SWAMY SHRADDANANDA @ MURALI MANOHAR MISHRA versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation: [2007] 7 S.C.R. 616 · Decided: 18-05-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Matter referred to larger bench

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
SWAMY SHRADDANANDA@MURALI MANOHAR MISHRA 
v. 
ST A TE OF KARNA TAKA 
MAY 18,2007 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KAT JU, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860-ss. 302 and 201-Murder of wife-Circumstantial 
evidence-Conviction and death sentence by Court beloW-:Jn appeal-HELD 
C Per Sinha J : Conviction justified-On facts there is one weak link in the 
hypoihesis that the murder was meticulously planned-Taking an overall 
view death sentence altered to life imprisonment-Per Katju, J. : Jn view of 
difference of opinion, matter referred to larger Bench-Evidence Act, 1872-
s, 27-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-s. 235 (2)-Sentencing-Death 
D sentence-Principle of Proportionality. 
The appellant-accused was prosecuted for murder of his wife. According 
to prosecution, the deceased was a rich and beautiful muslim lady. She was 
married and had four daughters. When she met the appellant, she sought his 
assistance to manage her properties. Appellant came to the deceased and 
E started living with her. The deceased got separated from her husband. 
Thereafter appellant married the deceased. She executed General Power of 
Attorney and Will in favour of the appellant. Despite the marriage, the parents 
and one of the daughters (PW 5) of the deceased were in her contact. PW 5 
lost contact with the deceased since May 1991. Several times, when she fried 
to contact the deceased, she was mislead by the appellant about her 
F whereabouts. When she was convinced that the appellant is telling a lie, she 
filed a complaint in Police Station about missing of the deceased. Thereafter 
appellant had sought anticipatory bail, and the same was granted to him. The 
case was given to Central Crime Branch. When the appellant was interrogated, 
he confessed to have drugged the deceased and putting her in a wooden box 
'G had buried her in the backyard of the house. 
H 
At the instance of the appellant, the body of.the deceased was exhumed. 
-The proceedings of the exhumation was videographed. The articles found in 
the box were identified by the mother and servant of the deceased as belonging 
616 
-+-
• 
SWAMY SHRADDANANDA@ MURALI MANOHAR MISHRA 1·. ST A TE OF KARNATAKA 
617 
~ 
... "t 
to the deceased. The skeletal remains were subjected to autopsy. PW 1, a doctor A 
had conducted Photo Superimposition Method Test on the skull. Investigating 
team recorded the statements of the witnesses including those who had dealing 
about the properties of the deceased. Documentary evidence was collected. 
Accused was charged u/ss. 302/201 IPC. Trial court finding him guilty B 
of commission of offence u/ss. 302 and 201 IPC, sentenced him to death. In 
appeal and death reference, High Court heard the appellant- accused on the 
""' 
question of sentence in view of his pleas that he was not given opportunity of • 
~ 
hearing before imposition of sentence. Appellant in his statement accepted to 
be instrumental in burying the dead body. The High Court confirmed the 
conviction as well as the sentence. Hence the present appeal. 
c 
In view of the difference in opinion on the question of sentence, referring 
the matter to the larger Bench, the Court 
HELD: Per Sinha, J. I.I. The various circumstances leading to the 
pointing out the guilt of the appellant have been established, the cumulative D 
.....\ 
effect whereof would show that all the links in the chain are complete and the 
-\' 
conclusion of the guilt is fully established. [Para 47] [643-A] 
Alolce Nath Dutta and Ors. v. State of West Bengal, (2006) 13 SCALE 
467, relied on. 
E 
Sharad Birdhichand Sardo v. State of Maharashtra, AIR (1984) SC 
1622, referred to. 
1.2. The death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. The identity of 
the dead body has also been established. The circumstances in which the ,F 
' 
deceased married the appellant have also not been disputed. Their marriage 
, 
was proved by PW-8. Appellant also did not deny or dispute that he had been 
..,., 
living with the deceased at all material times at the address where the incident 
allegedly took place. It has furthermore not been disputed that she had not 
been seen on and from 28.05.1991. It has also not been seriously disputed 
that the deceased was last seen in the company of the appellant. 
G 
[Paras 17 and 32) [633-E, 638-B) 
1.3. The Court is not oblivious of the fact that there is a material 
-·~ 
difference between 'may be' and 'must be' and furthermore in a case of this 
nature the evidence must be considered with more than ordinary 

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