STATE OF KARNATAKA versus M.N. RAMDAS

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 112 · Decided: 05-09-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
STATE OF KARNATAKA 
v 
M.N. RAMDAS 
SEPTEMBER 5, 2002 
(RAJENDRA BABU AND P. VENKATARAMA REDD!, JJ.] 
Evidence Act, 1872-Extra-judicial confession-Made before a person 
who has no reason to falsely implicate the accused and his testimony stands 
C corroborated-Evidentiary value of-Held, such confession can be relied on--
On facts, trial Court convicting the accused, however, High Court acquitting 
him-On appeal held, since there is clinching evidence along with extra judicial 
confession made by the accused lo establish his guilt, High Cour/ erred in 
setting aside the conviction. 
D 
Criminal Trial : 
Prosecution case-Reliance of-When sufficient evidence to show accused 
committing murder but no/ as to motive-Held, prosecution case no/ viliated 
on account of this. 
E 
According to the prosecution, respondent-accused murdered his 
companion by inflicting injuries with chopper. It is alleged that 
respondent-~ccused and his companion checked in at a Lodge where 
murder was committed. Respondent-accused made extra-judicial 
confession before PW2 who was sitting at the counter of the Lodge, that 
he had killed his companion. PW2 informed PW3-father of proprietor of 
F the Lodge who then informed the Police. Sub-Inspector found respondent-
accused in the room by the side of the dead body. Trial Court convicted 
respondent-accu$ed. However, High Court set aside the conviction. Hence 
the present appeal. 
G 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The approach of High Court is perverse as it has set aside 
the conviction recorded by trial court on untenable and irrelevant grounds. 
It is not reasonably possible to give benefit of doubt to the accused, as the 
evidence is so clinching. None of the reasons given by the High Court are 
H tenable. On the basis of evidence on record it was not reasonably possible 
112 
STA TE OF KARNATAKA v. M.N. RAMDAS 
113 
to take the view which the High Court did. Hence the judgment of the A 
High Court is set aside and conviction and sentence of the accused is 
restored. (119-H; 120-A; 122-B-q 
2. The unnatural conduct on the part of the accused in committing 
the murder, immediately confessing it to a stranger and then remaining 
in the lodge after the incident will not necessarily shake the veracity of B 
prosecution witnesses testimony but will put the Court on guard to get 
the assurance of truth in the prosecution case by corroborative evidence 
including circumstantial factors. There need not be astute reluctance on 
the part of the court to accept the extra-judicial confession. Further the 
evidence of PW3 corroborates the version of PW2 and both these witnesses C 
have no reason to falsely implicate the accused. That apart, the 
circumstances referred to by the trial Court are almost clinching and lend 
assurance to the correctness of the version of PW2. (119-A-C] 
Rahim Beg and Anr. v. State of U.P., (19721 3 SCC 759, referred to. 
Gura Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (20011 2 SCC 205, relied on. 
3. There was no clinching material where exactly the incident took 
place-whether in first floor or second floor. This alleged discrepancy does 
not throw an iota of doubt on the prosecution case. (120-B-C] 
D 
4. The last seen evidence cannot be discredited on the basis that the E 
hotel register was not produced in order to establish that the accused and 
the deceased stayed together in the room. (120-D-G] 
5. Accused was injured and sent to the hospital, but neither the 
injuries were explained nor examined by the doctor. This lapse on the part F 
of the prosecution by itself does not demolish the prosecution case, the 
omission on the part of the prosecution to produce evidence as to the 
nature of injuries received by the accused is not really material in the 
circumstances of the case. (121-B-DI 
6. The weapon-chopper, found on the table in the room contained G 
human blood as per the chemical analysis report, was not sent to finger 
print expert. Even if it is considered a lapse in the investigation, it will 
not cast a cloud of doubt on the prosecution case. (121-D-E( 
7. One of the prosecution witnesses spoke about the wearing of the 
seized blood stained clothes by the accused. Thus High Court's observation H 
114 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A that none of witnesses spoke about it is factually incorrect. 1121-Ff 
8. When there is abundant evidence to show that the accused and 
the accused alone would have committed the murder, the absence of proof 
of mot

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