State of Karnataka Vs. M. Yellappa
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 64 of 1997
Petitioner: State of Karnataka
Respondent: M. Yellappa
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 64 of 1997
Judges: K.T. THOMAS, R.P. SETHI & S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Sep 12, 2000
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Evidence Act, 1872
Sections 24,25,26 with Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – FIR lodged by accused himself – Charge of murdering his wife – No other circumstance to incriminate him – Extremely difficult to pick up admissible portion – No legally admissible evidence on record. Held that acquittal recorded by High Court is correct. Appeal dismissed.
(Paras 3,4)
Cases Reffered:
1. Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar (1966 (1) S.C.R. 134) (Para 3)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. This appeal is by the State in challenge of an order by re-versing an order of conviction passed on the respondent – M. Yellappa, for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Respondent is alleged to have murdered his wife by breaking the skull with a grinding stone.
2. The trial court convicted him, entirely basing on the First Information Statement lodged by the respondent himself. The High Court has eschewed that statement from evidence as it contains only the confessional statement made by the accused. As the High Court did not come across any other material, not even a circum-stance incriminating the respondent, the High Court was forced to set aside the conviction and sentence and acquitted the respond-ent.
3. Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, learned standing Counsel for the State of Karnataka made an attempt to vivisect the inculpatory portion from the exculpatory part contained in the First Information Statement allegedly made by the respondent, in order to build up a case against the respondent. But the statement contained in the F.I.R. is a narration starting with one sentence and followed by the others. It is an extremely difficult exercise to pick out the admissible portion from the F.I.R. after spurning down the inad-missible portions therefrom. Law on that point has been laid down by a Three Judge Bench of this Court in Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar (1966 (1) S.C.R. 134) as under :
“If a statement contains an admission of an offence, not only that admission but also every other admission of an incriminating fact contained in the statement, is part of the confession. Little substance and content would be left in Sections 24, 25 and 26 if proof of admissions of incriminating facts in a confession-al statement is permitted.”
4. We scanned through the evidence laid down by the prosecution to find out whether there is any legally admissible evidence pointing to any incriminating circumstance against the respondent but that exercise was in vain as none could be found out. Nor could Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde ferret out a single circumstance for that purpose.
5. In the aforesaid situation, we have no alternative except to confirm the order of acquittal passed by the High Court.
6. Appeal is dismissed.
1. This appeal is by the State in challenge of an order by re-versing an order of conviction passed on the respondent – M. Yellappa, for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Respondent is alleged to have murdered his wife by breaking the skull with a grinding stone.
2. The trial court convicted him, entirely basing on the First Information Statement lodged by the respondent himself. The High Court has eschewed that statement from evidence as it contains only the confessional statement made by the accused. As the High Court did not come across any other material, not even a circum-stance incriminating the respondent, the High Court was forced to set aside the conviction and sentence and acquitted the respond-ent.
3. Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, learned standing Counsel for the State of Karnataka made an attempt to vivisect the inculpatory portion from the exculpatory part contained in the First Information Statement allegedly made by the respondent, in order to build up a case against the respondent. But the statement contained in the F.I.R. is a narration starting with one sentence and followed by the others. It is an extremely difficult exercise to pick out the admissible portion from the F.I.R. after spurning down the inad-missible portions therefrom. Law on that point has been laid down by a Three Judge Bench of this Court in Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar (1966 (1) S.C.R. 134) as under :
“If a statement contains an admission of an offence, not only that admission but also every other admission of an incriminating fact contained in the statement, is part of the confession. Little substance and content would be left in Sections 24, 25 and 26 if proof of admissions of incriminating facts in a confession-al statement is permitted.”
4. We scanned through the evidence laid down by the prosecution to find out whether there is any legally admissible evidence pointing to any incriminating circumstance against the respondent but that exercise was in vain as none could be found out. Nor could Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde ferret out a single circumstance for that purpose.
5. In the aforesaid situation, we have no alternative except to confirm the order of acquittal passed by the High Court.
6. Appeal is dismissed.
