2022 Supreme(SC) 1046

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
UDAY UMESH LALIT, CJI., J.B. PARDIWALA, J.
Subramanya - Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 242 of 2022
Decided on : 13-10-2022

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) There should not be acquittal of guilty or conviction of innocent person.
(2) Appeal against acquittal – It is only in rarest of rare cases, where High Court, on an absolutely wrong process of reasoning and a legally erroneous and perverse approach to facts of the case, ignoring some of most vital facts, has acquitted accused, that same may be reversed by Supreme Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 136 of Constitution.
(3) Disclosure Statement – Mere discovery cannot be interpreted as sufficient to infer authorship of concealment by person who discovered weapon.
(4) Extra-judicial confession by its very nature is rather a weak type of evidence and requires appreciation with great deal of care and caution.
(5) Conduct of accused alone, though may be relevant under Section 8 of Evidence Act, cannot form basis of conviction.

Headnote:

(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 378 – Appeal against acquittal – Approach of High Court (appellate court) in dealing with appeal against acquittal ought to be cautious because presumption of innocence in favour of accused is not weakened by fact that he has been acquitted at his trial – There should not be acquittal of guilty or conviction of innocent person – Appellate court would not interfere where judgment impugned is based on evidence and view taken was reasonable and plausible. (Paras 39, 41 and 43)

(B) Constitution of India – Article 136 – Appeal against acquittal – Ordinarily, Supreme Court is cautious in interfering with an order of acquittal, especially when order of acquittal has been confirmed up to High Court – It is only in rarest of rare cases, where High Court, on an absolutely wrong process of reasoning and a legally erroneous and perverse approach to facts of the case, ignoring some of most vital facts, has acquitted accused, that same may be reversed by Supreme Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 136 of Constitution – Such fetters on right to entertain appeal are prompted by reluctance to expose a person, who has been acquitted by a competent court of a criminal charge, to anxiety and tension of a further examination of the case, even though it is held by a superior court – An appeal cannot be entertained against an order of acquittal which has, after recording valid and weighty reasons, has arrived at an unassailable, logical conclusion which justifies acquittal – However, Supreme Court may interfere where findings of High Court, disconnecting accused persons with crime, were based on a perfunctory consideration of evidence. (Para 45.1 and 45.2.2)

(C) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27 and 30 – Murder – Life sentence – Reversal of Judgment and Order of acquittal passed by trial court – In entire impugned judgment passed by High Court, no satisfaction recorded therein that findings of trial court are palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable – In absence of such satisfaction, High Court should not have disturbed a well-reasoned judgment of acquittal, passed by trial court – Extra-judicial confession could not have been relied upon as an incriminating circumstance – High Court committed serious error in making confessional statement as the basis and thereafter going in search for corroboration – Confession of co-accused was not in itself a substantive evidence – Mere discovery cannot be interpreted as sufficient to infer authorship of concealment by person who discovered weapon – He could have derived knowledge of existence of that weapon at place through some other source also – In absence of exact words, attributed to accused person, as statement made by him being deposed by investigating officer in his evidence, and also without proving contents of Panchanama, High Court was not justified in placing reliance upon circumstance of discovery of weapon – Even if it is believed that accused appellant had a motive to commit crime, same may be an important circumstance in a case based on circumstantial evidence but cannot take place as a conclusive proof that person concerned was author of crime – Trial court rightly disbelieved motive to commit crime as evidence in this regard is absolutely hearsay in nature – High Court committed error in holding appellant convict herein guilty of offence of murder – Impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by High Court set aside. (Paras 46, 51, 59, 66, 84, 86, 92, 95 and 96)

(D) Criminal Law – Circumstantial Evidence – In a case of circumstantial evidence, judgment remains essentially inferential – Inference is drawn from established facts as circumstances lead to particular inferences – Court has to draw an inference with respect to whether chain of circumstances is complete, and when circumstances therein are collectively considered, same must lead only to the irresistible conclusion that accused alone is perpetrator of crime in question – All circumstances so established must be of a conclusive nature and consistent only with hypothesis of guilt of accused. (Para 49)

(E) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 25 – Extra-Judicial confession – Conviction can be based on a voluntarily confession but rule of prudence requires that wherever possible it should be corroborated by independent evidence – Extra-judicial confession of accused need not in all cases be corroborated – In order to accept extra-judicial confession, it must be voluntary and must inspire confidence – Extra-judicial confession by its very nature is rather a weak type of evidence and requires appreciation with great deal of care and caution – Where an extra-judicial confession is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, its credibility becomes doubtful and it loses its importance – Courts generally look for an independent reliable corroboration before placing any reliance upon an extra-judicial confession. (Paras 54, 56 and 57)

(F) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 8 – Conduct of accused – Although conduct of accused may be a relevant fact under Section 8 of Evidence Act, yet same, by itself, cannot be a ground to convict him or hold him guilty and that too, for a serious offence like murder – Like any other piece of evidence, conduct of accused is also one of circumstances which court may take into consideration along with other evidence on record, direct or indirect – Conduct of accused alone, though may be relevant under Section 8 of Evidence Act, cannot form basis of conviction. (Para 89)

Facts of the case:

Present statutory criminal appeal is at the instance of a convict accused charged with the offence of murder of deceased and is directed against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the High Court of Karnataka dated 02.07.2019 in the Criminal Appeal No. 473 of 2013 by which High Court allowed the acquittal appeal filed by the State of Karnataka against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by Principal Sessions Judge, Chikmagalur dated 20.12.2012 in the Sessions Case No. 59 of 2011 and held the appellant herein guilty of offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. High Court sentenced the appellant herein to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in the event of default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of six months.

Findings of Court:

Evidence of discovery of the weapon, clothes and dead body of the deceased at the instance of the appellant convict herein can hardly be treated as legal evidence, more particularly, considering the various legal infirmities in the same.

Result : Appeal allowed.