Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Supreme Court - Daily Orders

The State Of Karnataka vs Sanjay Kumar Jain Etc on 13 December, 2018

Bench: N.V. Ramana, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar

                                                 1

                              IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                           CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                         CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs. 990­991 OF 2012


     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA                                         … Appellant



                                             VERSUS



     SANJAY KUMAR JAIN ETC.                                       … Respondent(s)



                                           O R D E R

1. The learned counsel for the respondents­accused seeks an adjournment but keeping in view the fact that he has already taken adjournments on 23.10.2018 and 27.11.2018, we are not inclined to accede to his request.

2. These appeals are directed against the impugned judgment dated 21.04.2010, passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No. 1596/2007 clubbed with Criminal Appeal No. 1520/2007, whereby the High Court acquitted the respondents, from the offences punishable under section 302, 397, Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SATISH KUMAR YADAV Date: 2019.01.10 17:04:37 IST Reason: 201 and 212 of the IPC.

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as culled out from the  2 case of the prosecution are that, on 12.05.1991, at about 8.30 p.m., respondent­accused no. 1 (Sanjay Kumar Jain, hereinafter referred to as ‘A­1’) strangulated deceased (chukkibai), who was at that time carrying on pawn broker’s business, with the object of robbing her gold her gold articles and in that pursuit committed the murder of the deceased. Thereafter, some portion of robbed amount was kept with respondent­accused no. 4 (Asha Devi). Subsequently, A­1 with the assistance of respondent­accused no. 2 (A. Mahaveer) and respondent­ accused no. 3 (Azeem Baig, now dead), took the dead body of the deceased in an ambassador car towards Mandya, burnt the dead body and threw it in a canal.

4. A missing complaint of the deceased was lodged by PW­4 (brother of the deceased) on 14.05.1991. On 16.05.1991, daughter of the deceased opened the door of the house of deceased, with second set of keys and found out that robbery had taken place. Subsequently, inspection of the house was conducted by the police and fingerprints from several articles were collected by the fingerprint expert. After examination, it was disclosed that the fingerprint impressions of A­1 tallied with the fingerprint samples collected by the police, from the house of the deceased. Therefore, A­1 was arrested on 17.05.1991, who himself volunteered and led the police and panchas to the canal,  3 where he has burnt and threw the dead body. The dead body of deceased was found at some distance in the canal and identified by PW­3 and PW­4, who are relatives of the deceased. Further, at the instance of A­1, robbed gold jewelry was recovered from the house of respondent­accused no. 4 as well as from his own house.

5. Respondents­accused were put to trial and the trial court vide judgment dated 19.09.2007, convicted respondents­accused for offences punishable under Section 302, 397, 201 and 212 of the IPC, as given in the table below. Further, respondent­accused no. 3 died during the pendency of trial and thus, proceedings against him were dropped.

Respondents­Accused Offence(s) & Punishment(s) Respondent­Accused Sec. 302 IPC ­ L.I. and Fine of Rs. 5,000/­ No. 1 (Sanjay Kumar Sec. 397 IPC­ R.I. for 7 years Jain) Sec. 201 IPC­ S.I. for 3 years and Fine of Rs.

1,000/­ (All Sentences to run concurrently) Respondent­Accused Sec. 201 IPC­ S.I. for 3 years and Fine of Rs.

No. 2    (A. Mahaveer)   1,000/­



Respondent­Accused       Sec. 202 IPC­ S.I. for 3 month
No. 4 (Asha Devi)        Sec. 212 IPC­ S.I. for 1 year and Fine of Rs. 1,000/­
                         (Both Sentences to run concurrently)

6. Aggrieved by the said trial court order, respondents­accused preferred appeals before the High Court. Resultantly, the High Court  4 allowed the appeals and dismissed all material evidences against the respondents­accused, by doubting the credibility and admissibility. After examining the evidences, the High Court ruled that the dead body was not recovered at the instance of A­1 and fingerprint impressions of A­1, found in the house of the deceased cannot be relied upon. It also discarded the evidence of superimposition test and recovery of gold jewelry at the instance of A­1. Therefore, the High Court ruled that the conviction of A­1 and A­4 is bad in law and there is no evidence against A­2 to prove his implication in the crime. Resultantly, the High Court vide impugned order acquitted the respondents­accused from all the charges and set them free.

7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a case of murder for gain and the trial court after considering the circumstances of recovery of dead body, finger prints of A1 from the house of the deceased, recovery of gold jewelry and other evidences, rightly convicted the respondents­accused. It is also submitted that the impugned judgment passed by the High Court is contrary to law, evidence on record, facts and probabilities of the case and the same is liable to be set­aside.

8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material placed before us, we are of the view that there is  5 totally non­application of mind by the High Court towards the evidence available on record. We are of the view that the High Court has not dealt with the arguments advanced by the parties, in proper perspective and without taking note of the gravity of the offence.

9. We therefore feel it appropriate to set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court and remand the matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration, in accordance with the law, after giving opportunities to the parties.

10. Ordered accordingly.

11. Before parting with the matter, we make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the High Court is expected to deal with the matter on its own merits. The appeal stands disposed of.

.........................J. (N.V.RAMANA) .........................J. (MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR) NEW DELHI, DECEMBER 13, 2018.

ITEM NO.111                 COURT NO.5                  SECTION II-C

               S U P R E M E C O U R T O F      I N D I A
                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

                   Criminal Appeal No(s).990-991/2012

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA                                  Appellant(s)

                                  VERSUS

SANJAY KUMAR JAIN ETC                                   Respondent(s)

([TO BE TAKEN UP BEFORE ITEM NO. 107 I.E. C.A.NO.5535- 5536/2001]PART-HEARD BY HON'BLE N.V. RAMANA AND HON'BLE MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.) Date : 13-12-2018 These appeals were called on for hearing today. CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR For Appellant(s) Mr.Joseph Aristotle S., AOR Mrs.Priya Aristotle, Adv. Mr.Shiva P., Adv.

Mr.Amit S.J., Adv.

Ms.Anitha Shenoy, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr.Varun Thakur, Adv.

Ms.Parul Sharma, Adv. Mr.Bikash Chandra, Adv. Mr.Y.K.Prasad, Adv.

Ms.Laxmi, Adv.

Mr.Kumar Neeraj, Adv. Ms.Shraddha Saran, Adv. Mr.Varinder Kumar Sharma, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeal stands disposed of in terms of the signed order.

(SATISH KUMAR YADAV)                          (RAJ RANI NEGI)
     AR-CUM-PS                              ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
               (Signed order is placed on the file)