State Of Karnataka vs P.Ravikumar @ Ravi

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs. 1428-1429 OF 2013

STATE OF KARNATAKA ...APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

P.RAVIKUMAR @ RAVI ETC. ...RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

R. BANUMATHI,J.

1. Challenging the acquittal of respondent nos. 1

and 2 (accused 2 & 3) respectively for the offence

under Section 302, IPC the State of Karnataka has

preferred these appeals.

2. Case of the prosecution is that respondent no.

2 (A-3) D.B. Savitha - wife of the deceased - Mohan

Kumar was allegedly having illicit relationship with

accused no. 1. On account of such motive, Accused No.

1 and respondent nos. 1 and 2 herein (Accused Nos. 2 &

3) are alleged to have hatched a conspiracy in

committing the murder of deceased Mohan Kumar- Signature Not Verified husband of A-3 (D.B. Savitha) on the ground that he Digitally signed by MADHU BALA Date: 2018.08.24 17:25:13 IST Reason: used to harass her on the illicit relationship of A-1

and A-3. On 07.07.2003, the deceased Mohan Kumar left 2

the house in the morning for his fertilizer shop and

did not return back. At about 9.30 p.m., the mother of

the deceased came to know through PW-6 (Basavaraju)

that the body of her son is lying on the side of the

road and that he had allegedly fallen from the bike.

The deceased was taken to the hospital where he

declared dead. The law was set in motion and all the

three accused were held under Section 302 IPC read

with 120(B),IPC.

3. The trial court convicted all the accused under

section 302 IPC read with 34 IPC and 120(B),IPC. On

appeal, the High Court maintained the conviction of

accused no. 1 and acquitted respondent nos. 1 & 2

(Accused nos. 2 and 3).

4. we have heard Mr. Joseph Aristotle, learned

counsel appearing for the state of Karnataka.

5. Though the respondents have entered appearance

through counsel but at the time of hearing the matter

none appears on behalf of the respondents. We have

carefully perused the impugned judgment, evidence and

materials on record.

6. Insofar as respondent no. 1 (accused No. 2) -

P. Ravi Kumar @ Ravi is concerned, the prosecution

relies upon the extra judicial confession made to PW-2

(Auto Driver) who is stated to be the friend of

accused nos. 1 and 2. PW-2 has stated that about 20

days prior to the date of incident, when he was 3

sitting in the auto, A-1 was with him and that accused

no. 1 asked him to chase the deceased who was going on

his motorcycle. PW-2 further stated that about 20

days later accused nos. 1 and 2 approached him and

said to have made extra judicial confession that they

had committed the murder of deceased Mohan Kumar to

whom on earlier occasion they chased. Though PW-2 in

his chief examination stuck to his version, when he

was cross examined, he resiled from his earlier

version and consequently PW-2 was treated hostile.

When PW-2 resiled from his earlier statement, his

statement recorded by PW-22 (Judicial Magistrate)

under Section 164 Crl.PC may not be of any relevance;

nor can it be considered as substantive evidence to

base the conviction.

7. So far as the evidence of PW-3 is concerned, it

is only confined to the extra judicial confession made

by the first accused.

8. Yet another piece of evidence relied upon by

the prosecution is that the evidence of PW-4 who is

stated to be the friend of A-2.

9. Case of the prosecution is that on the night of

occurrence A-1 and A-2 went to the residence of PW-4

(M.G. Rajashekher @ Raju) and A-2 clothes were blood

stained and A-1 wearing sweater. Both A-1 and A-2 said

to have made extra judicial confession to PW-4. But

when PW-4 was examined in the court, PW-4 stated that 4

accused nos. 1 and 2 came to his residence on the

night of 07.07.2003 and cloth of accused no. 2 was

blood stained. PW-4 further stated that when he

questioned accused No. 1, he stated that they were

travelling in an auto towards Karthikere, it toppled

and in that process they sustained injuries. The above

said evidence of PW-4 explaining the blood stains on

the cloth of accused no. 2 due to toppling of auto

does not advance case of the prosecution that A-1

conspired with A-2 who committed the murder of

deceased Mohan Kumar. In any event extra judicial

confession is a weak piece of evidence, which cannot

form basis for conviction and unless supported by

other substantive evidence, which is lacking in this

case.

10. Insofar as accused no. 3 is concerned,

prosecution relies upon exhibit P-8 and P-9.

Photographs were recovered on the disclosure statement

of accused no. 3. In this regard, prosecution has

examined PW-12 (photographer) who has stated that

accused nos. 1 and 3 came to his studio and took joint

photographs (Exhibit P-8 & P-9). The said photographs

at the most may only show that A-1 and A-3 has illicit

relationship. There is no evidence adduced to prove

that A-3 had hatched conspiracy with A-2 to commit the

murder of Mohan Kumar.

5

11. Upon appreciation of the evidence adduced by

the prosecution in particular PW-2 , PW-20 and PW-4,

the High Court has held that the guilt of A-2 and A-3

has not been established beyond reasonable doubt. We

do not find any ‘compelling reason’ or ‘substantial

infirmity’ warranting interference with the order of

acquittal of respondent nos. 1 and 2 (Accused Nos. 2

and 3).

12. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.

….......................J. [R. BANUMATHI]

…......................J. [VINEET SARAN] NEW DELHI 16TH AUGUST, 2018