REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL  APPEAL NO.   965         OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.7379 of 2007)

K.N. Narendranath ……Appellant

Versus

State of Karnataka ….

Respondent

J U D G M E N T

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 offence punishable  

under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC’). The  

appellant  was found guilty by III Additional  Sessions Judge,  Tumkur  in  

Sessions Case No.55/1999.  

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  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 the accused and found that their  

2

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  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  and  

claimed  to  be  tried.  The   prosecution  examined  PWs.  1  to  17  and  got  

marked Exs.  P1 to  P11 and M.O. Nos.  1  to  4.  Exs.  D1 to  D4 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. 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 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  

3

punishable under Section 302 IPC., and sentenced him as aforesaid by the  

impugned judgment of conviction dated 07.12.2004 and order of sentence  

dated 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 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  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 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  

4

High Court relied on the evidence of PW-13 to the extent that it was helpful  

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.  

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 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  

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 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.  

5

8. The appeal is allowed.  

……………………..…………J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

……..…………………..………J. (P. SATHASIVAM)

New Delhi,

May 08, 2009

6