conviction – Cannot be based on probabilities. (Para 37)
(1970) 1 SCC 724 – Relied upon
(d) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 17 – Admission – Whether amounting to a confession or not – Cannot be split up and part of it used against accused – Admission must be used either as a whole or not at all. (Para 44)
1952 SCR 1091; (1963) 3 SCR 678; (1974) 3 SCC 630 – Relied upon
(e) Criminal Trial – Evidence – IO taking fingerprint of accused in deceitful manner – Amounts to creating evidence – No credibility can be assigned to such evidence – Should have been done under orders of Magistrate in accordance with section 5, Identification of Prisoners Act. (Para 46, 47)
(1997) 10 SCC 44 – Relied upon
ILR 2013 Karnataka 3156 – Referred
(f) Karnataka Police Manual – Guidelines 1543 and 1544(iv) and (v) – Portable articles containing fingerprints – Should be taken in possession after proper sealing and ‘panchnama’ – Panchnama not done – Manner of collecting fingerprint disapproved – Such evidence cannot be relied upon. (Para 52, 53, 55)
(g) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313 – Serological report of blood group matching not put to accused – High Court holding it no prejudicing accused – Putting the same to counsel of accused and not getting a response – Holding thereby that accused did not have to say anything about that – Impermissible. (Para 63)
1951 SCR 729; (2007) 12 SCC 341 – Relied upon
(h) Criminal Trial – Faulty investigation – Benefit must go the accused. (Para 70)
(1976) 4 SCC 394; (2003) 2 SCC 202 – Relied upon
Criminal Trial – Relevant circumstances should be considered collectively – Still, prosecution has to prove each circumstance. (Para 72)
1994 Supp (1) SCC 173 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
The appellant Prakash was charged with murder of one Gangamma and tried on the basis of circumstantial evidence.
The trial court acquitted the appellant, but High Court convicted him.
Finding of the Court:
Investigation was very cursory and the Investigating Officer had made up his mind about guilt of the accused and the investigation was directed at proving this conclusion.
None of the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution and accepted by the High Court point to the probability of guilt or involvement of the accused in the murder of the deceased.
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
Madan B. Lokur, J. –
1. The substantial issues raised in this appeal, in which the conviction is based on circumstantial evidence, primarily relate to the presence of the convict at the place and time of the murder of Gangamma, the analysis of the fingerprint evidence recovered from the place of incident and the recovery of blood stained clothes of the convict and the ornaments of the deceased at his instance. On all issues, we find in favour of the convict and conclude that that none of the circumstances that have been found against him by the High Court and which have led to his conviction have been satisfactorily proved. The conviction must, therefore, be set aside.
The facts
2. On 5th November, 1990 the appellant Prakash, ordinarily a resident of Nagenahalli village in Doddaballapur taluk of Bangalore district was searching for Gangamma’s house in Bangalore. While doing so, he met PW-6 (also named Gangamma) and asked her for directions. Since PW-6 did not know the way to Gangamma’s house, she took Prakash to PW-7 Ammajamma’s house, and requested her to take Prakash to Gangamma’s house.
3. Ammajamma then took Prakash to Gangamma’s house. On reaching there, Prakash informed Gangamma that Swamy (son of her brother PW-3 Hucha Basappa) and he had come from the village and he enquired from Gangamma whether Swamy had reached. Gangamma informed him that Swamy had not come to her house and asked him (Prakash) to disclose his identity. Thereupon, Prakash introduced himself and Ammajamma left them and returned home. This happened at about 1.00 p.m. on 5th November, 1990.
4. In the evening, Gangamma would normally visit PW-1 Revamma’s house, across the road, for watching TV. When Gangamma did not come in the evening on 5th November, 1990 Revamma sent her grandson Lohith aged about 5 years to Gangamma’s house to call her. Gangamma then came with Lohith to Revamma’s house and informed her that she could not watch TV at her house as usual since some relatives from her village had come to her house and she had to cook food for them. Soon thereafter, Gangamma left and returned to her house. According to the First Information Report (FIR) this was at about 8.00 p.m. on 5th November, 1990.
5. On the next day, at about 5.30 p.m. Revamma had gone to a medical shop where she learnt that Gangamma had been murdered in her house. Thereupon, she went to Gangamma’s house and found a crowd had gathered over there. She entered Gangamma’s house and saw the dead body with her clothes and other articles lying scattered about. She then sent word through PW-4 Muniyappa and others to Gangamma’s brother PW-3 Hucha Basappa about the incident.
6. Revamma was advised by some people in the crowd to lodge a complaint with the police. Therefore, she went to the police station and lodged a complaint about the incident at about 7.30 p.m. and an FIR was registered.
7. The Investigating Officer PW-25 D’Souza soon reached the place of occurrence, that is, Gangamma’s house. The dog squad, a fingerprint expert and a photographer also reached there a little later. On a requisition made by the Investigating Officer, PW-12 Ramachandra the photographer took photographs of the dead body and the crime scene. He also took a photograph of a passbook MO-13 lying at the scene of the incident. The fingerprint expert PW-20 Nanaiah examined nine articles in the premises and found some fingerprints on a plastic cover containing the inscription ‘Canara Bank’. Nanaiah took the plastic cover [Exh. P-18] with him for a detailed examination.
8. The Investigating Officer seems to have taken the fingerprint of Gangamma and that was later given to Nanaiah who compared the fingerprint with the chance print on Exh. P-18 and concluded that they were not identical. He issued a certificate in this regard on 9th November, 1990.
9. While the Investigating Officer was at the place of occurrence, Hucha Basappa (Gangamma’s younger brother) arrived and he revealed that he suspected Prakash’s involvem
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
