CASE TITLE
SIJU KURIAN VS STATE OF KARNATAKA
COURT
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DATE OF ORDER
BENCH
HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. ARAVIND KUMAR
PARTIES
APPELLANT- SIJU KURIAN
RESPONDENT- STATE OF KARNATAKA
SUBJECT
In this case, the apex court rules out that a statement made by the accused in the police custody can be fragmented into admissible portions. Information shared by the accused should lead to new discovery in order to be admissible.
OVERVIEW
- The present appeal is preferred by the sole accused in Sessions Case No.96 of 2012 against the judgement passed by High Court of Karnataka in which the acquittal of the accused was reversed.
- The accused was a labor working in the farmhouse of Mr. Jose Kafan. On 02.12.2011, the accused entered into the room of Mr. Jose while he was sleeping and murdered him by hitting him with an iron rod.
- Accused hid the dead body in a pit in the garden. He stole articles from the farmhouse and sold them to make monetary gain.
- Accused misrepresented himself as son of the deceased and tried to sell the land of the deceased to make undue financial profit.
- Accused was arrested by the police after investigation for the missing complaint filed by the son of the deceased. The accused confessed the crime and was charges for offences punishable under Section 302, 201,404 and 419 of Indian Penal Code,1860.
- The Trial court, however acquitted the accused. Aggrieved by the decision, State filed an appeal in the High Court where the accused was found guilty and sentenced for life imprisonment.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY APPLLEANT
- The learned counsel submitted that there is no direct evidence to prove the role of the accused in the offence.
- It was submitted that the conviction of the accused is based on the confession alleged to have been given by the appellant to the police which is unreliable as per section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.
- It was contended that the confession statement cannot be relied upon and accepted since it was written in Kannada language, which is unfamiliar to the accused.
- The counsel raised that the alleged date of murder is 2.12.2011 but as per the post-mortem report, death had occurred 45 to 60 days prior to days of exhumation on 21.01.2012 which creates great doubt and vacuum in the alleged story of the respondent.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY RESPONDENT
- The counsel appreciated the judgement of the High Court.
- He emphasized on the statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C and contended that this evidence was ignored by trial court which resulted into impugned order of acquittal of accused.
- The counsel submitted that PW-5 has spoken about rubble tapping machines which were sold to PW-11.
JUDGEMENT
- 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 malafidely recorded.
CONCLUSION
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.
