Summary
A farm labourer was accused of killing his employer with an iron rod, burying the body in a compost pit, selling the farm equipment and trying to sell the land by posing as the owner's son. The Sessions Court acquitted him but the High Court convicted him under Sections 302, 201, 404 and 419 IPC. The Supreme Court dismissed his appeal: an appellate court may reverse a perverse acquittal; the death was homicidal; witnesses proved he was last seen with the deceased and lived in his house afterwards, casting a burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act that his bare denial did not discharge; his disclosure statement recorded through an interpreter was admissible under Section 27 to the extent it led to discovery of the body and sold articles, and pointing out the pit was relevant conduct under Section 8; and his false explanations about the owner's whereabouts completed the chain.
Issues
- Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the trial court's acquittal on re-appreciation of circumstantial evidence.
- Whether a disclosure statement elicited through an interpreter who could speak but not read or write the accused's language, and recorded in another language, is admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
- Whether the chain of circumstances, including last-seen evidence, recovery of the body and stolen articles, and the accused's false explanations, established guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Provisions considered
- Section 27, Indian Evidence Act, 1872Only that part of a custodial statement which distinctly relates to a fact discovered is admissible; the statement may be split, and the portion leading to recovery of the body and sold articles was provable; use of an interpreter does not vitiate the statement if what was recorded was what the accused said. (¶¶ 17.1, 18, 19, 20)
- Section 8, Indian Evidence Act, 1872The accused pointing out the compost pit where the body was buried is relevant conduct irrespective of whether the accompanying statement falls within Section 27, following A.N. Venkatesh. (¶¶ 18, 20)
- Section 106, Indian Evidence Act, 1872Where the accused was last seen with the deceased and thereafter living in his house, the burden of explaining how and when they parted lay on him; his failure furnishes an additional link, following State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram. (¶¶ 16.5, 16.6)
- Section 25, Indian Evidence Act, 1872The confession to the police was inadmissible in its entirety, but the part leading to discovery was saved by Sections 8 and 27. (¶ 20)
- Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The accused offered only a total denial and no explanation of the incriminating circumstances, which the Court treated as a failure to discharge the burden cast on him. (¶¶ 16.5, 22)
Held
- An appellate court has full power to review and reappreciate evidence in an appeal against acquittal, subject to the double presumption of innocence and the rule that it should not disturb an acquittal where two reasonable views are possible; interference is justified where the trial court's judgment is perverse, that is against the weight of evidence, as settled in Chandrappa, Murugesan and Gamini Bala Koteswara Rao. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14)
- The post-mortem proving a comminuted frontal fracture and brain haemorrhage established homicidal death, and the suggestion of an accidental fall could not be accepted. (¶¶ 16, 16.1)
- An auto driver and another acquaintance deposed that the accused was employed on the deceased's farm and seen with him, and several purchasers saw him in the house after the death selling equipment; with no explanation from the accused as to how he parted company with the deceased, the last-seen circumstance stands proved and his silence furnishes an additional link. (¶¶ 16.2, 16.3, 16.4, 16.5, 16.6)
- Section 27 permits derivative use of the part of a custodial statement that led to discovery of a fact within the accused's exclusive knowledge; that the questions were put through a Malayalam-speaking interpreter who could not read or write that language and the answers recorded in Kannada does not render the statement involuntary or improperly recorded, the interpreter having been cross-examined without anything being elicited and no suggestion being made that the contents were incorrect. The statement led to recovery of the body from the compost pit and of the sold articles, which independent witnesses proved. (¶¶ 17.1, 18, 19, 20, 20.1)
- The accused's sale of the deceased's rubber roller machine and implements, his attempt to sell the land by impersonating the owner's son, and his false and conflicting statements that the owner was ill in Kerala or had died in America were incriminating circumstances he failed to explain; the High Court rightly found patent perversity in the trial court's appreciation and that no other view was possible. (¶¶ 20.1, 20.2, 21, 22)
Result
Appeal dismissed; High Court judgment dated 20.03.2020 reversing the acquittal and convicting the appellant under Sections 302, 201, 404 and 419 IPC with life imprisonment confirmed.