Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a judgment of conviction dated 16.11.2015 in SC No.31/2014 by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga sitting at Sagar, convicting the accused under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The accused was sentenced to life imprisonment till death and rigorous imprisonment for ten years respectively. The case originated from a missing complaint lodged by the father of the deceased, Seethamma, a widow, who went missing on 04.10.2013. Enquiry revealed that the deceased had an illicit relationship with Dyavappa, the elder brother of the accused. The accused suspected that Dyavappa was spending earnings on the deceased and neglecting his family duties, including the marriage of sisters. This led to quarrels. During police enquiry, the accused confessed to assaulting the deceased during a quarrel; he pushed her, she fell on a stone and sustained head injury, and he then struck her with a stone causing death. He buried the body in the forest. Based on his disclosure, the police recovered the stone, exhumed the body with Tahsildar's help, and retrieved the deceased's anklets from his house. The prosecution examined fourteen witnesses and produced documentary and material evidence. The trial court convicted the accused. In appeal, the appellant primarily challenged the admissibility of the recovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act on three grounds: the stone was recovered from an open and accessible place, police had prior knowledge of the burial, and the accused was not in custody when the disclosure was recorded, thus hit by Section 154 CrPC. He also argued that the prosecution failed to establish the complete chain of circumstantial evidence, and that a vital witness turned hostile. Alternatively, he contended that the act fell under Exception to Section 300, constituting culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II, and that the sentence of life imprisonment till death was impermissible as it usurped the remission power of the State. The prosecution supported the trial court's findings, asserting that recovery was valid, witness evidence was credible, and no material brought the case within any exception. The High Court heard the parties and reserved judgment on 14.10.2020, pronouncing on 23.10.2020. The provided excerpt does not include the final order of the court.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Admissibility of Evidence - Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 r/w Sections 25, 26 - Sections 154 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The appellant argued that recovery of stone MO1 from an open place accessible to public was not concealed and hence inadmissible; that police had prior knowledge of burial site before his disclosure; and that he was not in custody when the voluntary statement was recorded, violating Section 154 CrPC. The prosecution maintained that disclosure was made after arrest and led to recovery of dead body, stone, and anklets (Paras 7, 10).
B) Criminal Procedure - Circumstantial Evidence - Proof of Chain of Circumstances - The appellant contended that the prosecution failed to prove the complete chain of circumstances; a villager witness (PW4) turned hostile and the trial court did not consider this. The prosecution asserted that motive, recovery, and medical evidence were established (Paras 8, 10).
C) Indian Penal Code - Murder - Section 300 Exceptions - Section 304 Part II, Indian Penal Code, 1860 - The alternative plea was that the incident occurred due to a sudden quarrel and provocation, bringing it under Section 304 Part II IPC, not Section 302. The prosecution countered that no material showed any exception applied (Paras 9, 11).
D) Sentencing - Life Imprisonment - Remission - Sections 432, 433 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The appellant challenged the sentence of imprisonment for life till death as impermissible, as it interferes with the State's power of remission. The trial court had imposed such sentence (Para 9).
Issue of Consideration
(1) Whether the recovery of evidence based on disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act was admissible when the recovery was from an open place, police had prior knowledge, and the accused was not formally arrested? (2) Whether the prosecution proved the chain of circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt? (3) Whether the sentence of life imprisonment till death is legally sustainable? (4) Whether the case falls under Section 304 Part II IPC instead of Section 302?
Law Points
- admissibility of recovery under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act
- 1872 when recovery is from open place
- prior knowledge of Investigating Officer
- custody requirement under Section 154 of CrPC
- circumstantial evidence and chain of circumstances
- exceptions to Section 300 of IPC
- sudden provocation and quarrel
- sentencing - life imprisonment till death versus remission powers under Sections 432 and 433 of CrPC
Case Details
2020 LawText (KAR) (10) 47
Criminal Appeal No. 1574 of 2015
B. Veerappa, K. Natarajan
Y.S. Shivaprasad (for appellant), Vijayakumar Majage (for respondent)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction for murder and disappearance of evidence
Remedy Sought
Set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.11.2015 passed by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga sitting at Sagar in SC No.31/2014, convicting the accused under Sections 302 and 201 IPC
Filing Reason
The accused was convicted by the trial court for murdering Seethamma and causing disappearance of evidence by burying her body; he challenged the conviction on grounds of inadmissible evidence and harsh sentence
Previous Decisions
The Trial Court convicted the accused for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life i.e. to remain in prison till his death and rigorous imprisonment for ten years respectively with fines, by judgment dated 16.11.2015
Issues
Whether the recovery of stone, dead body, and anklets based on disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act is admissible when the stone was recovered from an open place, police had prior knowledge of the burial, and the accused was not formally in custody?
Whether the prosecution established the complete chain of circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt?
Whether the sentence of life imprisonment till death is legally sustainable or interferes with the power of remission under Sections 432 and 433 CrPC?
Whether the offence falls under Section 304 Part II IPC instead of Section 302, considering alleged sudden quarrel and provocation?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the recovery under Section 27 Indian Evidence Act was not sustainable because: (i) MO1-stone was recovered from an open place accessible to public, not a hidden place, thus inadmissible; (ii) Tahsildar PW12 stated that he was directed to go to the spot on 12.10.2013, showing police had prior knowledge about burial before the accused's confession; (iii) the accused was not in custody when the voluntary statement was recorded, violating Section 154 CrPC.
Appellant contended that the prosecution failed to prove the chain of circumstantial evidence; PW4 Narayanappa, a villager, turned hostile and his evidence was not considered by the trial court; motive is a weak piece of evidence.
V oluntary statement is not admissible under Sections 25 and 26 of Indian Evidence Act.
Alternatively, appellant argued that the incident occurred due to sudden quarrel and provocation, falling under Section 304 Part II IPC, not murder; the sentence of life imprisonment till death is impermissible as it interferes with the State's power of remission under Sections 432 and 433 CrPC.
Prosecution supported the conviction, contending that the recovery was based on the accused's disclosure after arrest; the accused led police to the spot of murder and burial, and the body was exhumed in presence of Tahsildar and doctor; he also produced anklets of deceased from his house; the accused failed to explain possession of those anklets.
Prosecution argued that PW4's evidence could not be discarded merely because he heard villagers talking about the death; the prosecution proved motive, recovery, and medical evidence beyond reasonable doubt.
Prosecution countered that no material on record showed that the offence fell under any exception to Section 300 IPC; the homicidal death was proved with ante-mortem injury on head indicating intention to cause death.
Judgment Excerpts
the accused got angry, pushed her forcibly, as a result, she fell down on a stone, sustained injury on her head and was not in a position to speak. Therefore, the accused took up a stone and again assaulted on her head and caused her death.
the very recovery under Section 27 of the I.E. Act is not sustainable under law.
the accused was not at all in the custody and he was not arrested by the Police while giving the voluntary statement. Therefore, the alleged voluntary statement is hit by Section 154 of Cr.P.C.
the very punishment imposed by the Trial Court is harsh. ... The Trial Court imposed punishment for life and ordered to remain in prison till his death is impermissible.
there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased and due to sudden provocation, the accused pushed the deceased and she fell down on a stone, sustained injury and died, which goes to show that there was no intention for the accused to commit the murder of the deceased.
the prosecution is able to prove the homicidal death of the deceased. The injury found on the head of the deceased was ante-mortem in nature as per the opinion of the doctor which goes to show that the accused with an intention to commit the murder of the deceased, assaulted...
Procedural History
The case originated from a missing complaint lodged by the father of the deceased on 07.10.2013. Police registered Crime No.75/2013 under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. After investigation and filing of charge sheet, the JMFC took cognizance and committed the case to Sessions Court. The trial court framed charges, recorded evidence of 14 witnesses, and convicted the accused on 16.11.2015 in SC No.31/2014. The accused filed the present appeal under Section 374(2) CrPC. The High Court heard arguments and reserved judgment on 14.10.2020, and pronounced judgment on 23.10.2020.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 302, 201, 300, 304 Part II
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 374(2), 313, 432, 433, 154
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872: 25, 26, 27
