VENKATESH @ CHANDRA & ANR. ETC versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation: [2022] 4 S.C.R. 556 · Decided: 19-04-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
556
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 4 S.C.R.
[2022] 4 S.C.R. 556
556
VENKATESH @ CHANDRA & ANR. ETC.
v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 1476-1477 of 2018)
APRIL 19, 2022
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JJ.]
Evidence Act, 1872: s.27 – Settled Legal Position – Going by
the parameters of s.27 of the Evidence Act, only so much of
information which relates distinctly to the facts thereby discovered
can be stated to have been proved – Only that part of the statement
which leads to the discovery of certain facts alone could be marked
in evidence and not the entire of the statement – All the earlier facts
narrated in the statement about past history which are in the nature
of self-implication, would be inadmissible as amounting to a
confession made to a police officer.
Practice and Procedure: The Prosecuting Agency should u/
s.27 of Evidence Act, 1872 record only that part of the statement
which leads to the discovery of fact – The practice of putting the
confession of the accused made to the police officer which is
otherwise hit by the principles of Evidence Act must immediately be
stopped as such kind of statements may have a direct tendency to
influence and prejudice the mind of the Court.
Evidence: Circumstantial Evidence – Legal Position – The
circumstances on the basis of which the conclusion of guilt is to be
drawn, must be fully established and the circumstances forming the
chain of evidence must be so complete as not to leave any reasonable
ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the
accused and should rule out every possible hypothesis except the
one to be proved by the prosecution.
Media Trial: Consequences and Limitations – All matters
relating to the crime and whether a particular thing happens to be
a conclusive piece of evidence must be dealt with by a Court of Law
and not through a TV channel – If at all there was a voluntary
statement, the matter would be dealt with by the Court of Law – The
public platform is not a place for such debate or proof of what
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
557
otherwise is the exclusive domain and function of Courts of law –
Any such debate or discussion touching upon matters which are in
the domain of Courts would amount to direct interference in
administration of criminal justice.
Criminal law: Approach of Court in considering the
involvement of accused in other crime – Distinction, during bail
and trial proceedings – Approach at different stages including the
stage of considering the bail application are qualitatively different
– At the stage of consideration of bail, the primary concern is to
weigh in balance the liberty of an accused and the possible prejudice
that may get visited upon the societal interest in case he is released
and therefore it would be apt and proper to consider his involvement
in other crimes – But at the stage of final assessment whether
conviction be recorded or not, the matter must be considered purely
on its merits unless the very membership of a gang or a group or an
outfit itself can amount to an offence or as an aggravated form of
an offence – At the stage of sentencing, his involvement in other
crimes may be a relevant factor provided the concerned material in
the form of concluded judgments in the other matters are brought
on record in a manner known to law – The established involvement
in other matters would then certainly be relevant while dealing with
the question whether the concerned accused is required to be dealt
with sternly or leniently.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. It was observed by the Privy Council in Pulukuri
Kotayya and Ors. v. King-Emperor the words - “with which I
stabbed A” were inadmissible since they did not relate to the
discovery of knife in the house of the informant. Applying this
logic, only that part of the statement which leads to the discovery
of certain facts alone could be marked in evidence and not the
entirely of the statement. Coming to the instant case and going
by the principle and the illustration highlighted by the Privy
Council the expression “where we committed murder” must not
come on record. Similarly, all the earlier facts narrated in the
statement about past history which are in the nature of self-
implication, would be inadmissible as amounting to a confession
made to a Police Officer. All the statements must be read
accordingly. [Para 18][579-C-F]
VENKATESH @ CHANDRA & ANR. ETC. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
558
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[20

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