PAUL versus STATE OF KERALA

Citation: [2020] 1 S.C.R. 1091 · Decided: 21-01-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1091
PAUL
v.
STATE OF KERALA
(Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 2020)
JANUARY 21, 2020
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND K.M. JOSEPH, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860:
s. 302 – Prosecution under – Initially acquittal by trial court
– On appeal, case remanded to trial court – On remand conviction
by Trial Court – Conviction affirmed by High Court – Appeal to
Supreme Court – Plea of accused confined to alteration of conviction
under Section 302 to one under Section 304 (Part II) giving benefit
of exception 4 to s. 300 – Held: The present case is an unambiguous
case of homicide and not a case of suicide as projected by the
accused – In the facts of the case, none of the exceptions in Section
300 IPC are attracted – Section 86 IPC also not applicable in the
facts of the case – Conviction under Section 302 is confirmed.
ss. 299 and 300 – ‘Culpable Homicide’ and ‘Murder’ –
Discussed. s. 304 (Part I) and (Part II) – Applicability of – Discussed.
s. 86 – When applicable – Discussed.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
s. 313 – Statement under – Evidentiary value of – Held: Such
statement even if contains inculpatory admissions cannot be ignored
– The Court may enter verdict of guilt where there is evidence.
Evidence:
Burden to prove – Held: The burden to prove the case is on
the prosecution, unless the law declares otherwise – The burden to
prove that the case falls under any of the exceptions in s. 300 IPC
is on the accused – Accused can discharge the said burden by virtue
of prosecution evidence, even without adducing any defence
evidence.
   [2020] 1 S.C.R. 1091
1091
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1092
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 It can safely be concluded on the basis of the
material and findings which has been rendered by the courts
concurrently that the case of suicide set up by the appellant was
a completely false plea. It is clear that the appellant caused the
death of his wife by throttling. The injuries clearly has been
appreciated as indicating death by throttling.[PARA 9]
[1101-H; 1102-A-B]
1.2 A statement made by the accused under Section 313
Cr.PC even it contains inculpatory admissions cannot be ignored
and the Court may where there is evidence available proceed to
enter a verdict of guilt.[PARA 14][1107-B]
State of U.P. v. Lakhmi (1998) 4 SCC 336 : [1998] 1
SCR 850 – relied on
1.3. There is a case for the appellant that there were injuries
on the appellant. When there is throttling, unless the victim is
asleep or unconscious, there would be resistance. Injuries on
the aggressor are not uncommon. In the present case there are
also injuries on other parts of body apart from the neck. They
indicate acts of violence by the aggressor. The Court is not even
called upon to pronounce on whether there is anybody else who
would be the aggressor. It is the appellant and appellant alone
who can be attributed with the acts which resulted in the death of
his wife. [PARA 21][1109-F-G]
2.1. The fact that a false case is set up, by itself may not
deprive an accused of the right to establish the fact that the case
against him would still be embraced within any of the exceptions
under Section 300 IPC. The law does not taboo adopting of the
alternate pleas. Ultimately, the question would fall to be decided,
no doubt, on the basis of appreciation of evidence and the
requirements of law flowing from the particular provision of law.
The accused may also be entitled to the benefit of reasonable
doubt. [PARA 18][1108-F-G]
2.2 There can be no doubt that the burden to prove that
the case is made out in a particular case, is on the prosecution
unless the law declares otherwise. To be murder within the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1093
meaning of Section 302 undoubtedly, the offence must be culpable
homicide. In order that it is culpable homicide it must fall under
Section 299 of the IPC but all acts which amount to culpable
homicide do not constitute murder. [PARA 16][1108-C-D]
2.3 There can be no doubt that the burden of proving that
the case fall within the four corners of any of the exceptions under
Section 300 of the IPC is on the accused. It is equally true that
even without adducing any defence evidence it may be possible
for the accused to discharge the said burden with reference to
material appearing by virtue of the prosecution evidence which
includes the cross examination of prosecution witnesses. The
test is one of preponderance of probability. [PARA 17][1108-E]
2.4 In the present case the prosecution case about the

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