Supreme Court of India
K.N. NARENDRANATHversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 756
- Decided
- 8 May 2009
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
Holding
The conviction based solely on the extra‑judicial confession is unsustainable and is set aside.
Summary
The appellant, K.N. Naren... (the husband), was convicted for the murder of his wife Kumadavathi, alleged to have been manually strangulated on 5 December 1998. The trial court, and subsequently the Karnataka High Court, relied primarily on a purported extra‑judicial confession recorded by police witnesses (PW‑10 and PW‑13) to uphold the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the reliability of that confession, noting inconsistencies such as the accused being in custody at the time the alleged confession was said to have been made, and the lack of any corroborative evidence linking the accused to the crime. The Court held that the extra‑judicial confession was highly improbable and could not be trusted as sole proof of guilt. Consequently, the conviction was deemed unsustainable, set aside, and the appellant was ordered to be released. The appeal was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether an extra‑judicial confession recorded by police witnesses is admissible and sufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 302 IPC.
- Whether the alleged confession was reliable given the circumstances of the accused's custody and lack of corroboration.
Legislation cited
Subjects
homicidemanual strangulationextra‑judicial confessionadmissibility of confessionconviction reversalIPC s.302CrPC s.313evidence reliability
Judgment
[2009] 7 S.C.R. 1221
K.N. NARENDRANATH A
v
STATE OF KARNATAKA
Criminal Appeal No. 965 of 2009
MAY 08, 2009
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 - s.302 - Homicidal death of wife -
Allegedly due to manual strangulation by husband - Case
primarily resting on extra-judicial confession made by
appellant-husband - Conviction of appellant by trial court - c
Upheld by High Court - Propriety of - Held: On facts, not
proper - High improbability of extra judicial confession -
Conviction unsustainable, therefore set aside.
CRIMINALAPPELLATEJURISDICTION: CriminalAppeal
D
No. 965 of 2009
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.07.2007 passed
by the Hon'ble Division Bench of High Court of Karnataka at
Bangalore in Cr. A. No. 1815 of 2004
E
Aravind Sawanth, Shanth Kumar V. Mahale, Rajesh
Mahale, for the Appellant.
Anitha Shenor, for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
F
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division
Bench of the Karnataka High Court upholding his conviction for G
offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code,
...( 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). The appellant was found guilty by Ill
Additional Sessions Judge, Tumkur in Sessions Case No.55/
1999.
1221 H
1222 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 7 S.C.R.
A 3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
Kumadavathi (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased')
daughter of PW3 was married to the accused. Accused had
allegedly developed intimacy :with Kalavathi (PW11) and on
05.12.1998 at about.8 p.m., in the house of the accused at
8 Sadara Street, Koratagere Town, the accused strangulated the
neck and caused death of his wife - Kumadavathi and thereby,
committed the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.
Mother of deceased (PW3) and her father (CW1) were informed
about the death of their daughter and they went to the house of •
C the accused and found that their daughter was dead. CW1, the
father of Kumadavathi filed complaint as per Ex.P2. The said
complaint was registered in U.D.R. No. 40/98. Inquest was
conducted as per Ex. P1. Dead body of Kumadavathi was sent
for postmortem examination to PW6, who conducted the
D postmortem examination and issued postmortem report as per
Ex. P3. PW6 also furnished opinion as per Ex. P3(c} stating
that death was due to asphyxia as a result of manual
strangulation. After completion of investigation, charge sheet
was filed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty
E and claimed to be tried. The prosecution exarnined PWs. 1 to
17 and got marked Exs. P1 to P11 and M.O. Nos. 1 to 4. Exs.
01 to 04 were got marked in the evidence of PWs. 3 and 13.
Statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code') was recorded.
F The defence of the accused is that his wife Kumadavathi fell
down from the stair case and died. The accused did not lead
any defence evidence. The trial Court after considering the
contentions of the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned
counsel appearing for the accused and appreciating the oral
G and documentary evidence on record adduced by the
prosecution, held that Kumadavathi suffered homicidal death
by manual strangulation by the accused and the prosecution
has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused appellant
has committed the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.,
H and sentenced him as aforesaid by the impugned judgment of
K.N. NARENDRANATH V STATE OF KARNATAKA 1223
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
conviction dated 07.12.2004 and order of sentence dated A
09.12.2004. Trial Court primarily relied on purported extra judicial
confession made by the accused.
The High Court did not accept the stand of the accused
that the deceased sustained injuries due to fall from the stair
case as probabilized by the material on record. Stand of the B
accused was that the so called extra judicial confession made
by the accused before PWs. 10 and 13 is not reliable and truthful.
PW-13 was examined to prove the so called extra judicial
¥ confession. According to the prosecution accused had made
'·
the extra judicial confession. The High Court held that the extra c
judicial confession stated to have been made does not prove
the prosecution case. PW-13 had stated in his statement before
the police that he had gone to see the dead body of the deceased
after her death and the accused informed him that the deceased
fell down from the staircase and died having sustained injury. It D
was also stated in his cross examination that the accused told
him about the incident after about two months. The accused
was in custody from 5.3.1999 to 1.9.1999 and, therefore, it was
highly improbable that accused informed PW-13 that his wife
fell down form the staircase and died. But the High Court relied E
on the evidence of PW-13 to the extent that it was he(J3ful to the
~
. prosecution to show that the accused was in love with Kalavathi
PW-11. Interestingly, PW-10 told the police about the extra
judicial confession .
.. F
4. Learned counsel for the appellant re-iterated the stand
taken before the High Court.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent-State on the other
hand supported the judgment.
6. This case primarily rested on the so called extra judicial G
.<C
confession which has been dis-believed by the High Court. The
evidence of PW-10 has been referred to by the High Court. It is
not on record as to who called PW-10 to the spot of occurrence.
No witness has spoken about PW-10 being called. On the
contrary, Dr. Mallikarjuna has categorically stated in his H
1224 SUPREME COL)RT REPORTS [2009] 7 S.C.R.
A examination that he told the investigating officer that the lady
had died when he had examined her. After Dr. Mallikarjuna had
already declared the deceased to be dead, there was no
necessity for calling PW-10.
7. Above being the position, it would be unsafe to convict
8 the accused appellant. His conviction is therefore set aside. He
shall be released forthwith unless to be required in custody in
connection with any other case.
8. The appeal is allowed.
8.8.8 Appeal allowed.
. '
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "homicide"Sign in to search