NDLI: Subramanya Vs. State of Karnataka

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Penal Code 1860
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6 Referred Case 7 Referred Case 8 Referred Case 9 Referred Case 10 Referred Case 11 Referred Case 12 Referred Case 13 Referred Case 14 Referred Case 15 Referred Case 16 Referred Case 17 Referred Case 18 Referred Case 19 Referred Case 20 Referred Case 21 Referred Case 22 Referred Case 23 Referred Case 24
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Penal Code, 1860 – s. 302 – Evidence Act – ss. 8, 27 & 30 – Motive – Discovery Statement – Extra Judicial Confession – Appellant (A-1) and A-2 conspired to do away with the victim-deceased – Both are alleged to have entered her house and somewhere near the cattle shed, the deceased was hit on her head and neck with a hard object like a club – Later, they alleged to have removed the gold chain, a pair of ear studs and one gold ring from the body of the deceased – Later, A-3 is alleged to have helped the appellant and A-2 in wrapping the dead body of the deceased in a sari and thereafter dumping it on the land of one ‘D’ – All three Accused were tried together – Prosecution relied upon the facts of motive as appellant had illicit relation with original A-2 and deceased was coming in their way, the extra judicial confession alleged to have been made by A-3 before PW- 7 (son-in-law of the deceased), discovery of the dead body, recovery of the ornaments and discovery of the weapon of offence – Trial Court acquitted the appellant and the other two co-accused of all the charges – Appeal filed before High Court against acquittal order – High Court dismissed the appeal so far as A-2 is concerned and convicted A-1 u/s 302 of the IPC and A-3 u/s 201 r/w s. 34 of the IPC – Appeal filed by A-1 before Supreme Court – Held: The High Court should not have disturbed the acquittal recorded by the trial court – The Court doesn’t find any satisfaction recorded by High Court for treating the findings of the trial court palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable – The circumstances relating to the making of an extra judicial confession and the discovery of the weapon of offence etc. have not been established , the chain of circumstantial evidence snaps so badly that to consider any other circumstance, even like motive, would not be necessary – It is concluded that the evidence of discovery of the weapon, clothes and dead body of the deceased at the instance of the appellant convict herein can hardly be treated as legal evidence, more particularly, considering the various legal infirmities in the same – Therefore, the High Court committed error in holding the appellant convict herein guilty of murder – The appellant convict is set at liberty.Extra Judicial Confession – s. 30 – Evidentiary value of – Extra judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and the court must ensure that the same inspires confidence and is corroborated by other prosecution evidence – After subjecting the evidence of the witness to a rigorous test on the touchstone of credibility, the extra judicial confession can be accepted and can be the basis of a conviction if it passes the test of credibility – Where an extra judicial confession is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, its credibility becomes doubtful and it loses its importance like in the present case.Discovery Statement – s. 27 – Mere discovery cannot be interpreted as sufficient to infer authorship of concealment by the person who discovered the weapon – He could have derived knowledge of the existence of that weapon at the place through some other source also – Therefore, it cannot be presumed or inferred that because a person discovered the weapon, he was the person who had concealed it, least it can be presumed that he used it.Motive – s. 8 – Evidentiary value – The presence of motive in the facts and circumstances of the case creates a strong suspicion against the accused appellant but suspicion, howsoever strong, cannot be a substitute for proof of the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Circumstantial Evidence – The Court has to draw an inference with respect to whether the chain of circumstances is complete, and when the circumstances therein are collectively considered, the same must lead only to the irresistible conclusion that the accused alone is perpetrator of crime.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala
Neutral Citation	2022 INSC 1083
Petitioner	Subramanya
Respondent	State Of Karnataka
SCR	[2022] 14 S.C.R. 828
Judgement Date	2022-10-13
Case Number	242

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

Subramanya Vs. State of Karnataka

Please Log-in to view this content

State of Karnataka Vs. Raju

Kamalakar Vs. State of Karnataka

Shanthamalleshappa Vs. State of Karnataka

State of Karnataka Vs. K. Yarappa Reddy

Ramabora @ Ramaboraiah & Anr Vs. State of Karnataka

Samghaji Hariba Patil Vs. State of Karnataka

State of Karnataka Vs. Lakshmanaiah

Mallappa Vs. State of Karnataka

Krishnamurthy @ Gunodu and Others Vs. State of Karnataka

Subramanya Vs. State of Karnataka

Subramanya Vs. State of Karnataka

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

State of Karnataka Vs. Raju

Kamalakar Vs. State of Karnataka

Shanthamalleshappa Vs. State of Karnataka

State of Karnataka Vs. K. Yarappa Reddy

Ramabora @ Ramaboraiah & Anr Vs. State of Karnataka

Samghaji Hariba Patil Vs. State of Karnataka

State of Karnataka Vs. Lakshmanaiah

Mallappa Vs. State of Karnataka

Krishnamurthy @ Gunodu and Others Vs. State of Karnataka

Subramanya Vs. State of Karnataka