IRAPPA SIDDAPPA MURGANNAVAR versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation: [2021] 11 S.C.R. 51 · Decided: 08-11-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 10 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
51
IRAPPA SIDDAPPA MURGANNAVAR
v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 1473-1474 of 2017)
NOVEMBER 08, 2021
[L. NAGESWARA RAO, SANJIV KHANNA AND
B. R. GAVAI, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: ss. 302, 376, 364, 366A and 201 – Rape
and murder – Prosecution case that accused raped and murdered a
five year old girl, and then disposed of her body, tied in a gunny
bag, into the stream – Conviction and sentence for commission of
offence u/s. 302, 376, 364, 366A and 201 –  Upheld by the High
Court – On appeal, held: On overall view of the evidence and witness
statements adduced by the prosecution, the chain of circumstances
affirmatively establishes the guilt of the appellant – Contradictions
and inconsistencies highlighted in the prosecution’s case, do not
create a reasonable doubt – Circumstances relied upon are fully
established – They are conclusive in nature and tendency – Chain
of evidence is so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground
for conclusion consistent with the innocence of the appellant – Facts
established consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the
accused and exclude every hypothesis except the one proved – Thus,
the order of the courts below convicting the appellant for offences
u/s. 302, 376, 364, 366A and 201 upheld.
Sentence/Sentencing: Death sentence – Imposition of –
Commission of rape and murder of 5 year old – Conviction and
sentence of the appellant for the offences u/ss. 302, 376, 364, 366A
and 201 – Commutation of sentence of death imposed – Held: There
is hope for reformation and rehabilitation – There are sufficient
mitigating factors to commute the sentence of death imposed by the
courts below into imprisonment for life – Young age of the appellant
at the time of commission of the offence (23/25 years), his weak
socio-economic background, absence of any criminal antecedents,
non pre-meditated nature of the crime, and that the accused has
spent nearly 10 years 10 months in prison are other extenuating
factors – No doubt the appellant has committed an abhorrent crime,
[2021] 11 S.C.R. 51
51
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
52
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 11 S.C.R.
incarceration for life would serve as sufficient punishment and
penitence for his actions – Thus, death sentence commuted to
imprisonment for life – However, the appellant not entitled to
premature release/remission for the offence u/s. 302 until he has
undergone actual imprisonment for at least thirty years.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 235(2) – Infraction of
– Plea of appellant-accused that by passing a common order on
conviction and sentencing, the High Court contravened by not
hearing the petitioner separately on sentencing – Held: Adequate
and sufficient opportunity has been afforded to the appellant to
place all the relevant materials on record.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 On an overall view of the evidence and witness
statements adduced by the prosecution, the chain of circumstances
affirmatively establishes the guilt of the appellant. Though the
counsel for the appellant has painstakingly sought to highlight
contradictions and inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case, it
is believed that the same do not create a reasonable doubt in the
mind of this Court. The five-fold test prescribed in Sharad
Birdhichand Sarda’s case are satisfied as the circumstances relied
upon are fully established; they are conclusive in nature and
tendency; the chain of evidence is so complete as not to leave
any reasonable ground for conclusion consistent with the
innocence of the appellant; the facts established are consistent
only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and exclude
every hypothesis except the one proved. The decision of the
High Court as well as the District and Sessions Court convicting
the appellant for rape and murder of R etc., thus, is upheld. [Para
21][67-G-H; 68-A-B]
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra
(1984) 4 SCC 116 : [1985] 1 SCR 88 – relied on.
1.2 The defence is entitled to rely upon contradictions in
ocular evidence furnished by the eye-witnesses and highlight any
incongruity between their versions and the prosecution’s case.
It is not a universally affirmed position that the witnesses must
be confronted by the defence to seek advantage of the
contradictions. [Para 12][64-D]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
53
1.3 On the aspect that PW-7, PW-8, PW-9 and PW-10 are
planted witnesses, at first the site map is taken note of which
indicates the place/location where PW-7 resides and al

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.