STATE OF KARNATAKA versus DAVID RAZARIO AND ANR.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 419 · Decided: 17-09-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: U.C. BANERJEE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

\ 
' I 
'~ 
STATE OF KARNATAKA 
A 
v. 
DAVID RAZARIO AND ANR. 
SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 
[U.C. BANERJEE AND ARIJIT PASA VAT, JJ.] 
B 
Evidence Act, 1872-Section 27: 
Accused allegedly commilling murder and robbery-Evidence relating 
to recovery-Trial Court convicting the accused on the basis of evidence- C 
High Court selling aside the same~orrectness of-Held, High Court erred 
in acquitting the accused-Penal Code, 1860-Sections 302 and 392. 
Conviction-Whether could be based only on recovery of items-Held, 
Question need not be decided since prosecution case is not based only on 
such recovery. 
D 
According to the prosecution an octogenarian lady was robbed and 
murdered by accused-respondents. Investigation Officer found one tape 
recorder missing from the deceased's house, Few days later accused were 
arrested in another case of theft. One of the accused viz. A2 led Investigating 
Officer to the shop of PW-21 to whom he had sold the tape recorder after E 
redeeming the same from PW~8-pawn !>roker, Investigation officer seize~ 
pawn ticket receipt and also recovered the weapon by which dece~sed was 
assaultecJ on basis of the information given by A2. Trial Court convicted Al 
and A2 under section 302 read with section 34 and section 392 read with 
section 34 IPC. However, High Court set aside the conviction. Hence the F 
present appeal. 
Appellant-State contended that High Court was wrong in setting aside 
the conviction by a sketchy and non-reasoned order. 
Respondent contended that trial court applied Section 27 of the Evidence G 
Act to record conviction when the same cannot be the only foundation for 
conviction; that High Court rightly stressed upon the fact that the tape 
recorder was of very small value and for that the accused persons could not 
have taken the life of an elderly lady; and that there was no evidence to show 
that the tape recorder which was pawned belonged to the deceased. 
419 
H 
420 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2002) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I The High Court was clearly in error in directing acquittal 
or the respondents-accused. The evidence of PW-8 and PW-21 are of 
sianlficanee. PW8 who runs pawn broker shop stated that the accused were 
frequently visiting his shop and on day or the incident they pledged a tape 
B recorder which was redeemed the next day. PW21 stated that A:Z approached 
him with an offer to sell a tape recorder, which was pledged with PW-8. He 
Identified the tape recorder which was sold by the accused. Employee of PW-
8 corroborated the statement of PW 8. Oral evidence of prosecution witnesses, 
the documentary evidence relating to the tape recorder, customs invoice and 
C the colour photograph established that the tape recorder that was earlier with 
the deceased was the same that was pawned by the aecused with PW8 and was 
subsequently sold to PW21. Furthermore forensic reports disclosed that blood 
group found on the weapon which was used for assaulting the deceased was 
the same as found on the shawl which the deceased was wearing. 
D 
E 
(424-C, D, E, G, H; 425-A, B, EJ 
1.2. The plea that the accused could not kill an old lady for an article of 
very small value particularly when article of higher value were not touched 
is based on suppositions. In view of the credible evidence on record, it is not 
necessary to fathom as to what was in the mind of the accused or find out why 
valuable articles were not lifted. (425-C, D( 
1.3. Instant case is not a case where the prosecution case rests only 
on the evidence in terms of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. That was only one 
of the pieces of evidence. II is, therefore, not necessary to decide the 
question as to whether conviction can be recorded only on the basis of such 
F recovery. (425-El 
G 
Delhi Admn. v. Ba/akrishan, AIR (1972) SC 3; Md. !nayatu/lah v. State 
of Maharashtra, AIR (1976) SC 483; Palukuri Kotayya v. Emperor, AIR 
(1947) PC 67 and State of Maharashtra v. Danu Gopinath Shirde and Ors., 
(2000) Crl. W 2301, relied on. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 844 
of 199S. 
from the Judgment and Order dated 23.3.92 of the Karnataka High Court 
in Crl. A. No. 388 of 1989. 
H 
M. Veerppa for the Appellant. 
,. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA v. DAVID RAZARIO [ARIJIT PASAYAT. J.) 
421 
Naresh Kaushik, Ms. Lalita Kaushik and Shree Pal Singh, (N.P) For the A 
Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASA:V AT, J. An octogenarian old lady was the victim o

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