LexMADHU @ MADHURANATHA & ANR. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 12 S.C.R. 947 MAOHU @ MADHURANATHA & ANR. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA (Criminal Appeal Nos.1357-1358 of 2011) NOVEMBER 28, 2013 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND S.A. BOBDE, JJ.] Evidence - Circumstantial evidence - Appreciation of - Prosecution case that with the motive of committing robbery, A B the three accused-appellants murdered the son of PW-22, C robbed him, chopped off his head and buried the trunk of his body and threw the head and the weapon of offence in the river - On consideration of circumstantial evidence, both the courts below reached to a conclusion that the appellants had committed the crime - Convictiorrof appellants u/ss.364, 302, D 201 rlw s.34 alongwith death sentence - Challenge to - Held: Conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence - On facts, no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Courts below- Conviction upheld - However, the facts and circumstances involved do not meet E the requirement of rarest of rare cases and it is not a fit case where the death sentence awarded to the appellants should . be affirmed - The ends of justice would meet if they are awarded the sentence of 30 years without remission - Penal Code, 1860- ss.364, 302, 201 rlw s.34. F Evidence - Discrepancies in depositions of witnesses - Appreciation of - Held: While appreciating the evidence of a witness, minor discrepancies on trivial matters which do not affect the core of the prosecution case must not prompt the court to reject the evidence in its entirety - The covrt is not G supposed to give vndve importance to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to the heart of the matter, and shake the basic version of the prosecvtion witness. 947 H A B 948 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 12 S.C.R. Evidence - Last seen together theory - Held: In cases where the accused was last seen with the deceased victim (last seen-together theory) just before the incident, it becomes the duty of the accused to explain the circumstances under which the death of the victim occurred. Witness - Police witness - Appreciation of - Held: No prohibition to the effect that a policeman cannot be a witness or that his deposition cannot be relied upon if it inspires confidence. C Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.174 - Inquest report - Held: Neither the inquest report nor the post-mortem report can be termed as basic or substantive evidence - Any discrepancy occu"ing therein cannot be termed as fatal or suspicious circumstance which would warrant benefit of doubt D to the accused. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.313 - Examination under - Obligation of the accused - Held: It is obligatory on the part of the accused while being examined E u/s.313 CrPC, to furnish some explanation with respect to the incriminating circumstances associated with him - The court must take note of such explanation even in a case of circumstantial evidence, to decide whether or not the chain of circumstances is complete. F Sentence I Sentencing - Death sentence - When wa"anted - Held: The extreme penalty of death need not be inflicted except in gravest cases of extreme culpability - Life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence is an exception - The balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating G circumstances has to be drawn up - The condition of providing special reasons for awarding death penalty is not to be construed linguistically but it is to satisfy the basic features of a reasoning supporting and making award of death penalty unquestionable - The circumstances and the manner of H committing the crime should be such that it pricks the judicial MAOHU @ MADHURANATHA & ANR. v. STATE OF 949 KARNATAKA conscience of the court to the extent that the only and A inevitable conclusion should be awarding of death penalty. The prosecution case was that with the motive of committing robbery, the three accused-appellants murdered the son of PW-22, robbed him, chopped off his head and buried the trunk of his body and threw the head 8 and the weapon of offence in the river. The prosecution relied upon circumstantial evidence to prove its case. PW- 11 deposed about the motive and produced cash amounting to Rs. 39000/- and a mobile phone along with its SIM purchased from the total cash of Rs. 50000/- C deposited by A-1 with him. A-1 made Oextra-judicial confession before PW-13, requesting PW-13 to save him and on his advice, surre
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.