RAVUTAPPA Vs STATE OF KARNATAKA
Bench: SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA,RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI
Case number: Crl.A. No.-000760-000760 / 2005
Diary number: 27758 / 2004
Advocates: JAIL PETITION Vs
Page 1
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 760 OF 2005
REVUTAPPA … APPELLANT
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA … RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
(SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.
1. This appeal is forwarded to this Court by the Jail
Authorities. It is directed against the judgment and order
dated 8/10/2012, passed by the Division Bench of the
Karnataka High Court in Criminal Appeal No.1721 of 2001,
whereby the High Court confirmed the judgment of the
Sessions Court convicting the appellant for offences
punishable under Sections 302, 323, 506, 201 read with
1
Page 2
Section 34 of the Penal Code and sentencing him, inter alia,
to life imprisonment.
2. The prosecution story could be shortly stated.
Complainant Siddakka was married to the appellant, five
years prior to 25/8/2000 i.e. from the date of the incident.
After the marriage, the appellant started suspecting
Siddakka’s fidelity and when she gave birth to a male child,
he told her that the child is not of his lineage and is an
illegitimate child. Prosecution story further goes on to say
that during the relevant time, Siddakka and the appellant
were staying in a hut situated in the land belonging to the
appellant along with their child. On 25/8/2000, when
Siddakka was plucking the green gram fodder along with her
son and the appellant was ploughing the other portion of the
field, she saw the child going towards the appellant. The
appellant stopped ploughing and took the child towards the
farmhouse. After sometime, when Siddakka could not find
her child, she went near the hut. She overheard the
appellant telling his mother that he had thrown the child in
2
Page 3
the well of Allisab. On hearing this, she ran towards the well
of Allisab, picked up the dead child from the well and
returned to the hut. The appellant threatened her with dire
consequences if she disclosed the incident to anyone. She
was forced to tell others that the child died of snake bite.
Thereafter the child was buried. Out of fear she did not
disclose the incident to anyone. On 27/8/2000, when her
close relatives came from Jadarbabaladi to console her, she
mustered courage and told them that the appellant had
thrown her child in the well which resulted in his death.
They immediately took her to the Police Station and lodged a
complaint. Offences under Sections 323, 302, 201, 506 read
with Section 34 of the IPC were registered. The body of the
deceased child was exhumed after getting appropriate
permission. The dead body was sent for post-mortem
examination. The post-mortem report stated the cause of
death as “asphyxia as a result of drowning”.
3. On completion of investigation, the appellant was
charged and tried for offences punishable under Sections
3
Page 4
498A, 323, 302, 201, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC
along with his mother Kallawwa who was arraigned as
Accused 2. The prosecution examined 19 witnesses. It’s
most important witness is PW-1 Siddakka, who lost her one-
and-half year old son because of the appellant’s cruel act.
Her evidence is corroborated by her brother PW-10
Chanabasappa and uncle PW-13 Ishwarappa. The appellant
did not adduce any evidence. He denied all allegations. The
defence suggested that the child saw a peacock; followed it;
went to the field where the well was situated, fell into it and
died.
4. The trial court acquitted Accused 2, the mother of the
appellant of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the
IPC. It, however, convicted the appellant for the said offence
and sentenced him to life imprisonment. Both of them were
found guilty of offences punishable under Sections 323, 506,
201 read with Section 34 of the IPC and were sentenced for
the said offences. On appeal, the High Court set aside the
conviction and sentence of Accused 2. The appellant’s
4
Page 5
conviction and sentence was, however, confirmed in its
entirety. Hence, this appeal.
5. Shri Mithilesh Singh, learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that the prosecution case is based on
circumstantial evidence. However, the circumstances do not
point unerringly to the guilt of the appellant. They may at
the most raise some suspicion, but suspicion, however,
strong cannot take the place of proof. Counsel submitted
that the court will have to cautiously examine each
circumstance for the purpose of recording a verdict of guilty
or giving benefit of doubt to the accused. In support of his
submissions, counsel relied on Padala Veera Reddy v.
State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.1 and Tarseem Kumar
v. Delhi Administration2. Shri V.N. Raghupathy learned
counsel for the State of Karnataka, on the other hand,
submitted that the evidence adduced by the prosecution
leaves no scope for doubt about the appellant’s involvement
1 1989 Supp. (2) SCC 706 2 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 367
5
Page 6
in the crime in question. Counsel submitted that the appeal
be, therefore, dismissed.
6. There is no dispute about the fact that the child died
due to drowning. Medical evidence is clear on this point.
The question is whether the death was homicidal or
accidental. PW-1 Siddakka has, in her evidence, described
how she was ill-treated in her matrimonial house. The
appellant disowned the paternity of the child. After the birth
of the child, PW-1 Siddakka was not allowed to perform
‘Simant’ ceremony of her child. She went to her parent’s
house. Her father performed the ceremony and named the
child ‘Arun Kumar’. Thereafter, for one year, she was in her
parent’s house. She went to her matrimonial house along
with her uncle PW-13 Ishwarappa. She was not allowed to
stay there. She went back to her parent’s house.
Thereafter, demand for money was made. PW-1 Siddakka’s
parents paid the amount. PW-1 Siddakka went back to the
appellant’s house because the appellant assured her that he
would treat her well. The appellant took her and the child to
6
Page 7
stay with him in the farmhouse. The harassment, however,
continued. On the day of the incident, when the appellant
and PW-1 Siddakka were working in their field, she saw the
appellant taking the child towards their hut. After 15-20
minutes, she went to the hut to see where her child was.
She heard the appellant telling his mother that he had
thrown the child in the well. She rushed to the well and
removed the dead child from the well. The appellant
threatened her and told her not to disclose the true story to
anyone. He asked her to tell the people that the child died
due to snake bite. Out of fear, PW-1 Siddakka did not inform
anyone about the incident. The child was buried. It is only
when her relatives came to console her that she told them
the true story. A complaint was, then, lodged. Investigation
was started. After completion of investigation, the appellant
was tried as aforesaid.
7. We have gone through the evidence of PW-1 Siddakka.
Her evidence inspires confidence. We have noted that after
seeing her son’s clothes, she began to weep in the court and
7
Page 8
sat down for sometime without saying anything. A mother
would never allow the person who killed her child escape
punishment. She would also not involve a wrong person.
We place implicit reliance on PW-1 Siddakka’s evidence.
8. PW-1 Siddakka’s evidence is corroborated by the
evidence of her brother PW-10 Chanabasappa and her uncle
PW-13 Ishwarappa, in all respects. We have noted that
some of the witnesses have turned hostile. But that does
not, in any way, affect the substratum of the prosecution
story. The prosecution has successfully proved that there
was a strong motive to kill the child because the appellant
suspected the fidelity of PW-1 Siddakka. He had disowned
the paternity of the child. The prosecution has also proved
that the child and the appellant were last seen together.
Most clinching circumstance in this case is the conduct of the
appellant. PW-1 Siddakka’s parents were informed about
the death of the child after the burial. She was threatened
and told not to tell the true story to anyone. She was asked
to tell everyone that the child died due to snake bite. This
8
Page 9
conduct of the appellant, examined in the background of the
strong motive and the fact that he was last seen with the
child, establish that it is he, who threw the child in the well.
The medical evidence supports the prosecution case that the
child died due to drowning and not due to snake bite.
9. It is surprising how defence suggested that the child
went after a peacock; fell in the well and died. The well was
an unused well. The scene of offence panchnama discloses
that grass and thorny bushes were surrounding it. It would
be impossible for a one-and-half year old child to walk such a
distance, jump over the thorny bushes and fall in the well.
This is, indeed, a far-fetched and astonishing suggestion.
Besides, in his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.,
the appellant has not come out with this explanation. The
child was last seen with him. It was for him to explain how
the child fell in the well. He has not done so. He has not
discharged the burden which had shifted to him under
Section 106 of the Evidence Act. Adverse inference needs to
9
Page 10
be drawn against him. In fact, this silence forms an
additional link in the chain of circumstances.
10. It is true that in a case based on circumstantial
evidence, the court has to be cautious. Each circumstance
must be carefully examined. The chain of circumstances
must be complete and it must be unerringly point to the guilt
of the accused. It is also true that suspicion, however
strong, cannot take the place of proof. Having examined this
case in light of the settled principles laid down in Padala
Veera Reddy and Tarseem Kumar, we are of the opinion
that the prosecution has successfully established its case.
The circumstances have been fully established. The
established facts are consistent only with the hypothesis of
the guilt of the appellant. There is absolutely no scope for
any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the
innocence of the appellant. There is no merit in the appeal.
The appeal is dismissed.
.…………...…………………………..J.
10
Page 11
(Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya)
.…………………………..J. (Ranjana Prakash Desai)
New Delhi; January 24, 2014.
11