Earabhadrappa Alias Krishnappa v. State of Karnataka AIR 1983 SC 446

EARABHADRAPPA ALIAS KRISHNAPPA V. STATE OF KARNATAKA

ISSUE:

Whether the statement made by the accused was admissible in evidence by virtue of Section 27 of the Evidence Act?
Whether the presumption arising under illustration (a) to s. 114 of the Evidence Act valid?

RULE:

For the applicability of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, two conditions are pre-requisite, viz:
(1) Information must be such as has caused discovery of the fact, and
(2) The information must “relate distinctly” to the fact discovered.”

FACTS:

The appellant, Earabhadrappa hailing from village Mattakur, under the false name of Krishnappa and with a false address obtained employment of service as a domestic servant under Makrappa.
Makrappa, the husband of the deceased Bachamma, who was found murdered by strangulation on the night after having been robbed of her jewellery, clothes, etc.
Based on circumstantial evidence, the appellant, who was found missing right from the early hours and who was apprehended a year later, was charged with and convicted for the offences under Sections 302, 392 IPC respectively.
He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 10 years under section 392 IPC and to death under Section 302.
In appeal, the Karnataka High Court confirmed both the conviction and sentences imposed upon him. Hence the appeal by special leave was filed.

HELD:

The Supreme Court held that to sustain a charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, the mere fact that the accused made a statement leading to the discovery of the stolen articles under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, by itself is not sufficient.
The court observed that there must be something more to connect the accused with the commission of the offence. The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution in the instant case led to no other inference than that of guilt of the accused as murder and robbery are proved. The prosecution had led sufficient evidence to connect the accused with the commission of the crime.
For the applicability of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, two conditions are pre-requisite, viz: (1) Information must be such as has caused discovery of the fact, and (2) The information must “relate distinctly” to the fact discovered.”
The court emphasized that the nature of presumption under illustration (a) to s. 114 must depend upon the nature of the evidence adduced. No fixed time limit can be laid down to determine whether possession is recent or otherwise and each case must be judged on its own facts.
If the stolen articles were such as were not likely to pass readily from hand to hand, the period of one year that elapsed cannot be said to be too long particulary when the appellant had been absconding during that period. There was no lapse of time between the date of his arrest and the recovery of the stolen property.
Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal and modified the sentence to imprisonment for life.