Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Rama Murthy @ Ramu @ Upendra vs State Of Karnataka By Peena Police on 13 July, 2021
Bench: Navin Sinha, R. Subhash Reddy
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.455 OF 2011
RAMA MURTHY @ RAMU @ UPENDRA APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PEENA POLICE RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
The appellant, who was accused no.3, assails his conviction under Sections 120-B, 302, 448, 397, 411 and 414 IPC sentencing him to life imprisonment.
One Smt. Lakshmidevi and her son were done to death at their home, on 23.11.2011. There is no eye witness to the occurrence. The prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence. According to the prosecution, the offence of murder was committed by accused Nos. 1 & 2 who have since been deceased. The appellant was arraigned as a part of the conspiracy to commit murder coupled with recovery of certain ornaments of the deceased, on confession.
Mr. Lakshmeesh S. Kamath, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that there is no evidence whatsoever against him to support the theory of conspiracy. The only witness on which the prosecution sought to rely turned hostile. The mere recovery of the gold ornaments, allegedly on his confession would at best amount to the offence of being in possession of stolen property. The appellant has already undergone 16 years of custody far in Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Rajni Mukhi Date: 2021.07.15 excess of the punishment that could be given to him under Sections 15:43:58 IST Reason:
411 and 414 IPC.1
Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, submitted that PW-9 had stated about the appellant being a part of the conspiracy to commit murder. There has been recovery at the instance of the appellant and therefore the conviction of the appellant merits no interference. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties. The prosecution alleges that the double murder was committed by the two co-accused. The appellant is not alleged to be a party to the murder, much less does the prosecution allege that he was even present when the offence was being committed. We find that there is absolutely no material whatsoever against the appellant to support any theory of his being a part of any conspiracy to commit the crime. PW-9, the only witness relied upon by the prosecution to support the theory of conspiracy against the appellant turned hostile. The witness was cross-examined by the prosecution also which did not elicit anything favourable. That leaves the only question of the liability of the appellant for ornaments stated to have been recovered on his confession linked with the crime.
Learned Counsel for the appellant has relied upon “Sanwat Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan.” AIR 1956 SC 54, to submit that in the circumstances the appellant would at best be liable under Sections 411 and 414 IPC, and for which he has already undergone more than the maximum period of sentence. We may only set out the following extract from the judgement:
2
“Be that as it may, in the absence of any direct or circumstantial evidence whatsoever, from the solitary circumstance of the unexplained recovery of the two articles from the houses of the two appellants the only inference that can be raised in view of illustration A to S. 114 of the Evidence Act is that they are either receivers of stolen property or were the persons who committed the theft, but it does not necessarily indicate that the theft and the murders took place at one and the same time.
In our judgment no hard and fast rule can be laid down as to what inference should be drawn from a certain circumstance. Where, however, the only evidence against an accused person is the recovery of stolen property and although the circumstances may indicate that the theft and the murder must have been committed at the same time, it is not safe to draw the inference that the person in possession of the stolen property was the murderer. Suspicion cannot take the place of proof.” In view of the same, we set aside the conviction of the appellant under Sections 302, 397, 448 but uphold the conviction under Sections 414 and 411 IPC. Considering the period of custody already undergone by the appellant, he is directed to be released forthwith unless wanted in any other case.
The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated only.
...................J. (NAVIN SINHA) ....................J. (R. SUBHASH REDDY) New Delhi;
13th July, 2021.
3
ITEM NO.103 Court 9 (Video Conferencing) 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). 455/2011
RAMA MURTHY @ RAMU @ UPENDRA Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PEENA POLICE Respondent(s)
(IA No. 7331/2021 - GRANT OF BAIL)
Date : 13-07-2021 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY For Appellant(s) Mr. Lakshmeesh S. Kamath, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Md. Apzal Ansari, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The conviction of the appellant under Sections 302, 397, 448 is set aside and conviction under Sections 414 and 411 IPC is upheld. Considering the period of custody already undergone by the appellant, he is directed to be released forthwith unless wanted in any other case. The appeal is allowed to this extent only in terms of signed order.
(RAJNI MUKHI) (DIPTI KHURANA)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
(Signed order is placed on the file)
4