SIJU KURIAN versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation: [2023] 4 S.C.R. 397 · Decided: 17-04-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SURYA KANT · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 8 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
397
SIJU KURIAN
v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
(Criminal Appeal No. 64 of 2021)
APRIL 17, 2023
[SURYA KANT AND ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: ss. 302, 201, 404 and 419 – Circumstantial
Evidence – Reliance upon – Prosecution case that the accused-
labourer in the farmhouse of the victim, murdered the victim by hitting
him with iron rod and then hid the dead body in a pit located in the
garden – Other articles also concealed – Accused stole the articles
in the farm house and sold them as also sold the land to make undue
monetary gain – Acquittal by the trial court on the ground that
prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt –
However, the High Court convicted and sentenced the accused for
the offence punishable u/ss. 302, 201, 404 and 419 – On appeal,
held: Death of the victim being homicidal stands proved by the post
mortem report – Prime witnesses as also other prosecution witnesses
testified that accused last seen in the company of the victim –
Recovery of dead body as also articles of the deceased on basis of
the voluntary statement of accused, and was also proved through
the prosecution witnesses – Articles sold by the accused were
recovered on the strength of the voluntary statement of the accused
– Plea that confession statement is to be discarded in its entirety
cannot be accepted – Also it cannot be said that the statement was
not being voluntary or it was recorded improperly – Thus, the
conclusion arrived at by the High Court is based on sound
appreciation of evidence and proper application of law – No
material irregularity in the judgment of the High Court – On re-
appreciation of entire evidence by the High Court in proper
perspective, it was rightly held that the accused alone committed
the murder of the victim and there being no other possible view
which could be considered as missing in the link of chain of
circumstances – Thus, the order passed by the High Court upheld –
Evidence Act 1872 – ss. 8, 25 and 27.
[2023] 4 S.C.R. 397
397
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
398
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 4 S.C.R.
Evidence Act, 1827: s 27 – How much of information received
from accused may be proved – Held: Section 27 permits the
derivative use of custodial statement in the ordinary course of events
– There is no automatic presumption that the custodial statements
have been extracted through compulsion – In pursuance to a
voluntary statement made by the accused, a fact must be discovered
which was in the exclusive knowledge of the accused alone – In
such circumstances, that part of the voluntary statement which leads
to the discovery of a new fact which was only in the knowledge of
the accused would become admissible u/s.27 – Such statement should
have been voluntarily made and the facts stated therein should not
have been in the knowhow of others.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 378 – Appeal against
acquittal – Powers of appellate court – General principles – Stated.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 It would be open for the High Court to re-apprise
the evidence and conclusions drawn by the trial court and in the
case of the judgment of the trial court being perverse that is
contrary to the evidence on record, then in such circumstances
the High Court would be justified in interfering with the findings
of the trial court and/or reversing the finding of the trial court.
The appellate court may reverse the order of acquittal in the
exercise of its powers and there is no indication in the Code of
any limitation or restriction having placed on the High Court in
exercise of its power as an appellate court. No distinction can be
drawn as regards the power of the High Court in dealing with an
appeal, between an appeal from an order of acquittal and an appeal
from a conviction. The Code of Criminal Procedure does not place
any fetter on exercise of the power to review at large the evidence
upon which the order of acquittal was founded, and to reach the
conclusion that upon that evidence the order of acquittal should
be reversed. [Para 13][411-F; 412-B-D]
1.2. The circumstantial evidence relied upon by the State
to prove the circumstances which points to the guilt of the
accused alone for having committed the offence as summarized
by the High Court cannot be found fault with. [Para 15][413-H;
414-A]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
399
1.3. The death of the victim being homicide stands proved
by virtue of the Post Mortem report. The said report would
indicate the death would have occurred 45-60 days prior t

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