# SUBRAMANYA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

- **Citation:** [2022] 14 S.C.R. 828
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2022-10-13
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 242 of 2022
- **Bench:** Uday Umesh Lalit, J.B. Pardiwala
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/subramanya-v-state-of-karnataka-35752
- **Pages:** 61

## Headnote

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. St

## Text

_Characters 0–39,885 of 133,335. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39885 for what follows._

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
[2022] 14 S.C.R.
the judgment impugned is based on evidence and the view taken
was reasonable and plausible. This is because the appellate court
will determine the fact that there is presumption in favour of the
accused and the accused is entitled to get the benefit of doubt
but if it decides to interfere it should assign reasons for differing
with the decision of acquittal. [Para 43][855-H; 856-A-B]
2. The date of the alleged crime is 23.08.2010. The so called
extra judicial confession, said to have been made by Seetharam
Bhat (accused No. 3) is dated 09.12.2010. The Court fail to
understand why all of a sudden Seetharam (accused No. 3) after a
period of almost four months, thought fit to make an extra judicial
confession before the PW 7 H.T. Yogesh involving himself and
the appellant herein in the alleged crime. An extra judicial
confession, if voluntary and true and made in a fit state of mind,
can be relied upon by the Court. The confession will have to be
proved like any other fact. The value of the evidence as to
confession, like any other evidence, depends upon the veracity
of the witness to whom it has been made. The value of the
evidence as to the confession depends on the reliability of the
witness who gives the evidence. It is not open to any court to
start with a presumption that extra judicial confession is a weak
type of evidence. It would depend on the nature of the
circumstances, the time when the confession was made and the
credibility of the witnesses who speak to such a confession. Such
a confession can be relied upon and conviction can be founded
thereon if the evidence about the confession comes from the
mouth of witnesses who appear to be unbiased, not even remotely
inimical to the accused, and in respect of whom nothing is brought
out which may tend to indicate that he may have a motive for
attributing an untruthful statement to the accused, the words
spoken to by the witness are clear, unambiguous and unmistakably
convey that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime and
nothing is omitted by the witness which may militate against it.
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. Extra judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
831
and the court must ensure that the same inspires confidence and
is corroborated by other prosecution evidence. [Paras 52, 53 &
54][864-G-H; 865-A-E]
3. It is well settled that conviction can be based on a
voluntarily confession but the rule of prudence requires that
wherever possible it should be corroborated by independent
evidence. Extra judicial confession of accused need not in all cases
be corroborated. In Madan Gopal Kakkad v. Naval Dubey and
Another, the Court after referring to Piara Singh and Others v.
State of Punjab, held that the law does not require that the evidence
of an extra judicial confession should in all cases be corroborated.
The rule of prudence does not require that each and every
circumstance mentioned in the confession must be separately
and independently corroborated. [Para 56][867-C-D]
Madan Gopal Kakkad v. Naval Dubey and Another
(1992) 3 SCC 204 : [1992] 2 SCR 921; Piara Singh
and Others v. State of Punjab (1977) 4 SCC 452 : [1978]
1 SCR 597 - referred to.
4. In the case on hand, the High Court committed a serious
error in making the confessional statement as the basis and
thereafter going in search for corroboration. The High Court
concluded that the confessional statement is corroborated in
material particulars without first considering and marshalling the
evidence against the appellant convict herein excluding the
conviction altogether from consideration. As held in the decision,
cited, only if on such consideration on the evidence available,
other than the confession a conviction can safely be based then
only the confession could be used to support that belief or
conclusion. [Para 59][868-B-C]
5. The first and the basic infirmity in the evidence of all the
aforesaid prosecution witnesses is that none of them have
deposed the exact statement said to have been made by the
appellant herein which ultimately led to the discovery of a fact
relevant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. [Para 77][879-EF]
6. If, it is say of the investigating officer that the accused
appellant while in custody on his own free will and volition made
SUBRAMANYA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
832
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 14 S.C.R.
a statement that he would lead to the place where he had hidden
the weapon of offence, the site of burial of the dead body, clothes
etc., then the first thing that the investigating officer should have
done was to call for two independent witnesses at the police station
itself. Once the two independent witnesses would arrive at the
police station thereafter in their presence the accused should be
asked to make an appropriate statement as he may desire in regard
to pointing out the place where he is said to have hidden the
weapon of offence etc. When the accused while in custody makes
such statement before the two independent witnesses
(panch-witnesses) the exact statement or rather the exact words
uttered by the accused should be incorporated in the first part of
the panchnama that the investigating officer may draw in
accordance with law. This first part of the panchnama for the
purpose of Section 27 of the Evidence Act is always drawn at the
police station in the presence of the independent witnesses so
as to lend credence that a particular statement was made by the
accused expressing his willingness on his own free will and
volition to point out the place where the weapon of offence or any
other article used in the commission of the offence had been
hidden. Once the first part of the panchnama is completed
thereafter the police party along with the accused and the two
independent witnesses (panch-witnesses) would proceed to the
particular place as may be led by the accused. If from that particular
place anything like the weapon of offence or blood stained clothes
or any other article is discovered then that part of the entire
process would form the second part of the panchnama. This is
how the law expects the investigating officer to draw the discovery
panchnama as contemplated under Section 27 of the Evidence
Act. If the entire oral evidence of the investigating officer is
read then it is clear that the same is deficient in all the aforesaid
relevant aspects of the matter. [Para 78][879-F-H; 880-A-D]
7. In Dudh Nath Pandey v. State of U.P., the Court observed
that the evidence of discovery of pistol at the instance of the
appellant cannot, by itself, prove that he who pointed out the
weapon wielded it in the offence. The statement accompanying
the discovery was found to be vague to identify the authorship of
concealment and it was held that pointing out of the weapon may,
at the best, prove the appellant's knowledge as to where the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
833
weapon was kept. Thus, in the absence of exact words, attributed
to an accused person, as statement made by him being deposed
by the investigating officer in his evidence, and also without
proving the contents of the panchnama, the High Court was not
justified in placing reliance upon the circumstance of discovery
of weapon. [Paras 85 & 86][883-A-C]
 Dudh Nath Pandey v. State of U.P. AIR (1981) SC 911
- relied on.
8. In the context of judgments, the Court took a note of
caution. Although the conduct of an accused may be a relevant
fact under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, yet the same, by itself,
cannot be a ground to convict him or hold him guilty and that too,
for a serious offence like murder. Like any other piece of evidence,
the conduct of an accused is also one of the circumstances which
the court may take into consideration along with the other evidence
on record, direct or indirect. What is being tried to convey is that
the conduct of the accused alone, though may be relevant under
Section 8 of the Evidence Act, cannot form the basis of conviction.
[Para 89][885-E-G]
9. Thus, even if it is believed that the accused appellant
had a motive to commit the crime, the same may be an important
circumstance in a case based on circumstantial evidence but
cannot take the place as a conclusive proof that the person
concerned was the author of the crime. One could even say that
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. The trial court
rightly disbelieved motive to commit the crime as the evidence
in this regard is absolutely hearsay in nature.[Para 92][887-D-E]
10. The fact that Court has ruled out the circumstances
relating to the making of an extra judicial confession and the
discovery of the weapon of offence etc. as not having been
established, the chain of circumstantial evidence snaps so badly
that to consider any other circumstance, even like motive, would
not be necessary. [Para 93][887-F]
SUBRAMANYA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
834
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 14 S.C.R.
11. Thus, in view of the discussion, The Court has reached
to the conclusion 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 as legal evidence,
more particularly, considering the various legal infirmities in the
same. Therefore, It is concluded that the High Court committed
error in holding the appellant convict herein guilty of the offence
of murder. The appeal succeeds and allowed. The impugned
judgment and order of conviction passed by the High Court is
set aside. [Paras 94, 95 & 96][887-G-H; 888-A]
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra
(1984) 4 SCC 116 : [1985] 1 SCR 88 - relied on.
Sheo Swarup v. King Emperor (1934) SCC OnLine PC
42 : AIR 1934 PC 227; Chandrappaand Others v. State
of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415 : [2007] 2 SCR 630;
Atley v. State of UttarPradesh AIR 1955 SC 807; Sanwat
Singh and Others v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1961 SC
715 : [1961] 3 SCR 120; Aher Raja Khima v. State of
Saurashtra, AIR 1956 SC 217 : [1955] 2 SCR 1285;
M.G. Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1963 SC
200 : [1963] 2 SCR 405; Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade
and Another v. State of Maharashtra (1973) 2 SCC 793
: [1974] 1 SCR 489; Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of
Gujarat (1996) 9SCC225 : [1996] 2 Suppl. SCR 265;
Ajit Savant Majagvai v. State of Karnataka (1997) 7
SCC 110 : [1997] 3 Suppl. SCR 444; Nepal Singh v.
State of Haryana (2009) 12 SCC 351 : [2009] 6
SCR 982; State of Haryana v. Nepal Singh CRA-D No.
99 DBA of 1993 order dated 21-7-1997 (P&H); State
of Uttar Pradesh v. Sahai and Others (1982) 1 SCC
352; Arunachalam v. P.S.R. Sadhanantham and Another,
(1979) 2 SCC 297 : [1979] 3 SCR 482; State of
Haryana v. Lakhbir Singh and Another (1991) Supp
(1) SCC 35; State of Rajasthan v. Sukhpal Singh and
Others (1983) 1 SCC 393 : [1983] 2 SCR 53; State of
U.P. v. Shanker, (1980) Supp SCC 489; State of U.P. v.
Hakim Singh and Others (1980) 3 SCC 55; Arunachalam
v. P.S.R. Sadhanantham and Another (1979) 2 SCC 297
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
835
: [1979] 3 SCR 482; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ranjha
Ram and Others (1986) 4 SCC 99; State of Maharashtra
v. Champalal Punjaji Shah (1981) 3 SCC 610 : [1982]
1 SCR 299; Gurbachan Singh v. Satpal Singh and
Others (1990) 1 SCC 445 : [1989] 1 Suppl. SCR 292;
State of Andhra Pradesh v. Bogam Chandraiah and
Another (1986) 3 SCC 637; State of U.P. v. Pheru Singh
and Others,1989 Supp(1) SCC 288; State of Uttar
Pradesh v. Pussu alias Ram Kishore (1983) 3 SCC 502
: [1983] 3 SCR 294; Sahadevan and Another v. State
of Tamil Nadu (2012) 6 SCC 403 : [2012] 4 SCR 366;
Kashmira Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh AIR
1952 SC 159 : [1952] SCR 526; Haricharan Kurmi &
Jogia Hajam v. State of Bihar, AIR 1964 SC 1184 :
[1964] 6 SCR 623; RamChandra and Another v. State
of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1957 SC381; Bhuboni Sahu v.
The King AIR 1949 PC 257; Murli and Another v. State
of Rajasthan (2009) 9 SCC 417 : [2009] 13 SCR 378 ;
Mohmed Inayatullah v. The State of Maharashtra AIR
(1976) SC 483 : [1976] 1 SCR 715; Earabhadrappa v.
State of Karnataka AIR (1983) SC 446 : [1983] 2 SCR
552 ; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Deoman Upadhyaya AIR
(1960) SC 1125; Pulukuri Kottaya and Others v.
Emperor AIR 1947 PC 67; Dudh Nath Pandey v. State
of U.P. AIR (1981) SC 911 : [1981] 2 SCR 771;
Bodhraj alias Bodha and Others v. State of Jammu and
Kashmir (2002) 8 SCC 45 : [2002] 2 Suppl. SCR 67;
A. N. Venkatesh and Another v. State of Karnataka
(2005) 7 SCC 714; Sampath Kumar v. Inspector of
Police, Krishnagiri (2012) 4 SCC 124 : [2012]
2 SCR 289 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2007] 2 SCR 630
referred to
Para 36
AIR 1955 SC 807
referred to
Para 37
[1961] 3 SCR 120
referred to
Para 37
[1955] 2 SCR 1285
referred to
Para 38
SUBRAMANYA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
836
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 14 S.C.R.
[1963] 2 SCR 405
referred to
Para 39
[1974] 1 SCR 489
referred to
Para 40
[1996] 2 Suppl. SCR 265
referred to
Para 41
[1997] 3 Suppl. SCR 444
referred to
Para 42
[2009] 6 SCR 982
referred to
Para 44
(1982) 1 SCC 352
referred to
Para 45.1
[1979] 3 SCR 482
referred to
Para 45.1
(1991) Suppl. 1 SCC 35
referred to
Para 45.1
[1983] 2 SCR 53
referred to
Para 45.2.1
(1980) Suppl. SCC 489
referred to
Para 45.2.1
(1980) 3 SCC 55
referred to
Para 45.2.1
(1986) 4 SCC 99
referred to
Para 45.2.1
[1982] 1 SCR 299
referred to
Para 45.2.1
[1989] 1 Suppl. SCR 292
referred to
Para 45.2.1
(1986) 3 SCC 637
referred to
Para 45.2.1
(1989) Suppl. 1 SCC 288
referred to
Para 45.2.2
[1983] 3 SCR 294
referred to
Para 45.2.2
[1985] 1 SCR 88
relied on
Para 47
[2012] 4 SCR 366
referred to
Para 55
[1992] 2 SCR 921
referred to
Para 56
[1978] 1 SCR 597
referred to
Para 56
[1952] SCR 526
referred to
Para 58
[1964] 6 SCR 623
referred to
Para 63
AIR 1957 SC381
referred to
Para 63
[2009] 13 SCR 378
referred to
Para 79
[1976] 1 SCR 715
referred to
Para 81
[1983] 2 SCR 552
referred to
Para 81
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
837
AIR (1960) SC 1125
referred to
Para 82
[1981] 2 SCR 771
relied on
Para 85
[2002] 2 Suppl. SCR 67
referred to
Para 87
(2005) 7 SCC 714
referred to
Para 88
[2012] 2 SCR 289
referred to
Para 91
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No.242 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Orders dated 02.07.2019 of the High
Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Criminal Appeal No.473 of 2013.
Krishna Pal Singh, Seemab Qayyum, Mrs. Anvita Aparjita,
Madhavendra Singh, Mohan Singh Bais, Advs. for the Appellant.
V. N. Raghupathy, Adv. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
J. B. PARDIWALA, J.
1. This statutory criminal appeal is at the instance of a convict
accused charged with the offence of murder of one Kamalamma
(deceased) and is directed against the judgment and order of conviction
passed by the High Court of Karnataka dated 02.07.2019 in the Criminal
Appeal No. 473 of 2013 by which the High Court allowed the acquittal
appeal filed by the State of Karnataka against the judgment and order of
acquittal passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Chikmagalur dated
20.12.2012 in the Sessions Case No. 59 of 2011 and held the appellant
herein guilty of the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'the IPC'). The High Court
sentenced the appellant herein to undergo life imprisonment with fine of
Rs. 25,000/- and in the event of default of payment of fine to undergo
further simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
CASE OF PROSECUTION
2. The appellant herein along with two other co-accused, namely,
Gowri alias Gowramma wife of late Nagaraj and Seetharam Bhat son
of late Nagabhatt were put to trial in the Sessions Case No. 59 of 2011
for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 302, 379 and 201
read with Section 34 of the IPC. All the three accused were put to trial
in the court of Principal Sessions Judge, Chikmagalur. The original
SUBRAMANYA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
838
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 14 S.C.R.
accused No. 2, namely, Gowri (acquitted) was born in the wedlock of
one Manjappanaika and his first wife. The deceased, namely,
Kamalamma was the second wife of the Manjappanaika. Gowri (original
accused No. 2) happens to be the step daughter of the deceased
Kamalamma. After the demise of Manjappanaika his immovable
properties were divided between the deceased Kamalamma and Gowri
(A-2). In the wedlock of Manjappanaika and the deceased two daughters
were born, namely, Sugandha (PW 1) and Sujatha. The deceased
Kamalamma used to reside all alone at the village Horabylu adjacent to
the house of the original accused No. 2 Gowri. Gowri is a widow and at
the relevant point of time was staying along with her two children. It is
the case of the prosecution that Gowri (A-2) had an illicit relationship
with the appellant herein. The deceased Kamalamma was highly opposed
to such illicit relationship and used to reprimand both, the appellant and
Gowri.
3. According to the case of the prosecution, the appellant herein
and Gowri conspired on 23.08.2010 to do away with the deceased
Kamalamma. 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, the appellant and Gowri are alleged to
have removed the gold chain, a pair of ear studs and one gold ring from
the body of the deceased Kamalamma. They took away her mobile
also.
4. It is the case of the prosecution that after the deceased
Kamalamma was done to death, the original accused No. 3, namely,
Seetharam Bhat came into picture. Seetharam Bhat (A-3) is alleged to
have helped the appellant and Gowri in wrapping the dead body of the
deceased in a sari and thereafter dumping it on the land of one Dinamani.
The land of Dinamani is situated besides a water channel. It is alleged
that with the aid of a crowbar, a pit was dug and the dead body of the
deceased was buried with the intention to destroy the evidence.
5. According to the case of the prosecution, the appellant sold the
gold ornaments to a jeweller, namely, Somashekhara Shetty (PW 9).
PW 9 Somashekhara Shetty at the relevant point of time was running a
jewellery shop at Rippanpet. So far as the mobile is concerned, the same
is said to have been sold by the appellant herein to one Ashok alias
Meeranath (PW 16). Ashok alias Meeranath (PW 16) is a resident of a
place called Surathkal.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
839
6. On 24.08.2010, Alok (son of Gowri) informed the son-in-law of
the deceased, namely, H.T. Yogesh (PW 7) that his mother-in-law
(deceased) had been missing since 23.08.2010. In such circumstances,
H.T. Yogesh went (PW 7) to the Koppa, Police Station (P.S.) and filed a
missing complaint.
7. On 09.12.2010 at 21:30 hours, Seetharam Bhat (A-3) is said to
have met H.T. Yogesh (PW7) and made an extra judicial confession
before him stating that about four months back the appellant herein and
Gowri had lured him with a bottle of brandy and saying so had asked him
to accompany them as they had some work. Thereafter, the appellant
and Gowri are said to have revealed or rather made an extra judicial
confession before Seetharam Bhat (A-3) that they had committed murder
of the deceased Kamalamma and had kept the body in a cattle shed.
8. The appellant and Gowri asked Seetharam Bhat (A-3) to help
them in disposing of the dead body. When Seetharam (A-3) declined to
help them, he was threatened by the appellant and Gowri. Accordingly,
Seetharam Bhat (A-3) accompanied them and helped in removing the
gold ornaments from the body of the deceased and burying the body at
the field of one Dinamani.
9. On 10.12.2010, H.T. Yogesh (PW 7) went to the Police Station
and lodged a First Information Report for the offence of murder.
10. Upon registration of the First Information Report, the
investigation had commenced. All the three accused persons came to be
arrested. While the appellant herein and Gowri (A-2) were in custody of
the Police they are said to have made statements that they would show
the place where the dead body had been buried and also the place where
the weapon of offence (club) had been concealed. The appellant is also
said to have made a statement that he would also show the place where
he had sold of the ornaments of the deceased.
11. Accordingly, a discovery panchnama Ex. P.3 was drawn under
Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The photographs of the
exhumation of the body were also taken and admitted as Ex. P.4. The
Inquest panchnama of the body of the deceased, Ex. P.14 was also
drawn.
12. The ornaments said to have been sold by the appellant herein
to a jeweller, Somashekhara Shetty (PW 9), were collected from his
shop by drawing a panchnama Ex. P.1.
SUBRAMANYA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
[J. B. PARDIWALA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
840
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 14 S.C.R.
13. The clothes of the appellant herein are said to have been
discovered at his instance from the place nearby the house of the deceased
by drawing a panchnama Ex. P.6. The weapon of offence (club) was
also discovered at the instance of the appellant herein by drawing a
panchnama Ex. P.8. It appears that one more weapon in the form of a
spade was discovered at the instance of the original accused No. 3
Seetharam by drawing a panchnama Ex. P.8.
14. The dead body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem at
the General Hospital, Koppa.
15. The post-mortem report Ex. P.17 reveals that the cause of
death was due to head injuries in the form of fractures.
16. At the end of the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed
chargesheet against the appellant and the two co-accused for the offences
enumerated above. Upon filing of the chargesheet, the case was
committed by the Magistrate under Section 209 of the Cr.P.C. to the
Sessions Court which came to be registered as the Sessions Case No.
59 of 2011 in the court of Principal Sessions Judge, Chikmagalur.
17. The trial court framed charge against all the accused persons
vide order dated 20.12.2012. Appellant herein and the other two coaccused pleaded not guilty to the charge.
18. The prosecution adduced the following oral evidence in support
of its case:
(1)
PW 1 Sugandha, CW 7, daughter of the deceased.
(2)
PW 2 Vishwa K. K., CW 9, panch-witness to the discovery
of the ornaments from the shop of the jewellery and also
the discovery of the dead body.
(3)
PW 3 Nandi Purela, CW 11, panch-witness.
(4)
PW 4 H.S. Sathyamurthi, CW 13, panch-witness.
(5)
PW 5 T. Somaiah, CW18, panch-witness.
(6)
PW 6 Sridhar Shetty, CW 20, panch-witness.
(7)
PW 7 H. T. Yogesh, CW 1, son-in-law of the deceased
before whom original accused No. 3 is said to have been
made extra judicial confession.
(8)
PW 8 H. M. Ravikanth, CW 4, panch-witness.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
841
(9)
PW 9 I. Somashekhara Shetty, CW 14, jeweler to whom
the ornaments were sold.
(10)
PW 10 Ravi Shetty, CW 22, panch-witness to the discovery
of the mobile.
(11)
PW 11 Dr. J. Neelakantappa Gowda, CW 29, panchwitness.
(12)
PW 12 C.V. Harish, CW 26 panch-witness.
(13)
PW 13 Thousif Ahmed, CW 32, panch-witness to the place
of incident.
(14)
PW 14 J.K. Shivakumar, CW 37, Revenue Officer.
(15)
PW15 Dayanand Gowda, CW 28, Assistant Commissioner.
(16)
PW 16 Meeranath Gowda, CW 24, Cook at Sharath Bar
and Restaurant. The appellant used to assist the PW 16 at
the restaurant.
(17)
PW 17 Mahesh E.S., CW 41, Police Officer.
(18)
PW 18 Manjeshwara Kalappa, CW 40, Police Officer.
(19)
PW 19 T. Sanjeeva Naik, CW 42, Police Officer.
19. The prosecution also adduced documentary evidence in the
form of FIR, Inquest panchnama, discovery panchnamas etc.
20. The trial court framed the following points of determination in
its judgment:
"1) Whether the prosecution proves that Kamalamma, w/o late
Manjappanaika died a homicidal death?
2) Whether the prosecution proves that on or about 23.8.2010,
in Hirekudige village in Koppa Taluk, accused Nos. 1 and 2,
in furtherance of their common intention or otherwise, agreed
and conspired with each other to murder Kamalamma, w/o
late Manjappanaika, and thereby committed an offence of
criminal conspiracy, punishable under Section 120-B read
with Section 34 of I.P.C?
3) Whether the prosecution proves that on the aforesaid date
at about 9.00 PM, in the house of Kamalamma at Hirekudige
village in Koppa Taluk, accused Nos.1 and 2, in furtherance
SUBRAMANYA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
[J. B. PARDIWALA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
842
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 14 S.C.R.
of common intention, did commit murder by intentionally and
knowingly causing the death of Kamalamma, by assaulting
on her head and neck by means of club, and thereby committed
an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section
34 of I.P.C?
4) Whether the prosecution proves that on the aforesaid date,
time and place, accused No.1, committed theft of a gold chain,
a pair of earstuds, one gold ring and a mobile handset
belonging to deceased Kamalamma and thereby committed
an offence punishable under Section 379 of I.P.C?
5) Whether the prosecution proves that on or about the
aforesaid date, in furtherance of common intention, accused
Nos.1 and 3, knowing that the offence of murder, punishable
with death or imprisonment for life, has been committed by
accused Nos. 1 and 2, caused certain evidence to disappear,
to wit, buried the dead body of Kamalamma, by the side of
the Government channel at Horabylu, with an intention to
screen the offenders (accused Nos.1 and 2) from legal
punishment, and thereby committed an offence punishable
under Section 201 read with Section 34 of I.P.C?
6) What order?"
21. The aforesaid points of determination came to be answered
by the trial court as under:
"POINT No. 1: - In the affirmative;
POINT No.2: - In the negative;
POINT No.3: - In the negative;
POINT No.4: - In the negative;
POINT No.5: - In the negative;
POINT No.6: - As per final order, for the following:"
22. The prosecution in the course of the trial relied upon the
following circumstances to prove its case against the accused persons:
(1) Motive to commit the crime. According to the prosecution, the
appellant herein had illicit relationship with original accused No.
2, namely, Gowri and the deceased was coming in their way. In
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
843
such circumstances, the appellant herein and the original accused
No. 2 had the motive to commit the crime.
(2) Extra judicial confession alleged to have been made by the
accused No. 3 Seetharam Bhat before the PW 7 Yogesh (son-inlaw of the deceased) after four months of the date of incident.
(3) Discovery of the dead body at the instance of the appellant
herein by drawing a panchnama under Section 27 of the Evidence
Act.
(4) Recovery of the ornaments from the shop of the Jeweller
(PW 9) at the instance of the appellant herein by drawing a
panchnama.
(5) The discovery of the weapon of offence, mobile of the
deceased and the clothes of the appellant accused at the instance
of the appellant herein under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
23. We shall now look into the reasonings assigned by the trial
court while not accepting any of the aforesaid circumstances, as
incriminating circumstances, establishing the guilt of the accused persons.
We quote as under:
"34. The first circumstance which the prosecution is intending
to rely upon is motive that A-1 was having illicit relation with
A-2 and in that context, deceased Kamalamma used to abuse
them and she was also making propaganda about the same
and the accused persons were enraged by that and thinking
that she is an obstacle for their relation, they conspired to get
rid of her and murdered the deceased. In circumstantial
evidence, motive plays important role and it must be strong
and reliable. If prosecution fails to prove the motive, it will be
beneficial to the accused. Even though P.Ws.1, 2 and 7 have
deposed that the mother of P.W.1, the deceased used to tell
her that A-1 and A-2 are having illicit relation and she used
to scold them for having such illicit relation, but if we see the
cross-examination of P.W. 1, it discloses that A-1 is distant
brother to A-2 and that there was a panchayath before the
division of the properties between the deceased and A-2. Even
in the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has not proved
by examining any witness to substantiate the said fact of illicit
relation between A-1 and A-2, who have either seen them
SUBRAMANYA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
[J. B. PARDIWALA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
844
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 14 S.C.R.
together or that they have advised them to give up the same.
Even though P.W.1, the daughter and P.W.7, the son-in-law
of the deceased have deposed about the illicit relation between
A-1 and A-2, but they have deposed that the deceased used
to tell about the illicit relations and they are not the direct
witnesses to substantiate the said fact. Their evidence is only
hearsay in nature. As such, the evidence regarding the illicit
relation is not acceptable and reliable in law.
35. The second circumstance which the prosecution is
intending to rely upon is the confession made by A-3 before
P.W.7, the son-in-law of the deceased. It is the specific case
of the prosecution that on 9.12.2010 he had been to Gadikallu
and at about 9.30 PM, near the Circle, A-3 met him and there
he told that about 3 or 3 1/2 months back he had been called
by A-1 and told that he had murdered Kamalamma and in
order to bury the dead body, asked his help by providing two
bottles of brandy and he also told that if he is not going to
obey, he will also kill him as done to his brother-in-law
Srinivase Gowda. He also told that he helped him in carrying
the dead body to the mound near the land of Dinamani and
buried it. During the course of crossexamination, he has
admitted that he is not going to ask any personal matters of
A-3 nor he will tell his personal matters to him. He has further
admitted that he is not having any confidence in him and vice
versa, A-3 is also not having any confidence in him. A-3 is
also not a friend or relative of P.W.7. In order to establish
that A-3 made a confession before P.W.7, A-3 must have
reposed confidence in him and he must have some faith with
the person to whom he is making such a confession. When
P.W.7 is neither a relative nor a friend, why A-3 is going to
make such a confession before P.W.7 who is a close relative
of the deceased, is a mystery. Under the facts and
circumstances of the present case on hand, it is very difficult
to believe that A-3 would make such a confession before P.W.7
about the crime committed by them. While considering the
evidence of extra judicial confession, the Court must also
verify whether the accused could repose confidence in such
a person so as to disclose a secret aspect of his life. For this
proposition of law, I want to rely upon the decision reported
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
845
in AIR 1975 SUPREME COURT 258, [THE STATE OF
PUNJAB v/s BHAJAN SINGH & OTHERS] wherein it is held
as under: -
"(C) Evidence Act (1872), S.24 - Extra judicial confession -
Value of the evidence of extra judicial confession in the very
nature of things is a weak piece of evidence. (The evidence
adduced in this respect in the instant case, held, lacked
plausibility and did not inspire confidence.) Para 15"
36. In another decision reported in [2011] ACR 704 in the
case of SK. YUSUF v/s STATE OF WEST BENGAL, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has again held as under: -
"C. Evidence Act, 1872 - S.25 - Extra judicial confession -
Extra judicial confession must be established to be true and
made voluntarily and in a fit state of mind - Extra judicial
confession can be accepted and can be the basis of a
conviction if it passes the test of credibility. Para 22"
37. Leave apart this, as per the evidence of P.W.7, A-3 met
him 3 1/2 months or 4 months after the incident. Usually, if at
all, a confession is going to be made by the offenders in
respect of the commission of the offence, it will be made
immediately after the incident which they have committed and
not after a long gap and the confession is going to be made
immediately before the person who come across with him and
with whom he is having full faith. In this behalf also the
evidence which has been produced before the court is not
cogent and reliable and the prosecution has utterly failed to
prove the said circumstance which it is intending to rely upon.
38. The third circumstance which the prosecution is intending
to rely upon is that of accused showing the place of
commission of offence and the place of burial of the dead
body. As per the evidence of P.W.19, the Investigating Officer,
on 10.12.2010, C.Ws.36 and 37 produced accused No.1 at
about 9.00 PM; C.Ws.34 and 35 produced accused No.2 at
the same time; and P.Ws.17 and C.W.38 produced accused
No.3 at the same time. He has further deposed that thereafter
he recorded their voluntary statements and on the basis of
that, he traced the place of burial. If we see the voluntary
SUBRAMANYA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
[J. B. PARDIWALA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
846
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 14 S.C.R.
statement of A-1 as per Ex.P.28, he has stated that he will
show the place of burial. He has also volunteered that he has
committed the murder of deceased Kamalamma and he will
produce the club, mobile, spade and another club which has
been used for the purpose of transportation of the dead body
and he will also produce the ornaments which he has taken
from the body and the same has been marked as Ex.P.28.
Accused nos.2 and 3 have volunteered to show the place where
they have buried the dead body. If we see the evidence of this
witness with the evidence of the other witnesses, it is not
accused nos.2 and 3 who took the IO and the panch witnesses
and showed the place of burial. P.Ws.2 and 8 have deposed
that about one year back, he saw the dead body of deceased
near a halla situated at Dinamani land at a mound and there,
the Dy.S.P. and the A.C., were also present. A-1 and A-3
showed the place of burial of the dead body. But, nowhere
these witnesses have spoken that A-1 and A-3 led them and
showed the place of burial. If already the said burial spot
was known to the Dy.S.P, and the A.C., then under such
circumstances, it cannot be held that it is at the instance of
the accused that the said place has been discovered. If we
see the evidence of P.W.8, he has deposed that the said body
was fully decomposed and one blouse and one petticoat were
found on the dead body and if we see the evidence of P. W.15,
he has deposed that accused nos.1 and 3 led them to a mound
in survey No.121 and showed the place where they had buried
the dead body of deceased Kamalamma and he got it exhumed
through A-1, A-3 and P.W.3. The said body was highly
decomposed and an old type blouse and a petticoat were there
over the said body. But if we see the cross-examination of this
witness, he received the requisition on 10.12.2010 and
thereafter on 11.12.2010 he fixed the timing to exhume the
body and he went there at about 10.30 AM and when he was
about to enter the village, police were also there along with
A-1 and A-3 and other witnesses, Doctor and Videographer
were also present.