Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Due to Lack of Evidence: State of Karnataka vs. P. Ravikumar (2018)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 16th August 2018

Citation: 2018 INSC 727

Judges: R. Banumathi, J. and Vineet Saran, J.

Can an accused be convicted solely on the basis of extra-judicial confessions, especially when those confessions are not corroborated by other evidence? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a criminal appeal filed by the State of Karnataka against the acquittal of two accused persons in a murder case. The court examined the reliability of extra-judicial confessions and the need for corroborative evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The bench comprised of Justice R. Banumathi and Justice Vineet Saran, with the judgment authored by Justice R. Banumathi.

Case Background

The prosecution’s case was that the deceased, Mohan Kumar, was murdered as a result of a conspiracy hatched by his wife, D.B. Savitha (Accused No. 3), and her alleged paramour (Accused No. 1). The prosecution contended that Accused No. 1 and Accused No. 2 (P. Ravikumar @ Ravi) were involved in the murder of Mohan Kumar, who was allegedly being harassed by his wife (Accused No. 3) due to her illicit relationship with Accused No. 1. On July 7, 2003, Mohan Kumar left his house in the morning for his fertilizer shop and did not return. Later that night, his body was found on the side of the road, with the initial claim being that he had fallen from his bike. Following this, the police investigation led to the arrest of all three accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 120(B) of the IPC.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court convicted all three accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 34 and Section 120(B) of the IPC. However, on appeal, the High Court maintained the conviction of Accused No. 1 but acquitted Accused No. 2 and Accused No. 3. The State of Karnataka then appealed to the Supreme Court against the acquittal of Accused No. 2 and Accused No. 3.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the punishment for murder.
  “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 120B, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with the punishment for criminal conspiracy.
  “Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.”
• Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with the acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
  “When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.”

Arguments

The prosecution’s case against Accused No. 2 (P. Ravikumar @ Ravi) relied on the following arguments:

• Extra-Judicial Confession to PW-2: The prosecution argued that Accused No. 2 had confessed to the murder of Mohan Kumar to PW-2, an auto driver and friend of Accused No. 1 and Accused No. 2. PW-2 initially stated that about 20 days before the incident, Accused No. 1 asked him to chase the deceased, and later, both Accused No. 1 and Accused No. 2 confessed to the murder.
• Extra-Judicial Confession to PW-4: The prosecution also argued that on the night of the incident, Accused No. 1 and Accused No. 2 went to the residence of PW-4 (M.G. Rajashekher @ Raju), a friend of Accused No. 2. PW-4 stated that Accused No. 2’s clothes were blood-stained and that both accused made an extra-judicial confession.

The prosecution’s case against Accused No. 3 (D.B. Savitha) relied on the following arguments:

• Photographs (Exhibit P-8 & P-9): The prosecution relied on photographs recovered on the disclosure statement of Accused No. 3, which showed Accused No. 1 and Accused No. 3 together. This was used to argue that they had an illicit relationship, which was the motive for the murder.

The defense argued that:

• PW-2’s Hostility: PW-2 resiled from his earlier statement during cross-examination and was declared hostile. Thus, his statement was not reliable.
• PW-4’s Testimony: PW-4 stated that when he questioned Accused No. 1 about the blood stains on Accused No. 2’s clothes, Accused No. 1 said that they had sustained injuries due to an auto toppling. This explanation weakened the prosecution’s case.
• Lack of Direct Evidence: There was no direct evidence to prove that Accused No. 3 had conspired with Accused No. 2 to commit the murder of Mohan Kumar. The photographs only showed an illicit relationship between Accused No. 1 and Accused No. 3.
• Weakness of Extra-Judicial Confessions: Extra-judicial confessions are a weak piece of evidence and cannot form the basis of conviction unless supported by other substantive evidence.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in acquitting the respondent nos. 1 and 2 (Accused Nos. 2 and 3) for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• Evidence of PW-2: The court noted that PW-2, who was supposed to be a witness to the extra-judicial confession, turned hostile during cross-examination. The court held that the statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is not substantive evidence and cannot be used to base a conviction.
• Evidence of PW-4: The court observed that PW-4’s testimony did not support the prosecution’s case, as PW-4 explained the blood stains on Accused No. 2’s clothes.
• Extra-Judicial Confession: The court reiterated that extra-judicial confessions are a weak piece of evidence and cannot form the basis of conviction unless supported by other substantive evidence.
• Photographs (Exhibit P-8 & P-9): The court stated that the photographs only showed that Accused No. 1 and Accused No. 3 had an illicit relationship but did not prove that Accused No. 3 had conspired with Accused No. 2 to commit the murder.

Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court’s decision to acquit Accused No. 2 and Accused No. 3.

The Supreme Court held that the extra-judicial confessions were not reliable and were not supported by any other substantive evidence. The court observed that the evidence of PW-2 and PW-4 did not advance the prosecution’s case. The court also noted that the photographs only showed an illicit relationship between Accused No. 1 and Accused No. 3, but did not prove any conspiracy to commit murder.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of credible evidence to support the prosecution’s case against Accused No. 2 and Accused No. 3. The court emphasized the unreliability of extra-judicial confessions, particularly when not corroborated by other substantive evidence. The court also noted the inconsistencies in the testimonies of key witnesses, which further weakened the prosecution’s case.

The court’s decision was influenced by the following ratio of fact and law:

The court’s reasoning was based on the assessment of the factual evidence presented by the prosecution, particularly the testimonies of PW-2 and PW-4, and the lack of corroborating evidence for the extra-judicial confessions. The court also considered the legal principle that extra-judicial confessions are a weak form of evidence and require substantive corroboration to form the basis of a conviction.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• Extra-Judicial Confessions: Extra-judicial confessions are a weak form of evidence and cannot be the sole basis for a conviction. They require strong corroborative evidence to be considered reliable.
• Hostile Witnesses: If a witness turns hostile, their earlier statements cannot be used as substantive evidence.
• Burden of Proof: The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. Weak evidence and inconsistencies in witness testimonies can weaken the prosecution’s case.
• Conspiracy: Mere suspicion or circumstantial evidence is not sufficient to prove a criminal conspiracy. There must be concrete evidence linking the accused to the conspiracy.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Specific Amendments Analysis

No specific amendments were discussed in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that extra-judicial confessions cannot be the sole basis for a conviction and require substantive corroboration. This reaffirms the established legal principle regarding the evidentiary value of extra-judicial confessions and emphasizes the need for the prosecution to present strong, reliable evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The judgment reinforces the principle that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution and that the benefit of the doubt must be given to the accused.

Conclusion

In the case of State of Karnataka vs. P. Ravikumar @ Ravi ETC., the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by the State of Karnataka, upholding the acquittal of Accused No. 2 and Accused No. 3 by the High Court. The court found that the prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The judgment highlights the importance of credible and corroborative evidence in criminal cases, particularly when relying on extra-judicial confessions.