STATE OF KARNATAKA versus P. RAVIKUMAR @ RAVI ETC. on 16 August 2018

844

SUPREME COURT REPORTS[2018] 10 S.C.R. 844

[2018] 10 S.C.R.

A

STATE OF KARNATAKA

v.

P. RAVIKUMAR @ RAVI ETC.

(Criminal Appeal Nos. 1428-1429 of 2013)

B

AUGUST 16, 2018

[R. BANUMATHI AND VINEET SARAN, JJ.]

Appeal: State’s appeal against acquittal – Prosecution casewas that accused no.3, the wife of the victim-deceased had illicitrelation with accused no.1 and on account of this accused no.1Cand accused no.3 along with accused no.2 hatched a conspiracyand eliminated the victim-deceased – Trial court convicted all theaccused persons under s.302 r/w s.34 and 120B IPC by relying onthe extra judicial confessions – High Court maintained the convictionof accused no.1, however, acquitted accused no.2 and 3 on theDground that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in particularPW-2 , PW-20 and PW-4 did not establish the guilt of A-2 and A-3beyond reasonable doubt – State’s appeal against acquittal of A-2and A-3 – Held: Extra judicial confession is a weak piece ofevidence, which cannot form basis for conviction unless supportedby other substantive evidence, which is lacking in this case – InsofarEas accused no.3 is concerned, prosecution relied upon photographsrecovered on the disclosure statement of A-3 and also examinedPW-12 (photographer) who stated that A-1 and A-3 came to hisstudio and took joint photographs – The said photographs at themost may only show that A-1 and A-3 had illicit relationship – NoFevidence was adduced to prove that A-3 had hatched conspiracywith A-2 to commit the murder of the deceased – There was no‘compelling reason’ or ‘substantial infirmity’ warranting interferencewith the order of acquittal of A-2 and A-3 – Appeals dismissed –Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 r/w s.34 and 120B – Evidence – Extrajudicial confession.G

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal AppealNos. 1428-1429 of 2013.

From the Judgment and Order dated 22.01.2009 of the High Courtof Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1432 of 2005 andH1549 of 2005.

Joseph Aristotle, Ms. Prya Aristotle, Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Dr. SushilBalwada, Advs. for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. Challenging the acquittal of respondentnos. 1 and 2 (accused 2 & 3) respectively for the offence under Section302, 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 havingillicit relationship with accused no. 1. On account of such motive, AccusedNo. 1 and respondent nos. 1 and 2 herein (Accused Nos. 2 & 3) arealleged to have hatched a conspiracy in committing the murder ofdeceased Mohan Kumar- husband of A-3 (D.B. Savitha) on the groundthat he used to harass her on the illicit relationship of A-1 and A-3. On07.07.2003, the deceased Mohan Kumar left the house in the morningfor his fertilizer shop and did not return back. At about 9.30 p.m., themother of the deceased came to know through PW-6 (Basavaraju) thatthe body of her son is lying on the side of the road and that he hadallegedly fallen from the bike. The deceased was taken to the hospitalwhere he declared dead. The law was set in motion and all the threeaccused were held under Section 302 IPC read with 120(B),IPC.

3. The trial court convicted all the accused under section 302 IPCread with 34 IPC and 120(B),IPC. On appeal, the High Court maintainedthe 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 appearingfor the state of Karnataka.

5. Though the respondents have entered appearance throughcounsel but at the time of hearing the matter none appears on behalf ofthe 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 judicialconfession made to PW-2 (Auto Driver) who is stated to be the friendof accused nos. 1 and 2. PW-2 has stated that about 20 days prior to thedate of incident, when he was sitting in the auto, A-1 was with him andthat accused no. 1 asked him to chase the deceased who was going on A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Ahis motorcycle. PW-2 further stated that about 20 days later accusednos. 1 and 2 approached him and said to have made extra judicialconfession that they had committed the murder of deceased MohanKumar to whom on earlier occasion they chased. Though PW-2 in hischief examination stuck to his version, when he was cross examined, heresiled from his earlier version and consequently PW-2 was treatedBhostile. When PW-2 resiled from his earlier statement, his statementrecorded by PW-22 (Judicial Magistrate) under Section 164 Crl.PC maynot be of any relevance; nor can it be considered as substantive evidenceto base the conviction.

7. So far as the evidence of PW-3 is concerned, it is only confinedCto the extra judicial confession made by the first accused.

8. Yet another piece of evidence relied upon by the prosecution isthat the evidence of PW-4 who is stated to be the friend of A-2.

9. Case of the prosecution is that on the night of occurrence A-1Dand A-2 went to the residence of PW-4 (M.G. Rajashekher @ Raju)and A-2 clothes were blood stained and A-1 wearing sweater. Both A-1 and A-2 said to have made extra judicial confession to PW-4. Butwhen PW-4 was examined in the court, PW-4 stated that accused nos.1 and 2 came to his residence on the night of 07.07.2003 and cloth ofaccused no. 2 was blood stained. PW-4 further stated that when heEquestioned accused No. 1, he stated that they were travelling in an autotowards Karthikere, it toppled and in that process they sustained injuries.The above said evidence of PW-4 explaining the blood stains on thecloth of accused no. 2 due to toppling of auto does not advance case ofthe prosecution that A-1 conspired with A-2 who committed the murderFof deceased Mohan Kumar. In any event extra judicial confession is aweak piece of evidence, which cannot form basis for conviction andunless supported by other substantive evidence, which is lacking in thiscase.

10. Insofar as accused no. 3 is concerned, prosecution reliesGupon exhibit P-8 and P-9. Photographs were recovered on the disclosurestatement of accused no. 3. In this regard, prosecution has examinedPW-12 (photographer) who has stated that accused nos. 1 and 3 cameto his studio and took joint photographs (Exhibit P-8 & P-9). The saidphotographs at the most may only show that A-1 and A-3 has illicitrelationship. There is no evidence adduced to prove that A-3 had hatchedHconspiracy with A-2 to commit the murder of Mohan Kumar.

11. Upon appreciation of the evidence adduced by the prosecutionin particular PW-2 , PW-20 and PW-4, the High Court has held that theguilt of A-2 and A-3 has not been established beyond reasonable doubt.We do not find any ‘compelling reason’ or ‘substantial infirmity’ warrantinginterference with the order of acquittal of respondent nos. 1 and 2(Accused Nos. 2 and 3).

12. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.

Devika Gujral Appeals dismissed.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H