SUBRAMANYA versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation: [2022] 14 S.C.R. 828 · Decided: 13-10-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 20 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
828
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 14 S.C.R.
   [2022] 14 S.C.R. 828
828
 SUBRAMANYA
 v.
 STATE OF KARNATAKA
(Criminal Appeal No. 242 of 2022)
OCTOBER 13, 2022
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, CJI AND J.B. PARDIWALA, J.]
Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 – Evidence Act – ss. 8, 27 & 30 –
Motive – Discovery Statement – Extra Judicial Confession – Appellant
(A-1) and A-2 conspired to do away with the victim-deceased – Both
are alleged to have entered her house and somewhere near the cattle
shed, the deceased was hit on her head and neck with a hard object
like a club – Later, they alleged to have removed the gold chain, a
pair of ear studs and one gold ring from the body of the deceased
– Later, A-3 is alleged to have helped the appellant and A-2 in
wrapping the dead body of the deceased in a sari and thereafter
dumping it on the land of one ‘D’ – All three Accused were tried
together – Prosecution relied upon the facts of motive as appellant
had illicit relation with original A-2 and deceased was coming in
their way, the extra judicial confession alleged to have been made
by A-3 before PW- 7 (son-in-law of the deceased), discovery of the
dead body, recovery of the ornaments and discovery of the weapon
of offence – Trial Court acquitted the appellant and the other two
co-accused of all the charges – Appeal filed before High Court
against acquittal order – High Court dismissed the appeal so far as
A-2 is concerned and convicted A-1 u/s 302 of the IPC and A-3 u/s
201 r/w s.34 of the IPC – Appeal filed by A-1 before Supreme Court
– Held: The High Court should not have disturbed the acquittal
recorded by the trial court – The Court doesn’t find any satisfaction
recorded by High Court for treating the findings of the trial court
palpably wrong,manifestly errorneous or demonstrably
unsustainable – The circumstances relating to the making of an
extra judicial confession and the discovery of the weapon of offence
etc. have not been established , the chain of circumstantial evidence
snaps so badly that to consider any other circumstance, even like
motive, would not be necessary – It is concluded that the evidence
of discovery of the weapon, clothes and dead body of the deceased
at the instance of the appellant convict herein can hardly be treated
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
829
as legal evidence, more particularly, considering the various legal
infirmities in the same – Therefore, the High Court committed error
in holding the appellant convict herein guilty of murder – The
appellant convict is set at liberty.
Extra Judicial Confession – s.30 – Evidentiary value of –
Extra judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and the court
must ensure that the same inspires confidence and is corroborated
by other prosecution evidence – After subjecting the evidence of
the witness to a rigorous test on the touchstone of credibility, the
extra judicial confession can be accepted and can be the basis of a
conviction if it passes the test of credibility – Where an extra judicial
confession is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, its credibility
becomes doubtful and it loses its importance like in the present case.
Discovery Statement – s.27 – Mere discovery cannot be
interpreted as sufficient to infer authorship of concealment by the
person who discovered the weapon – He could have derived
knowledge of the existence of that weapon at the place through
some other source also – Therefore, it cannot be presumed or inferred
that because a person discovered the weapon, he was the person
who had concealed it, least it can be presumed that he used it.
Motive – s.8 – Evidentiary value – The presence of motive in
the facts and circumstances of the case creates a strong suspicion
against the accused appellant but suspicion, howsoever strong,
cannot be a substitute for proof of the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt.
Circumstantial Evidence – The Court has to draw an inference
with respect to whether the chain of circumstances is complete, and
when the circumstances therein are collectively considered, the same
must lead only to the irresistible conclusion that the accused alone
is perpetrator of crime.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
Held: 1. The Court in Chandrappa and Others v. State of
Karnataka highlighted that there is one significant difference in
exercising power while hearing an appeal against acquittal by the
appellate court. The appellate court would not interfere where
SUBRAMANYA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
830
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[20

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