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