NDLI: Siju Kurian Vs. State of Karnataka

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	ss. 302 201 IPC Circumstantial Evidence Reliance upon 404 and 419
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Dismissed
Headnote	Penal Code, 1860: ss. 302, 201, 404 and 419 – Circumstantial Evidence – Reliance upon – Prosecution case that the accused-labourer in the farmhouse of the victim, murdered the victim by hitting him with iron rod and then hid the dead body in a pit located in the garden – Other articles also concealed – Accused stole the articles in the farm house and sold them as also sold the land to make undue monetary gain – Acquittal by the trial court on the ground that prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt – However, the High Court convicted and sentenced the accused for the offence punishable u/ss. 302, 201, 404 and 419 – On appeal, held: Death of the victim being homicidal stands proved by the post mortem report – Prime witnesses as also other prosecution witnesses testified that accused last seen in the company of the victim – Recovery of dead body as also articles of the deceased on basis of the voluntary statement of accused, and was also proved through the prosecution witnesses – Articles sold by the accused were recovered on the strength of the voluntary statement of the accused – Plea that confession statement is to be discarded in its entirety cannot be accepted – Also it cannot be said that the statement was not being voluntary or it was recorded improperly – Thus, the conclusion arrived at by the High Court is based on sound appreciation of evidence and proper application of law – No material irregularity in the judgment of the High Court – On re-appreciation of entire evidence by the High Court in proper perspective, it was rightly held that the accused alone committed the murder of the victim and there being no other possible view which could be considered as missing in the link of chain of circumstances – Thus, the order passed by the High Court upheld – Evidence Act 1872 – ss. 8, 25 and 27.Evidence Act, 1827: s. 27 – How much of information received from accused may be proved – Held: Section 27 permits the derivative use of custodial statement in the ordinary course of events – There is no automatic presumption that the custodial statements have been extracted through compulsion – In pursuance to a voluntary statement made by the accused, a fact must be discovered which was in the exclusive knowledge of the accused alone – In such circumstances, that part of the voluntary statement which leads to the discovery of a new fact which was only in the knowledge of the accused would become admissible u/s. 27 – Such statement should have been voluntarily made and the facts stated therein should not have been in the know how of others. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 378 – Appeal against acquittal – Powers of appellate court – General principles – Stated.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar
Neutral Citation	2023 INSC 378
Petitioner	Siju Kurian
Respondent	State Of Karnataka
SCR	[2023] 4 S.C.R. 397
Judgement Date	2023-04-17
Case Number	64

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Siju Kurian Vs. State of Karnataka

Please Log-in to view this content

Baiju Kumar Soni & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand

Ananda Poojary Vs. State of Karnataka

Indrajit Das Vs. The State of Tripura

Maghavendra Pratap Singh @ Pankaj Singh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh

Prem Singh Vs. State of Nct of Delhi

Kanhaiya Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan

Dakkata Balaram Reddy & Anr Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.

Pradeep Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh

John Anthonisamy @ John Vs. State, Rep. By The Inspector of Police

Siju Kurian Vs. State of Karnataka

Siju Kurian Vs. State of Karnataka

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Baiju Kumar Soni & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand

Ananda Poojary Vs. State of Karnataka

Indrajit Das Vs. The State of Tripura

Maghavendra Pratap Singh @ Pankaj Singh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh

Prem Singh Vs. State of Nct of Delhi

Kanhaiya Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan

Dakkata Balaram Reddy & Anr Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.

Pradeep Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh

John Anthonisamy @ John Vs. State, Rep. By The Inspector of Police

Siju Kurian Vs. State of Karnataka