SIJU KURIAN v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

1.7. Section 27 permits the derivative use of custodial statement in the ordinary course of events. There is no automatic presumption that the custodial statements have been extracted through compulsion. A fact discovered is an information supplied by the accused in his disclosure statement is a relevant fact and that is only admissible in evidence if something new is discovered or recovered at the instance of the accused which was not within the knowledge of the police before recording the disclosure statement of the accused. The statement of an accused recorded while being in police custody can be split into its components and can be separated from the admissible portions. Such of those components or portions which were the immediate cause of the discovery would be the legal evidence and the rest can be rejected The submission by the accused that the confession statement is to be discarded in its entirety cannot be accepted for reasons more than one. Firstly, the conduct of the accused would also be a relevant fact as indicated in Section 8. [Para 18][419-A-D]

1.8. It is a trite law that in pursuance to a voluntary statement made by the accused, a fact must be discovered which was in the exclusive knowledge of the accused alone. In such circumstances, that part of the voluntary statement which leads to the discovery of a new fact which was only in the knowledge of the accused would become admissible under Section 27. Such statement should have been voluntarily made and the facts stated therein should not have been in the knowhow of others. When the deposition of PW-10 is perused it would leave no manner of doubt that statement of the accused having been recorded being voluntary and when the statement is being recorded in the language not known to the accused, the assistance of interpreter A B C D E F G H SIJU KURIAN v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 401 if taken by the police cannot be found fault with. The ultimate test of the said statement made by the accused having been noted down as told by the accused or not would be of paramount consideration. If the answer is in the affirmative then necessarily said statement will have to be held as passing the test of law as otherwise not. Merely because the translation was made from Malayalam to Tamil and written down in Kannada would not suggest that such statement be held to be either not being voluntary or the said statement having been recorded improperly. Merely because PW-10 did not know how to read and write Malayalam does not ipso facto make the contents of the statement to be disbelieved. On the other hand, he states that he is from Kerala and he knows how to speak Malayalam. What was required to be performed by him was to pose the question as stated by the witness to the accused and the answers given to such questions are to be stated to the police for being recorded as stated by the accused. In fact, there is not even a suggestion made to PW-10 about the contents of the statement being incorrect. [Para 19][420- B-H; 421-A]

1.9. It is no doubt true that confession of PW-25 in its entirety is not admissible in view of Section 25 of the Evidence Act. However, in the teeth of Section 8 read with Section 27 of the Evidence Act, that part of the confession which led to the recovery of the dead body of the victim would become admissible, apart from other articles of the deceased recovered at the instance of the accused has been identified by several witnesses independently. This has also persuaded the High Court to accept the statement recorded under Ex.P-2 as being admissible which cannot be construed as highly improbable. Certain articles were recovered on the strength of confession statement made by the accused and in order to prove such recovery the witnesses have been examined by the prosecution and this has also persuaded the Court to accept the findings of the High Court. [Para 20][422- G-H; 423-A-B]

1.10. The other surrounding circumstances which prove the accused being guilty of the offence beyond reasonable doubt are the recovery of the articles belonging to the deceased and sold by the accused which were recovered on the strength of the A B C D E F G H 402 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 4 S.C.R. voluntary statement of accused. PW-5 clearly stated as to how the accused intended to sell the immoveable property belonging to the deceased. PW 5 has clearly deposed as to how the accused was apprehended by the police when he was attempting to sell the property of the deceased. That apart the statements made by the accused that deceased had gone to Kerala or the deceased had suffered a paralytic stroke or deceased had proceeded to America and expired there are all incorrect and conflicting statements as has been deposed by PW-5. The conclusion arrived at by the High Court is based on sound appreciation of evidence and proper application of law.

On account of evidence available on record having been ignored and there being patent perversity in appreciation of evidence by the Sessions Judge it resulted in interference by the High Court. No material irregularity has crept in the judgment of the High Court calling for interference. On re-appreciation of entire evidence by the High Court in proper perspective it has resulted in arriving at a right conclusion viz. that accused alone committed the murder of the deceased and there being no other possible view which could be considered as missing in the link of chain of circumstances, the appeal is devoid of merits. The judgment passed by the High Court is upheld. [Paras 21-23][428-G-H; 429-A-B, C-E] Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 : [1985] 1 SCR 88; Sheo Swarup v. King Emperor AIR 1934 PC 227; Naresh Chandra Das v. Emperor AIR 1942 (Cal) 593; Pohalya Motya Valvi v.

State of Maharashtra (1980) 1 SCC 530; Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) 10 SCC 473; Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020) 7 SCC 1; State of Karnataka v. Suvarnamma (2015) 1 SCC 323 : [2014] 10 SCR 778; Pattu Rajan v State of Tamil Nadu (2019) 4 SCC 771 : [2019] 5 SCR 535; State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram (2006) 12 SCC 254 : [2006] 8 Suppl. SCR 501; A.N. Venkatesh & Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2005) 7 SCC 714; Gamini Bala Koteswara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 2010 SC 589 : [2009] 14 SCR 1 – referred to. A B C D E F G H SIJU KURIAN v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 403