OVERVIEW OF THE CASE
| Case name | R. Sreenivasa V. State of Karnataka |
| Citation | (2007) 12 SS 512 |
| Criminal Appeal No | 859 of 2011 |
| Date of judgment | 06-09-2011 |
| Appellant | R. Sreenivasa |
| Respondent | State of Karnataka |
| Bench | Hon’ble Justice. Vikram Nath Hon’ble Justice. Ahsanuddin Amanullah |
| Statutes referred | The Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 201: disappearance of evidence of offence/ giving false information Section 302: punishment for murder |
| Final Decision | Appeal:Allowed Decision of High Court Overruled |
ABSTRACT
The case discussed through this analysis pertains to a criminal appeal before The Supreme Court of India. The case which is brought before the bench is R. Sreenivasa v. State of Karnataka. The case entails the murder of Krishnappa, whose body was found in an undetectable form in the fields of the complainant. The counsels appearing for the Respondent failed to present nexus between the circumstances of the case and the charges framed. The case discovers several viewpoints through witnesses however the discordance in the testimonies and the charges framed by the court lead the case to the belief that the Appellant is entitled to be acquitted of all charges and liabilities pertaining to the presented case.
FACTS
Appellant- R. Sreenivasa
Respondent- State of Karnataka
Trial Court- The Principal Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District
In the present case, on the date of 03-01-2002, the complainant, also a prosecution witness in the present case, found a dead body of an unidentified male. The dead body was found in the fields of the complainant, PW-1(Prosecution Witness-1).The investigation brought out the identity of the deceased person, to be of Krishnappa. Allegations were brought against the appellant, R. Sreenivasa – Accused No. 1 and another, Accused No. 2. It was alleged that both the accused persons had concurring intention for which they killed Krishnappa. The motive of the murder, as claimed was due to the development of an illicit relation between the deceased and the sister of the appellant. The evidences of the murder were attempted to be destroyed by the accused, by means of pouring petrol and setting the dead body on fire.12 prosecution witnesses were recognized and thoroughly examined.
The Bangalore Rural District session’s judge acquitted the accused of charges pertaining to sections 302 and 201, Indian Penal Code, 1860. The reasoning supporting the acquittal was presented to be absence of last sight of the deceased with the accused i.e.; the prosecution failed to substantiate it’s claims with the proof that the deceased was last seen with the accused, along with the prosecution also failed to establish extra – judicial prosecution by one of the witnesses. An appeal was filed before the High Court by the state of Karnataka, Respondent in the present case. The acquittal, as held by the trial court was reversed by the High Court through its judgment, followed by the dismissal of appeal against Co- Accused-2.The Appeal in the present case seeks to challenge this dismissal of the co-Accused-2.[1]
CONTENTIONS:
APPELLANT:
- The counsel standing on behalf of the appellant, R. Sreenivasa insisted upon the accuracy of the judgment of the Trial Court. They argued that the acquittal is backed by evidence and the logic provided by the trial court for the acquittal is compelling to establish that the accused can be acquitted.
- The counsel further contended that, despite same roles being earmarked for both the Accused i.e.; Accused-1 and Accussed-2, the acquittal of Accused-1 had been reversed with no simultaneous action on acquittal of Accused-2.
- There was visible discrepancy between the observation of the Trial Court and the testimonial statements given by PW-3 and PW-8, While the trial court alleged that the deceased was brought from his home on the pretext of meeting the Appellant’s (Accused-1) Father, on the other hand PW-3 and PW-8 testified that Accused-1, the appellant himself brought the deceased from his home. This discordance, according to the counsel defeats the ‘Last seen Theory’ and subsequently the conviction of the appellant.
- The counsel clarified that the verdict of the High Court to consider the appellant as the last person to be seen accompanying the deceased was based on the statement of PW10, which was made before the police and not during the trial. This makes the verdict of the High Court erroneous as it was based on this statement. And the hostility of PW10 provided the appellant with Benefit of Doubt.
- There was no substantial forensic report to assert that the blood found as evidence, belonged to the deceased.
- It was further contended that the deceased, Krishnappa’s wife had neither lodged any complaint when the deceased had not returned home for 2-3 days and further denied any animosity between the deceased and the appellant. The falsity of accusation was further aggravated by the fact that if there had been any animosity or enmity between the deceased and the appellant then naturally, the deceased would have never accompanied the appellant.
RESPONDENT:
- The counsel for respondent, The state insisted that there existed a strong driving motive for the appellant to end the life of the deceased, the reason being, as previously mentioned the illicit relation which had developed between the deceased and the appellant’s sister.
- Reliance was placed upon the case of State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram (2006) 12 SCC 254 [2], to assert that the person who is last seen in the company of the deceased is conferred with the onus to ascertain as to where the deceased/victim went , what happened to the victim or the unfolding of the incident. The case referred through this case was Joseph v. State of Kerala, (2000) 5 SCC 197: 2000 SCC (Cri) 926 where it was held that the straight denial of all cues towards the circumstances and factors related to the cases, provide reasonable certainty to the court to establish a nexus between the accused and the circumstances and act of the killing of the victim.[3] Similar, reference was made to Ram Gulam Chaudhry v. State of Bihar[4], where it was held that the onus is on the appellants to present what had been done to the victim and the appellants were the sole entities who are presumed to have the special and exclusive knowledge of the circumstances. Another case referred was Sahadevan v. state [(2003) 1 SCC 534: 2003 SCC (Cri) 382] [5] to highlight its judgment where the court was of the view that the appellants are under the obligation to show where the victim parted with the appellants.
JUDGMENT
After thorough analysis of the facts and the contentions presented by both the parties, the court held that the judgment of the High Court should not be upheld and could not be validated. The court took notice of the discordance between the testimonial statements of the witnesses and the charges instituted by the High Court. On one hand, the deceased’s wife claim that it was the appellant who accompanied the deceased on his way out, on the other hand the charges instituted by the court assert that it was Co-Accused- A2 who took the deceased on the pre-text of meeting appellant’s father. Futher, the readiness of the deceased to be accompanied by the A1 or even A2 to go to the house of the appellant shows considerable amount of trust and confidence and the possibility of murder due to enmity is ruled out. Further, even after the disappearance and non-returning of the deceased for 2-3 days, neither the wife nor the brother initiated attempts to search for the deceased. The court further invalidated the reference of the counsel to the kashi Ram case on the grounds that the presented case was different from Kashi Ram case. The distinction lies in the fact that in Kashi Ram case, the person to have been last seen with the victim could be ascertained but in this case it was uncertain to the point as to whether A1 or A2 was last in company of the deceased. This also implied that the burden to prove or ascertain the particulars of the circumstances or conditions and whereabouts of the deceased could be applied only if ‘Last Seen’ theory is accomplished. The mere fact that the accused/suspect was last seen with the victim does not instantly establish the guilt of the accused and thus, requires the establishment of a nexus between the accused and the circumstances of the crime. With these possible reasons, the court allowed the appeal and invalidated the conviction and the statement issued by the High Court. This consequentially led to the dismissal to charges and liability imposed on the appellant.
CONCLUSION AND ANALYSIS
In its judgment, the Apex court upheld the validity of the acquittal of the appellant- A1 in the presented case. The contentions raised by the counsel of the respondent primarily centered on the ‘Last Seen Theory’ for which they referred to various judgments and precedents. However, as also pronounced by the court in the judgment, the counsels did not acknowledge the fact that the presented case stood different from other cases in the aspect that, in the presented case the person who was the last to accompany the deceased had not been ascertained. Hence, the appellant is acquitted from all the charges and liabilities pertaining to this case.
This case analysis has been written by Insha Pani, a student of National Law University Odisha and an intern under The Legal Vidhiya.
REFERENCES:
- Livelaw- https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/supreme-court-last-seen-theory-murder-accused-237242
- Casemine-https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56ea7ac0607dba36cc7471df
- State Of Rajasthan vs Kashi Ram on 7 November, 2006, (2006). https://jajharkhand.in/wp/wp-content/judicial_updates_files/07_Criminal_Law/49_section_482_of_crpc/State_Of_Rajasthan_vs_Kashi_Ram_on_7_November,_2006.PDF
- Joseph v. State of Kerala and Others, Supreme Court Cases (Sep. 20, 2023), https://www.supremecourtcases.com/joseph-v-state-of-kerala-and-others/ (last visited Nov 15, 2023).
- Ram Gulam Chaudhury v State of Bihar on 25 September 2001 – Judgement – LexTechSuite, https://lextechsuite.com/Ram-Gulam-Chaudhury-Versus-State-of-Bihar-2001-09-25 (last visited Nov 15, 2023).
- Ori HC | In cases where guilt is based only on circumstantial evidence; suspicion, however, grave may be, cannot be a substitute for a proof | SCC Blog, https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2021/04/19/circumstantial-evidence-2/ (last visited Nov 15, 2023).
[1] R. Sreenivasa v. State of Karnataka, Supreme Court Cases (Sep. 5, 2023), https://www.supremecourtcases.com/r-sreenivasa-v-state-of-karnataka/ (last visited Nov 18, 2023).
[2] State Of Rajasthan vs Kashi Ram on 7 November, 2006, (2006). https://jajharkhand.in/wp/wp-content/judicial_updates_files/07_Criminal_Law/49_section_482_of_crpc/State_Of_Rajasthan_vs_Kashi_Ram_on_7_November,_2006.PDF
[3] Joseph v. State of Kerala and Others, Supreme Court Cases (Sep. 20, 2023), https://www.supremecourtcases.com/joseph-v-state-of-kerala-and-others/ (last visited Nov 15, 2023).
[4] Ram Gulam Chaudhury v State of Bihar on 25 September 2001 – Judgement – LexTechSuite, https://lextechsuite.com/Ram-Gulam-Chaudhury-Versus-State-of-Bihar-2001-09-25 (last visited Nov 15, 2023).
[5] Ori HC | In cases where guilt is based only on circumstantial evidence; suspicion, however, grave may be, cannot be a substitute for a proof | SCC Blog, https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2021/04/19/circumstantial-evidence-2/ (last visited Nov 15, 2023).
| Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature. |
