Date of judgement:
19th April, 2022
Bench:
UDAY UMESH LALIT & PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA
Parties:
Appellant – VENKATESH @ CHANDRA & ANR
Respondents – STATE OF KARNATAKA
SUBJECT
The Court, in this case, allowed the appeals of the appellants in part and acquitted them of the charges that were leveled against them. Moreover, the Court also expressed its disappointment over the playing of a DVD, which was a piece of evidence, on a private TV Channel. The Court stated that such TV debates amounted to direct interference with the functions of the Court.
OVERVIEW
- The appellants had been convicted by the Sessions Court for offense under Section 396 of IPC.
- The appellants had allegedly gone to the house of the deceased in the guise of asking for water and had subsequently murdered the deceased and stolen her ornaments. The Sessions Court sentenced the appellants to death penalty.
- However, the High Court did not find sufficient reasons to affirm the death sentence and subsequently, sentenced the appellants to life imprisonment.
RELEVANT PROVISIONS
Indian Evidence Act
- Section 27: How much of information received from accused may be proved
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether the circumstances relied upon by the Court to establish the guilt were well established?
JUDGMENT ANALYSIS
- The Court, while relying on the case of Pulukuri Kotayya and Ors. v. King Emperor, noted that under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, only that part of the statement which leads to the discovery of a fact is admissible and the other part would be irrelevant.
- However, the Court noted that in the instant case, the Trial Court had relied on the entire statement, including the irrelevant part.
- Furthermore, the voluntary statements of the appellants were not made before a Magistrate in the form of a confession. Rather, they were recorded in a DVD and the DVD was played in the Court.
- The Court further expressed its disappointment on the fact that the DVD was allowed to go into the hands of a Private TV Channel. The DVD was played on the channel and this amounted to direct interference with the justice delivery system.
- The Court observed that no chargesheet or order was produced as evidence. The circumstances which are relied upon to prove the guilt must be well established.
- The Court observed that the weapons involved in the commission of the offence were discovered 15 months after the offense and still contained blood stains which could be used for forensic examination. During this period, the weapons must have endured rain and insects which feed on human flood.
- The forensic examination could only ascertain that the blood was human blood and the blood group could not be determined. Nor could the examination establish that the blood was of the deceased.
- Thus, the circumstances could not be considered to be well established.
- Lastly, after the discovery of the ornaments of the deceased, no test identification parade was held.
- Subsequently, the appeals were allowed and the Court gave the benefit of doubt to the appellants.
CONCLUSION
The Court thus acquitted the appellant of the charges that were levelled against them and ordered their release.
It is of significant importance that media channels must not interfere with the delivery of justice. Media Trials tend to be concerned about superficial opinions rather than real justice.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
