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

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 17 April 2023

Citation: Not Available

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

Can a conviction be upheld based on circumstantial evidence alone, especially when the primary evidence is a confessional statement? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in the case of Siju Kurian vs. State of Karnataka. The case revolves around the murder of Mr. Jose Kafan, where the accused, Siju Kurian, was convicted based on circumstantial evidence and a confessional statement that led to the discovery of the body and other material objects. The High Court had reversed the Trial Court’s acquittal, leading to this appeal before the Supreme Court. This judgment explores the boundaries of circumstantial evidence and the admissibility of confessional statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

Case Background

The prosecution’s case is that Siju Kurian, the accused, was employed as a laborer at the farmhouse of Mr. Jose Kafan in Kerodi village, Karnataka. On December 2, 2011, between 6:00 am and 6:30 am, the accused allegedly entered Mr. Kafan’s room and murdered him by striking him with an iron rod on his face, left eyebrow, and left chin. Following the murder, the accused is said to have stolen articles from the farmhouse, sold them, and also attempted to sell Mr. Kafan’s land. To conceal the crime, the accused hid the body in a manure pit in the garden. The iron rod, Mr. Kafan’s belt, pants, and shirt were also hidden nearby. The accused then sold the stolen items to various individuals and attempted to sell the land by impersonating himself as the son of the deceased. Mr. Sajid, the son of the deceased, filed a missing complaint, which led to an inquiry. The accused confessed to the crime and showed the location of the concealed body. A charge-sheet was filed against the accused for offences under Sections 302, 201, 404, and 419 of the Indian Penal Code.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court acquitted the accused, concluding 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, arguing that the Trial Court had erroneously appreciated the evidence. The High Court, after re-evaluating the evidence, reversed the Trial Court’s decision and convicted the accused under Sections 302, 201, 404, and 419 of the IPC. The High Court noted that the Trial Court had not properly considered the evidence of the doctor (PW-22) and the recoveries made based on the accused’s statements.

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. “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 201 of the IPC: This section deals with causing the disappearance of evidence of an offence or giving false information to screen an 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.”
• Section 404 of the IPC: This section addresses dishonest misappropriation of property possessed by a deceased person. “Whoever dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use property, knowing that such property was in the possession of a deceased person at the time of that person’s decease, and has not since been in the possession of any person legally entitled to such possession, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if the offender at the time of such person’s decease was employed by him as a clerk or servant, the imprisonment may extend to seven years.”
• Section 419 of the IPC: This section pertains to the punishment for cheating by personation. “Whoever cheats by personation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”
• Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act: This section allows for the admissibility of information received from an accused person in police custody if it 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 8 of the Indian Evidence Act: This section defines the admissibility of conduct as evidence.
• Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act: This section deals with the burden of proof when a fact is especially within the knowledge of a person.

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 prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of events that led to the conclusion of the accused’s guilt.
• The confessional statement allegedly given by the appellant to the police under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was unreliable. The statement was written in Kannada, a language the accused did not know. The translation process was flawed, as PW-10, who translated the statement, could not read or write Kannada, and the original written statement was not produced.
• PW-10, the translator, was a close friend of other prosecution witnesses, making his testimony unreliable.
• The prosecution’s timeline of the murder was inconsistent with the post-mortem report. The prosecution claimed the murder occurred on December 2, 2011, while the post-mortem suggested the death occurred 45 to 60 days before the exhumation on January 21, 2012.
• The prosecution relied on stock witnesses (PW-1, PW-2, and PW-10) for the recovery of material objects. These witnesses were close friends residing in the neighborhood, making their testimony untrustworthy.
• The prosecution failed to prove that the accused was an employee of the deceased.
• The accused denied all allegations during his examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., including the recovery of the dead body and other objects.
• The police already knew the location of the body before the accused’s arrest.
• Two other employees of the deceased were missing, and the prosecution provided no explanation.
• The prosecution did not secure and produce the accused’s mobile CDR, which was fatal to their case.
• The confessional statement (Ex.P-2) was inadmissible because it was made to the police.
• The findings of the Trial Court were not perverse and should not have been overturned by the High Court.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The High Court was justified in reversing the Trial Court’s acquittal because the Trial Court had failed to appreciate the available evidence.
• Material witnesses, such as PW-3, PW-9, and PW-11, remained unshaken in their testimony.
• The High Court correctly noted that the Trial Court had ignored material evidence.
• PW-5 testified about the sale of the rubble tapping machines, supporting the prosecution’s case.
• The High Court, upon re-appreciation of evidence, rightly concluded that the Trial Court had ignored material evidence.

Submissions of the Parties

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 the Trial Court being a possible view?
2. Whether the judgment of the High Court is erroneous and the findings recorded by the Trial Court have been erroneously reversed by the High Court while re-appreciating the said evidence?
3. Whether the High Court has appreciated the evidence in a 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 as to 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?

• Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116: The Court acknowledged the principles of circumstantial evidence but found that the present case met those requirements.
• Sheo Swarup v. King Emperor AIR 1934 PC 227: The Court reiterated that the appellate court should give due weight to the trial court’s views but can reverse if the judgment is perverse.
• Chandrappa and others v. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415: The Court reaffirmed the appellate court’s power to review evidence but noted the double presumption of innocence.
• Murugesan v. State through the Inspector of Police (2012) 10 SCC 383: The Court distinguished the present case, stating that the High Court can interfere if the trial court’s view is not a possible view.
• Naresh Chandra Das v. Emperor AIR 1942 (Cal) 593: The Court distinguished it by stating that the statement leading to the discovery of a fact is admissible.
• Pohalya Motya Valvi v. State of Maharashtra (1980) 1 SCC 530: The Court distinguished it by stating that the statement leading to the discovery of a fact is admissible.
• Anvar P.V. v P.K. Basheer (2014) 10 SCC 473: The Court distinguished it by stating that the statement leading to the discovery of a fact is admissible.
• Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020) 7 SCC 1: The Court distinguished it by stating that the statement leading to the discovery of a fact is admissible.
• Gamini Bala Koteswara Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 2010 SC 589: The Court reiterated that the High Court can re-appraise evidence and reverse findings if the trial court’s judgment is perverse.
• State of Rajasthan v Kashi Ram (2006) 12 SCC 254: The Court applied the principle that if a person is last seen with the deceased, he must offer an explanation.
• A.N. Venkatesh & Ors. v State of Karnataka (2005) 7 SCC 714: The Court applied the principle that the conduct of the accused is relevant if it influences or is influenced by a fact in issue.
• State of Karnataka v Suvarnamma (2015) 1 SCC 323: The Court relied on this to emphasize that the accused’s false statements can be used as incriminating evidence.
• Pattu Rajan v State of Tamil Nadu (2019) 4 SCC 771: The Court relied on this to emphasize that the accused’s failure to explain incriminating evidence can be used against him.
• Mohmed Inayatullah Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1976 SC 483: The Court applied the principle that a statement can be split into its admissible and inadmissible parts.
• Naina Mohd., Re. AIR 1960 Mad 218: The Court applied the principle that when the accused does not explain facts within his knowledge, it can be an additional link.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• Circumstantial Evidence: The Court found that the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution formed a complete chain that pointed towards the guilt of the accused. This included the last seen theory, the recovery of the body and stolen articles at the instance of the accused, and the accused’s attempts to sell the deceased’s property.
• Admissibility of Confessional Statement: The Court held that while the entire confessional statement was not admissible, the portion of the statement that led to the discovery of the body was admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
• Credibility of Witnesses: The Court found the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses to be credible and consistent, particularly those who testified about the accused being last seen with the deceased and the recovery of the body and other material objects.
• Failure of the Accused to Explain: The Court noted that the accused failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the incriminating circumstances against him, which added to the weight of the prosecution’s case.
• Perversity of Trial Court’s Judgment: The Court agreed with the High Court that the Trial Court’s judgment was perverse as it failed to appreciate the available evidence.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the alternative interpretation that the deceased might have died due to an accidental fall, but rejected it due to the overwhelming evidence of homicidal death. The Court also considered the arguments regarding the confessional statement and the timeline of the murder but found them to be without merit. The Court emphasized that the High Court had correctly re-appreciated the evidence and applied the law in the proper perspective.

The Court’s decision was based on a step-by-step evaluation of the evidence, including the post-mortem report, the testimonies of the witnesses, and the circumstances surrounding the crime. The Court concluded that the accused was guilty of the murder of Mr. Jose Kafan beyond a reasonable doubt.

“The death of Mr. Jose C Kafan being homicide, the accused was found to be the perpetrator of the crime beyond reasonable doubt.”

Final Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court’s judgment. The Court affirmed the conviction of the accused, Siju Kurian, under Sections 302, 201, 404, and 419 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court found that the High Court had correctly re-appreciated the evidence and that the Trial Court’s judgment was perverse and not based on a proper evaluation of the available evidence.

Key Takeaways

• Circumstantial Evidence: The Supreme Court reaffirmed that a conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence alone if it forms a complete chain that points towards the guilt of the accused.
• Section 27 of the Evidence Act: The Court clarified that the portion of a confessional statement that leads to the discovery of a fact is admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, even if the entire statement is not admissible.
• Appellate Court Powers: The Court reiterated that an appellate court can reverse a trial court’s decision if the judgment is perverse or if the trial court has failed to appreciate the available evidence.
• Burden of Proof: The Court emphasized that while the burden of proof is on the prosecution, the accused must also offer a reasonable explanation for the incriminating circumstances against him.
• Importance of Witness Testimony: The Court highlighted the importance of credible and consistent witness testimonies in establishing the facts of a case.
• Re-appreciation of Evidence: The Court reiterated that the appellate court has the power to re-appreciate the evidence and reverse the findings of the trial court if necessary.