(CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 64 OF 2021)
Facts
A laborer, the accused, committing a gruesome murder at the farmhouse of Mr. Jose Kafan in Kerodi village, Karnataka. On December 2, 2011, between 6:00 am to 6:30 am, the accused stealthily entered the sleeping quarters of Mr. Kafan and savagely bludgeoned him to death with an iron rod. The motive behind this heinous act was not merely violence but rather a calculated scheme to profit unjustly. Following the murder, the accused proceeded to pilfer various items from the farmhouse, which he later sold for monetary gain.
To cover up his nefarious deed, the accused concealed Mr. Kafan’s body in a pit designated for storing ash manure, along with the murder weapon and other incriminating evidence. This attempt to erase all traces of his crime demonstrated a premeditated effort to evade justice. Additionally, the accused engaged in further deceit by attempting to sell the deceased’s land, masquerading as his son. This act of impersonation added another layer of deception to an already convoluted web of deceit.
However, the accused’s carefully constructed facade began to crumble when Mr. Kafan’s son reported him missing, prompting an investigation into his disappearance. During the course of the inquiry, suspicions quickly turned towards the accused, whose actions and whereabouts raised red flags. Subsequently, the accused confessed to his crimes and divulged the location of the hidden body, underlining the depth of his depravity.
Despite the weight of evidence presented by the prosecution, including witness testimonies and material objects recovered from the scene, the trial court shockingly acquitted the accused. This miscarriage of justice stemmed from the court’s purported failure to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, a decision that left the state deeply dissatisfied.
In response, the state lodged an appeal, contending that the trial court had erred in its assessment of the evidence and application of the law. Specifically, the state highlighted the recoveries made at the accused’s behest and the compelling testimonies of witnesses, which corroborated the prosecution’s case. Furthermore, the state argued that the trial court’s dismissal of the doctor’s testimony amounted to a critical oversight.
Upon review, the High Court overturned the trial court’s verdict, recognizing the glaring deficiencies in its reasoning. The High Court found the accused guilty of multiple offenses, including murder, concealment of evidence, theft, and impersonation. As a consequence, the accused was sentenced to life imprisonment, serving as a stark reminder of the consequences of committing such egregious acts.
Issue raised:
(a) Whether the High Court’s decision to overturn the Trial Court’s verdict should be invalidated due to the existence of two possible perspectives, with the Trial Court’s perspective being one of them?
(b) Whether the High Court’s judgment is erroneous and if the Trial Court’s findings have been mistakenly overturned by the High Court upon re-evaluating the evidence?
(c) Whether the High Court has properly assessed the evidence or if it failed to consider the evidence in the correct perspective?
CONTENTIONS
The counsel argued that there is no direct evidence establishing the accused’s involvement in the offense. They asserted that the conviction was based on an alleged confession to the police, deemed unreliable under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The counsel further contended that the confession, written in Kannada, an unfamiliar language to the accused, cannot be considered. They highlighted discrepancies regarding the date of the murder, as per the post-mortem report suggesting a different timeline, casting doubt on the prosecution’s narrative. Additionally, the counsel praised the High Court’s judgment and stressed the significance of the accused’s statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., which they claimed was disregarded by the trial court, leading to the accused’s acquittal. Lastly, the counsel mentioned PW-5’s testimony regarding rubble tapping machines sold to PW-11.
RATIONALE
The apex court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgement passed by the High Court of Karnataka. Court held that the cause of death of the victim was homicidal. The post-mortem report was duly considered which stated that the victim died due to brain hemorrhage which was caused by a fracture on the forehead. Consequently, court discarded the contention of the appellant that there is possibility of victim’s death due to falling. Court held that property scrutinizing of evidence was done by the High Court and there is no missing link found by this court in the appeal that could prove error in the judgement passed by the High Court. Court held that it was the accused who had murdered Mr. Jose Kafan beyond reasonable doubt. Court held that the surrounding circumstances of the case such as recovery of the articles of the deceased by the accused and statement of PW-5 stating that the accused intended to sell immovable property of the deceased prove that the accused is guilty of the offence. Part of confession of PW-25 which led to recovery of the dead body of the victim was accepted under Section 8 read with Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Court held that merely translation was made from Malayalam to Tamil and then written down in Kannada cannot be held as being involuntary or mala fidely recorded.
DEFECTS IN LAW
The prosecution relied heavily on the testimonies of three key witnesses (PW-1, PW-2, and PW-10), who were neighbours and friends. Their close relationship raised concerns about their impartiality and credibility, potentially classifying them as “stock witnesses” used by the prosecution to build their case. The confessional statement of the accused, allegedly made in Malayalam and translated into Kannada, was problematic. The translator, PW-10, admitted to not being proficient in written Kannada, casting doubt on the accuracy and reliability of the confession. Additionally, the statement was pre-typed and printed, not produced in real-time at the police station, which further questioned its validity. The prosecution’s case was based largely on circumstantial evidence. The defense argued that the chain of events presented by the prosecution was not sufficiently conclusive to point exclusively to the guilt of the accused. Key elements of the story, including the timeline of the deceased’s last movements and the timing of death as per the post-mortem report, did not align, introducing significant doubt. There were issues with the handling and presentation of evidence. For instance, the mobile call data records (CDR) of the accused were not secured or presented by the prosecution, which was a critical omission given that it could have provided additional context or an alibi. The defense highlighted that when the accused was brought to the crime scene, other individuals were already present, implying that the location of the body was known to the police before the accused pointed it out. This raised questions about the fairness and accuracy of the procedure used to establish the accused’s guilt.
INFERENCE
The apex court found accused guilty of the offence and upheld the decision of the High Court. The court highlighted that the Appellate Court have the jurisdiction to reverse the judgement passed by the trial court and no limitation is placed on High Court under the law for doing the same while acting as an Appellate Court. However, there are certain points that the High Court must consider before reversing any judgement of the trial court. Through time and again, general principles that needs to be considered by an Appellate Court is laid down by the apex court.