Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case Based on Circumstantial Evidence: Siju Kurian vs. State of Karnataka (2023)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: April 17, 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 378

Judges: Surya Kant, J. and Aravind Kumar, J.

Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in the case of *Siju Kurian vs. State of Karnataka*. The court examined whether the High Court of Karnataka was correct in reversing the trial court’s acquittal and convicting the accused based on the chain of circumstantial evidence. This case highlights the significance of the “last seen theory” and the recovery of material evidence at the instance of the accused in establishing guilt in the absence of direct eyewitnesses. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Aravind Kumar, with Justice Aravind Kumar authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case revolves around the murder of Mr. Jose Kafan, who was found dead in his farmhouse in Kerodi village, Karnataka. The accused, Siju Kurian, was employed as a laborer at Mr. Kafan’s farmhouse. The prosecution alleged that on December 2, 2011, between 6:00 am and 6:30 am, Siju Kurian entered Mr. Kafan’s room and fatally assaulted him with an iron rod. Following the murder, the accused allegedly stole items from the farmhouse and concealed the body in a manure pit located in the garden. The prosecution further claimed that the accused attempted to sell Mr. Kafan’s land, impersonating his son, and also sold the stolen items.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The trial court acquitted the accused, stating that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The State of Karnataka appealed this decision to the High Court of Karnataka. The High Court reversed the trial court’s decision, convicting the accused under Sections 302 (murder), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence), 404 (dishonest misappropriation of property), and 419 (cheating by impersonation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The High Court sentenced the accused to life imprisonment and other concurrent sentences. The accused then appealed to the Supreme Court of India.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the following legal provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 201 of the IPC: This section deals with causing the disappearance of evidence of an offense or giving false information to screen an offender.
• Section 404 of the IPC: This section addresses the dishonest misappropriation of property possessed by a deceased person.
• Section 419 of the IPC: This section deals with cheating by impersonation.
• Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section allows for the admissibility of information received from an accused in custody, which leads to the discovery of a fact.
  
  “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 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section states that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of a person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.
• Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section states that the conduct of the accused person is relevant, if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that there was no direct evidence linking him to the crime, and the High Court’s conviction was based solely on circumstantial evidence.
• The appellant contended that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of events leading to his guilt.
• The confessional statement allegedly given by the appellant to the police was unreliable because it was translated into Kannada, a language he did not understand, by a person who could not read or write Kannada.
• The appellant argued that the recovery of the body and other material objects at his instance was not credible, as the police already knew the location.
• The prosecution did not prove that the accused was an employee of the deceased.
• The appellant highlighted discrepancies in the timeline, noting that the post-mortem report suggested the death occurred much earlier than the date mentioned in the alleged confession statement.
• The appellant contended that the witnesses relied upon by the prosecution were stock witnesses and their evidence was not trustworthy.
• The appellant argued that the High Court erroneously shifted the burden of proof onto the accused.
• The appellant submitted that the prosecution failed to secure and produce the CDR of the accused’s mobile phone, which was fatal to the prosecution case.
• The appellant cited several judgments to support his claim that the benefit of doubt should be extended to the accused.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent argued that the High Court correctly reversed the trial court’s acquittal due to erroneous appreciation of evidence.
• The respondent highlighted the unshaken testimonies of material witnesses who supported the prosecution’s case.
• The respondent emphasized the recovery of stolen articles at the instance of the accused.
• The respondent contended that the High Court had rightly considered the evidence of the doctor (PW-22) and other witnesses to conclude that the accused was guilty.
• The respondent relied on several judgments to support the High Court’s decision.

Submissions Table:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the judgment of the High Court reversing the finding of the Trial Court is to be set aside on the basis of there being two possible views and the one taken by Trial Court being a possible view?
2. Whether the judgment of the High Court is erroneous and the findings recorded by the Trial Court has been erroneously reversed by High Court while re-appreciating the said evidence?
3. Whether the High Court has appreciated the evidence in proper manner or the High Court had failed to consider the evidence in proper perspective?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Supreme Court relied on the authorities to support its reasoning:

• The Court distinguished the facts of the case from the facts in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [(1984) 4 SCC 116], stating that in the present case, the prosecution had established a clear chain of circumstances.
• The Court relied on Sheo Swarup v. King Emperor [AIR 1934 PC 227] and Chandrappa and others v. State of Karnataka [(2007) 4 SCC 415] to affirm the appellate court’s power to reappraise evidence and reverse the trial court’s decision when the trial court’s judgment is perverse.
• The Court distinguished the facts of the case from the facts in Murugesan v. State through the Inspector of Police [(2012) 10 SCC 383], stating that the Trial Court’s view was not a possible view.
• The Court relied on Gamini Bala Koteswara Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh [AIR 2010 SC 589] to emphasize that the High Court can reappraise evidence when the trial court’s judgment is perverse.
• The Court relied on State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram [(2006) 12 SCC 254] to emphasize the importance of the “last seen theory” and the burden on the accused to explain their presence with the deceased.
• The Court relied on A.N. Venkatesh & Ors. v. State of Karnataka [(2005) 7 SCC 714] to emphasize that the conduct of the accused is relevant under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act.
• The Court relied on State of Karnataka v. Suvarnamma [(2015) 1 SCC 323] to highlight that the conflicting statements of the accused were used to prove the guilt of the accused.
• The Court relied on Pattu Rajan v. State of Tamil Nadu [(2019) 4 SCC 771] to show that the High Court was correct in rejecting the contentions of the accused.
• The Court relied on Mohmed Inayatullah Vs. State of Maharashtra [AIR 1976 SC 483] to explain that a statement of an accused recorded while being in police custody can be split into its components and can be separated from the admissible portions.
• The Court relied on Prakash Chand v. State (Delhi Admn.) [(1979) 3 SCC 90: 1979 SCC (Cri) 656: AIR 1979 SC 400] to emphasize that the conduct of the accused is relevant under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act.
• The Court relied on Naina Mohd., Re. [AIR 1960 Mad 218 : 1960 Cri LJ 620] to emphasize that when the accused does not throw any light upon facts which are specially within his knowledge and which could not support any theory or hypothesis compatible with his innocence, the court can consider his failure to adduce any explanation, as an additional link which completes the chain.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Circumstantial Evidence: The court emphasized that the chain of circumstantial evidence, including the last seen theory, the recovery of the body and stolen articles at the instance of the accused, and the conflicting statements of the accused, strongly pointed towards the guilt of the accused.
• Last Seen Theory: The court gave significant weight to the fact that the accused was last seen in the company of the deceased, and the accused failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the same.
• Recovery of Material Evidence: The court considered the recovery of the body and other articles at the instance of the accused to be a crucial piece of evidence.
• Conduct of the Accused: The court noted that the conduct of the accused, including his attempt to sell the deceased’s property and his conflicting statements, further strengthened the prosecution’s case.
• Failure to Explain: The court took note of the fact that the accused failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the incriminating circumstances found against him.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio:

Logical Reasoning:

Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, affirming the conviction of Siju Kurian for murder and other related offenses. The court emphasized that a conviction can be sustained on the basis of circumstantial evidence, provided that the chain of circumstances is complete and points towards the guilt of the accused. The judgment underscores the importance of the “last seen theory,” the recovery of material evidence at the instance of the accused, and the accused’s conduct in establishing guilt in the absence of direct evidence. The court also affirmed the appellate court’s power to reappraise evidence when the trial court’s judgment is perverse. This case serves as a significant precedent for future cases involving circumstantial evidence in criminal law.