Kalinga @ Kushal   (Appellant)  Vs.  State of Karnataka By Police Inspector Hubli  (Respondent)

(CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 622 OF 2013)

(2JB, Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma JJ., delivered by SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.)

Facts: The High Court set aside the view of the trial Court regarding the rejection of the voluntary extra judicial confession of PW-1 and recovery of dead body of the deceased at his instance. The High Court went on to convict the appellant and it is this conviction which is appealed against in this case.

Issue: Whether the extra judicial confession of the appellant/accused was admissible, credible and sufficient for conviction of the accused thereon?

Argument on behalf of counsel for appellant:

Assailing the order of the High Court, the appellant submits that the High Court did not appreciate the discrepancies in the evidence of PW-1 and went on to accept the same. He further submits that the High Court failed to take note of the improvements made by PW-1 at every stage. He further submits that the Trial Court had elaborately appreciated the entire evidence on record and it was not open for the High Court to reappreciate the entire evidence and arrive at a different conclusion of its own. Further, it is submitted that the High Court did not notice the absence of mother and wife of PW-1 from the list of witnesses of the prosecution. The appellant further submits that the finding of the Trial Court regarding the sequence of arrest of the appellant has not been discussed at all in the impugned order. It is further submitted that the High Court did not examine the extra judicial confession of the appellant in its correct perspective, especially in light of the suspicion raised by the Trial Court. It is urged that the High Court did not subject the extra judicial confession to a stern test and went on to place undue reliance on the same. It is further contended that the High Court overlooked the discrepancy between the description of clothes found on the dead body and that indicated by PW-1 in his complaint. Lastly, it is submitted that if two views were possible on a reappreciation of evidence, the High Court must have adopted the view in favour of the accused, thereby providing benefit of doubt to the appellant.

Argument on behalf of counsel for respondent:

Per contra, it is submitted on behalf of the State that there is no infirmity in the impugned order as it is based on a correct appreciation of evidence. It is further submitted that the voluntary extra judicial confession of PW-1 constituted crucial evidence and the fact that it led to the discovery of the dead body of the deceased, added credibility to the same. Reliance has been placed upon the decisions of this Court in Sansar Chand v. State of Rajasthan and Piara Singh v. State of Punjab. It is further submitted that the Court must not consider every doubt as a reasonable doubt and minor discrepancies must not be allowed to demolish the entire testimony of a witness. In this regard, reliance has been placed upon the decisions of this Court in Mallikarjun v. State of Karnataka and Hari Singh & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh.

Held: The court allowed the present appeal and held that, “No doubt, it is trite law that a reasonable doubt is essentially a serious doubt in the case of the prosecution and minor inconsistencies are not to be elevated to the status of a reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is one which renders the possibility of guilt as highly doubtful. It is also noteworthy that the purpose of criminal trial is not only to ensure that an innocent person is not punished, but it is also to ensure that the guilty does not escape unpunished. A judge owes this duty to the society and effective performance of this duty plays a crucial role in securing the faith of the common public in rule of law. Every case, wherein a guilty person goes unpunished due to any lacuna on the part of the investigating agency, prosecution or otherwise, shakes the conscience of the society at large and diminishes the value of the rule of law. Having observed so, the observations in this regard may not advance the case of the respondent in the present appeal. It is so because the inconsistencies in the case of the prosecution are not minor inconsistencies. As already discussed above, the prosecution has miserably failed to establish a coherent chain of circumstances. The present case does not fall in the category of a light-hearted acquittal, which is shunned upon in law.”