STATE OF KARNATAKA versus P. RAVIKUMAR @ RAVI ETC.

Citation: [2018] 10 S.C.R. 844 · Decided: 16-08-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R. BANUMATHI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
844
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 10 S.C.R.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
v.
P. RAVIKUMAR @ RAVI ETC.
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 1428-1429 of 2013)
AUGUST 16, 2018
[R. BANUMATHI AND VINEET SARAN, JJ.]
Appeal: State’s appeal against acquittal – Prosecution case
was that accused no.3, the wife of the victim-deceased had illicit
relation with accused no.1 and on account of this accused no.1
and accused no.3 along with accused no.2 hatched a conspiracy
and eliminated the victim-deceased – Trial court convicted all the
accused persons under s.302 r/w s.34 and 120B IPC by relying on
the extra judicial confessions – High Court maintained the conviction
of accused no.1, however, acquitted accused no.2 and 3 on the
ground that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in particular
PW-2 , PW-20 and PW-4 did not establish the guilt of A-2 and A-3
beyond reasonable doubt – State’s appeal against acquittal of A-2
and A-3  – Held: Extra judicial confession is a weak piece of
evidence, which cannot form basis for conviction unless supported
by other substantive evidence, which is lacking in this case – Insofar
as accused no.3 is concerned, prosecution relied upon photographs
recovered on the disclosure statement of A-3 and also examined
PW-12 (photographer) who stated that A-1 and A-3 came to his
studio and took joint photographs – The said photographs at the
most may only show that A-1 and A-3 had illicit relationship – No
evidence was adduced to prove that A-3 had hatched conspiracy
with A-2 to commit the murder of the deceased – There was no
‘compelling reason’ or ‘substantial infirmity’ warranting interference
with the order of acquittal of  A-2 and A-3 – Appeals dismissed –
Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 r/w s.34 and 120B – Evidence – Extra
judicial confession.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
Nos. 1428-1429 of 2013.
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.01.2009 of the High Court
of  Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1432 of 2005 and
1549 of 2005.
844
[2018] 10 S.C.R. 844
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
845
Joseph Aristotle, Ms. Prya Aristotle, Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Dr. Sushil
Balwada, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
R. BANUMATHI, J.  1. Challenging the acquittal of respondent
nos. 1 and 2 (accused 2 & 3) respectively for the offence under Section
302, IPC the State of Karnataka has preferred these appeals.
2. Case of the prosecution is that respondent no. 2 (A-3) D.B.
Savitha - wife of the deceased - Mohan Kumar was allegedly having
illicit relationship with accused no. 1. On account of such motive, Accused
No. 1 and respondent nos. 1 and 2 herein (Accused Nos. 2 & 3) are
alleged to have hatched a conspiracy in committing the murder of
deceased  Mohan Kumar- husband  of A-3 (D.B. Savitha) on the ground
that he used to harass her on the  illicit relationship of A-1 and A-3. On
07.07.2003, the deceased Mohan Kumar left the house in the morning
for his fertilizer shop and did not return back. At about 9.30 p.m., the
mother of the  deceased came to know through PW-6 (Basavaraju) that
the body of her son is lying on the side of the road and that he had
allegedly fallen from the bike.  The deceased was taken to the hospital
where he declared dead. The law was set in motion and all the three
accused were held under Section 302 IPC read with 120(B),IPC.
3. The trial court convicted all the accused under section 302 IPC
read with 34 IPC and 120(B),IPC. On appeal, the High Court maintained
the conviction of accused no. 1 and acquitted respondent nos. 1 & 2
(Accused nos. 2 and 3).
4.  we have heard Mr. Joseph Aristotle, learned counsel appearing
for the state of Karnataka.
5. Though the respondents have entered appearance through
counsel but at the time of hearing the matter none appears on behalf of
the respondents. We have carefully perused the impugned judgment,
evidence and materials on record.
6. Insofar as respondent no. 1 (accused No. 2) - P. Ravi Kumar
@ Ravi is concerned, the prosecution relies upon the extra judicial
confession made to PW-2 (Auto Driver) who is stated to be the friend
of accused nos. 1 and 2. PW-2 has stated that about 20 days prior to the
date of incident, when he was sitting in the auto, A-1 was with him and
that accused no. 1 asked him to chase the deceased who was going on
STATE OF KARNATAKA  v.  P. RAVIKUMAR @ RAVI ETC.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
846
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 10 S.C.R.
his motorcycle.  PW-2 further stated that about 20 days later accused
nos. 1 and 

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