Case Note & Summary
This was a criminal appeal by the State of Karnataka challenging the High Court's acquittal of the respondent under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused and deceased Krishnamurthy were both employed as Security Guards at Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, Bangalore. On the night of 26 March 1981, the accused was initially assigned duty at the Trolly Gate but was later posted to guard the Ammunition Store by Subedar P.W.9. He took charge from P.W.19, receiving a 410 musket and five live cartridges. The deceased, along with P.W.11 Arjunan and driver P.W.10 Joseph, travelled by bus to post guards. At the Ammunition Store, the deceased noticed that no guard was visible and handed his beat book to P.W.11 for signature. As P.W.11 signed, a shot was fired and the deceased fell. The accused emerged carrying the musket, threatened P.W.11, and ordered P.W.10 to stop the bus engine. P.Ws 10 and 11 escaped to the main gate and informed P.W.12 Subedar. The accused telephoned P.W.12 admitting the shooting. Senior security officers P.Ws 12, 13, 16 and 18 went to the spot, saw the accused with the musket, overpowered him, and recovered a pouch containing four live and one used cartridge. The FIR was registered promptly, and the post-mortem confirmed death due to a firearm injury to the neck. The trial court convicted the accused relying on eyewitnesses P.Ws 10 and 11 and the evidence of official witnesses. The High Court acquitted the accused, doubting the prosecution case because the beat book maintained by P.W.19 was not produced and because it found the phone call evidence of P.W.12 suspicious, leading it to reject the eyewitness accounts. The Supreme Court held the High Court's reasons wholly unsound. It observed that the absence of a beat book entry did not discredit the clear and corroborated oral evidence of P.Ws 9 and 19 regarding the accused's posting at the Ammunition Store. The immediate recovery of the musket and cartridges from the accused near the dead body was a strong circumstantial link. The eyewitness testimony of P.Ws 10 and 11 was consistent and unshaken in cross-examination. The extra-judicial confession made by the accused over the phone to P.W.12 was reliable and corroborated. The accused's total denial was false. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's acquittal, and restored the trial court's conviction under Section 302 IPC.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Proof of Offence Under Section 302 IPC - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 - The accused was charged with murder of a co-security guard. Prosecution led eyewitness accounts of the shooting and immediate recovery of the musket and cartridges from the accused. The Supreme Court held that this evidence, when accepted, was sufficient to connect the accused to the offence. B) Criminal Appeal - Acquittal Reversal - High Court's Duty in Appreciating Evidence - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The High Court acquitted the accused by doubting the prosecution case on missing beat book entries. The Supreme Court held the High Court's reasons were wholly unsound and based on suspicion, not material contradictions. The acquittal was set aside and the trial court's conviction restored. C) Evidence - Beat Book Omission - Non-production of beat book entry is not fatal when oral evidence is reliable - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 - The High Court rejected P.W.9's evidence that the accused was posted at the Ammunition Store because the beat book had no entry. The Supreme Court found this impermissible; oral evidence of responsible officers was clear and corroborated, and the absence of documentary record did not create reasonable doubt. D) Criminal Trial - Extra-Judicial Confession - Telephone confession to superior officer is admissible and credible - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The accused's call to P.W.12 admitting the shooting was corroborated by immediate recovery and was reliable. The Supreme Court accepted this as a strong circumstance against the accused.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in acquitting the respondent under Section 302 IPC by doubting the prosecution evidence regarding his posting at the Ammunition Store and rejecting eyewitness and recovery evidence.
Final Decision
Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's acquittal, and restored the trial court's conviction of the respondent under Section 302 IPC.
Law Points
- Oral evidence of official witnesses cannot be discarded merely due to absence of beat book entry
- recovery of murder weapon and used cartridge immediately from accused at scene is strong circumstantial evidence
- extra-judicial confession made to superior officer over phone is reliable
- evidence of eyewitnesses found credible
- High Court's acquittal based on suspicion unsound
