Supreme Court overturns murder conviction due to weak circumstantial evidence: Subramanya vs. State of Karnataka (2022) INSC 487

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a murder conviction can be sustained based on weak circumstantial evidence and an extra-judicial confession.

CASE TYPE: Criminal Law

Case Name: Subramanya vs. State of Karnataka

Judgment Date: 13 October 2022

Date of the Judgment: 13 October 2022

Citation: (2022) INSC 487

Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, CJI and J.B. Pardiwala, J.

Can a conviction for murder be upheld when the evidence is primarily circumstantial and relies on a retracted extra-judicial confession? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in the case of Subramanya vs. State of Karnataka. The Court examined whether the High Court of Karnataka was correct in overturning the trial court’s acquittal and convicting the appellant based on circumstantial evidence. This judgment highlights the importance of strong, reliable evidence in criminal cases, particularly when the prosecution’s case rests on circumstantial evidence. The bench comprised Chief Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice J.B. Pardiwala, with the judgment authored by Justice Pardiwala.

Case Background

The case revolves around the murder of Kamalamma, who was allegedly killed by the appellant, Subramanya, along with two co-accused, Gowri and Seetharam Bhat. The prosecution claimed that Subramanya and Gowri had an illicit relationship, which Kamalamma opposed, leading to a conspiracy to murder her. The prosecution’s case was that on 23 August 2010, Subramanya and Gowri entered Kamalamma’s house and assaulted her with a club, resulting in her death. They then allegedly stole her gold jewelry and mobile phone. Seetharam Bhat was accused of helping them dispose of the body by burying it in a field. The body was discovered later, and the accused were arrested. The trial court acquitted all three accused, but the High Court of Karnataka reversed the acquittal of Subramanya and Seetharam Bhat, convicting them of murder and destruction of evidence, respectively. Seetharam Bhat accepted the High Court’s verdict, but Subramanya appealed to the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Principal Sessions Judge, Chikmagalur, initially acquitted all three accused. The State of Karnataka appealed to the High Court of Karnataka, which upheld the acquittal of Gowri but convicted Subramanya for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and for destruction of evidence under Section 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Seetharam Bhat was also convicted for destruction of evidence. Subramanya then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily concerns the interpretation and application of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with the punishment for murder, and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which addresses the destruction of evidence. The case also involves the application of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which deals with the admissibility of information leading to the discovery of facts, and Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which deals with the relevance of conduct as evidence.

Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 states, “Punishment for murder.—Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”

Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 states, “Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender.—Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; or, if the offence is punishable with death, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; or, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for life, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 states, “Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.”

Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 states, “Any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact. The conduct of any party, or of any agent to any party, to any suit or proceeding, in reference to such suit or proceeding, or in reference to any fact in issue therein or relevant thereto, and the conduct of any person an offence against whom is the subject of any proceeding, is relevant, if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact, and whether it was previous or subsequent thereto.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The High Court erred in reversing the trial court’s acquittal without finding that the trial court’s findings were palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous, or demonstrably unsustainable.
• The High Court should not have relied on the extra-judicial confession of Seetharam Bhat, made almost four months after the incident, as the primary basis for conviction.
• The High Court erred in relying on the discoveries of the weapon, jewelry, mobile phone, and clothes under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

State’s Submissions:

• The High Court’s judgment is correct, and the circumstances point towards the guilt of the appellant.
• The extra-judicial confession of Seetharam Bhat is credible and corroborated by other evidence.
• The discoveries made at the instance of the appellant are valid and incriminating.

Innovativeness of the argument: The appellant’s counsel innovatively argued that the High Court did not properly apply the principles governing appeals against acquittals, focusing on the lack of a finding that the trial court’s judgment was unsustainable.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

1. Whether the High Court committed any error in passing the impugned judgment and order of conviction.
2. Whether the High Court was right in reversing the well-reasoned judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court.
3. Whether the High Court should have relied upon the extra judicial confession alleged to have been made by the accused No.3 Seetharam before the PW 7 Yogesh for the purpose of convicting the appellant herein.
4. Whether the High Court was justified in relying upon the various discoveries like weapon of offence, jewellery, mobile, clothes etc. under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Cases

• Sheo Swarup v. King-Emperor, 1934 SCC OnLine PC 42: (1933-34) 61 IA 398: AIR 1934 PC 227(2) – Discussed the powers of the High Court in dealing with appeals against acquittal.
• Chandrappa and Others v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 – Reiterated the double presumption of innocence in favor of the accused in acquittal cases.
• Atley v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1955 SC 807 – Stated that an acquittal judgment should not be set aside unless perverse.
• Sanwat Singh and Others v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1961 SC 715 – Clarified the powers of appellate courts in acquittal appeals.
• Aher Raja Khima v. State of Saurashtra, AIR 1956 SC 217 – Highlighted the need for substantial and compelling reasons to overturn an acquittal.
• M.G. Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1963 SC 200: (1963) 1 Cri LJ 235 – Emphasized the need for caution while dealing with acquittal appeals.
• Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade and Another v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793: 1973 SCC (Cri) 1033 – Stressed the need to balance the presumption of innocence with the need for potent criminal justice.
• Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat, (1996) 9 SCC 225: 1996 SCC (Cri) 972 – Outlined the approach for appellate courts reviewing acquittals.
• Ajit Savant Majagvai v. State of Karnataka, (1997) 7 SCC 110: 1997 SCC (Cri) 992 – Set out principles for High Courts in hearing appeals against acquittal orders.
• Nepal Singh v. State of Haryana, (2009) 12 SCC 351 – Reversed the High Court’s decision to set aside an acquittal.
• State of Uttar Pradesh v. Sahai and Others, (1982) 1 SCC 352 – Cautions against interfering with acquittal orders, especially when confirmed by the High Court.
• Arunachalam v. P.S.R. Sadhanantham and Another, (1979) 2 SCC 297 – Highlighted the reluctance to expose an acquitted person to further examination of the case.
• State of Haryana v. Lakhbir Singh and Another, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 35: 1990 Cri LJ 2274 – Stated that an appeal should not be entertained against an acquittal that is logical and justified.
• State of Rajasthan v. Sukhpal Singh and Others, (1983) 1 SCC 393 – Discussed instances where incontrovertible evidence is rejected based on unrealistic suspicion.
• State of U.P. v. Shanker, 1980 Supp SCC 489: 1981 SCC (Cri) 428 – Addressed the issue of discounting direct eyewitness accounts without cogent reasoning.
• State of U.P. v. Hakim Singh and Others, (1980) 3 SCC 55 – Addressed the issue of discounting testimony of relatives on the ground that they were “interested” witnesses.
• State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ranjha Ram and Others, (1986) 4 SCC 99 – Discussed the application of an unrealistic standard of “implicit proof” instead of “proof beyond reasonable doubt”.
• State of Maharashtra v. Champalal Punjaji Shah, (1981) 3 SCC 610 – Addressed the issue of rejecting circumstantial evidence based on exaggerated theories.
• Gurbachan Singh v. Satpal Singh and Others, (1990) 1 SCC 445 – Addressed the issue of acquittal resting merely on exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt.
• State of Andhra Pradesh v. Bogam Chandraiah and Another, (1986) 3 SCC 637 – Addressed the issue of acquitting accused on the ground of inadequate motive when strong direct evidence exists.
• State of U.P. v. Pheru Singh and Others, 1989 Supp (1) SCC 288 – Addressed the issue of findings based on perfunctory consideration of evidence.
• State of Uttar Pradesh v. Pussu alias Ram Kishore, (1983) 3 SCC 502 – Addressed the issue of findings based on extenuating circumstances based on imagination and fantasy.
• Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Outlined the conditions for establishing guilt in cases based on circumstantial evidence.
• Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1952 SC 343: 1952 SCR 1091: 1953 Cri LJ 129 – Established the fundamental principles for circumstantial evidence.
• Tufail (Alias) Simmi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1969) 3 SCC 198: 1970 SCC (Cri) 55 – Followed the principles laid down in Hanumant.
• Ramgopal v. State of Maharashtra, (1972) 4 SCC 625: AIR 1972 SC 656 – Followed the principles laid down in Hanumant.
• Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793: 1973 SCC (Cri) 1033: 1973 Cri LJ 1783 – Clarified the difference between “may be” and “must be” guilty.
• Bhuboni Sahu v. The King, AIR 1949 PC 257 – Discussed the evidentiary value of a co-accused’s confession.
• Ram Chandra and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1957 SC 381 – Held that a co-accused’s confession is not substantive evidence.
• Haricharan Kurmi & Jogia Hajam v. State of Bihar, AIR 1964 SC 1184 – Reaffirmed that a co-accused’s confession is not substantive evidence.
• Kashmira Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1952 SC 159 – Explained how a confession can be used in support of other evidence.
• Sahadevan and Another v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2012) 6 SCC 403 – Discussed the admissibility and evidentiary value of extra-judicial confessions.
• Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 1995 Supp (4) SCC 259: 1996 SCC (Cri) 59 – Stated that extra-judicial confessions are weak evidence.
• State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram, (2003) 8 SCC 180: 2003 SCC (Cri) 1965 – Explained the conditions for relying on extra-judicial confessions.
• Sansar Chand v. State of Rajasthan, (2010) 10 SCC 604: (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 79 – Stated that extra-judicial confessions can be the basis of conviction if corroborated.
• Madan Gopal Kakkad v. Naval Dubey and Another, (1992) 3 SCC 204 – Held that corroboration of extra-judicial confession is not always required.
• Murli and Another v. State of Rajasthan, (2009) 9 SCC 417 – Clarified that panchnama contents are not substantive evidence.
• Mohmed Inayatullah v. The State of Maharashtra, AIR (1976) SC 483 – Outlined the conditions for the applicability of Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
• Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka, AIR (1983) SC 446 – Specified that the information must cause the discovery of a fact and relate to it distinctly.
• State of Uttar Pradesh v. Deoman Upadhyaya, AIR (1960) SC 1125 – Explained the classification of accused persons and the admissibility of their statements.
• Pulukuri Kottaya and Others v. Emperor, AIR 1947 PC 67 – Defined the scope of “fact discovered” under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
• Dudh Nath Pandey v. State of U.P., AIR (1981) SC 911 – Stated that discovery of a weapon does not prove its use in the offense.
• Bodhraj alias Bodha and Others v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, (2002) 8 SCC 45 – Discussed the requirements of police custody and information for Section 27.
• A.N. Venkatesh and Another v. State of Karnataka, (2005) 7 SCC 714 – Held that conduct of the accused is relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act.
• Prakash Chand v. State (Delhi Admn.), (1979) 3 SCC 90: 1979 SCC (Cri) 656: AIR 1979 SC 400 – Held that the conduct of the accused is relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act.
• Sampath Kumar v. Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri, (2012) 4 SCC 124 – Stated that motive alone cannot be the basis of a conviction.
• N.J. Suraj v. State, (2004) 11 SCC 346: 2004 SCC (Cri) Supp 85 – Held that motive alone is not enough for a conviction.
• Santosh Kumar Singh v. State, (2010) 9 SCC 747: (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1469 – Held that motive alone is not sufficient to convict.
• Rukia Begum v. State of Karnataka, (2011) 4 SCC 779: (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 488: AIR 2011 SC 1585 – Held that motive alone is not sufficient to convict.
• Sunil Rai v. UT, Chandigarh, (2011) 12 SCC 258: (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 543: AIR 2011 SC 2545 – Held that motive alone is not enough for conviction and suspicion cannot take the place of proof.

Legal Provisions

• Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Punishment for murder.
• Section 201, Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Causing disappearance of evidence of offence.
• Section 27, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – How much of information received from accused may be proved.
• Section 8, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that an appellate court should not reverse an acquittal unless the trial court’s findings are perverse, manifestly erroneous, or demonstrably unsustainable. The Court also emphasized that extra-judicial confessions are weak evidence and should not be the primary basis for a conviction unless corroborated by other reliable evidence. The Court further clarified that discoveries under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, must be directly linked to the statement made by the accused and must prove the authorship of concealment. The Court also reiterated that motive alone cannot be the basis of a conviction without other reliable evidence.

Decision

The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s judgment and acquitted Subramanya. The Court found that the High Court had erred in reversing the trial court’s acquittal without sufficient grounds. The Court held that the circumstantial evidence was weak and did not conclusively prove the appellant’s guilt. The Court also rejected the reliability of the extra-judicial confession and the discoveries made under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

Flowchart of the Case

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Subramanya vs. State of Karnataka underscores the importance of robust and reliable evidence in criminal cases, particularly when the prosecution’s case rests on circumstantial evidence. The judgment highlights the need for appellate courts to exercise caution when reversing acquittals and to ensure that the trial court’s findings are demonstrably unsustainable before overturning them. The case also serves as a reminder of the limitations of extra-judicial confessions and the need for a direct link between the accused’s statement and the discovery of facts under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The judgment reinforces the principle that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof and that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.