Thammaraya & Anr. v. The State of Karnataka

Judgment

[2025] 1 S.C.R. 948 : 2025 INSC 108 Thammaraya and Another v. The State of Karnataka (Criminal Appeal No. 649 of 2013) 22 January 2025 [Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the conviction of the appellants-accused under Sections 201 and 302 read with Section 34, Penal Code, 1860 is sustainable. Headnotes† Evidence – Case based on circumstantial evidence – Prosecution relied solely on recoveries of articles allegedly looted from the deceased – Conviction u/s.201, s.302 r/w s.34, IPC – Sustainability: Held: Unsustainable – Impugned judgments quashed, set aside – Neither the disclosure statements of the accused persons were proved as per law nor the prosecution was able to establish the factum of recoveries of articles purported to have been made on the behest of the accused persons by leading proper evidence – Testimony of IO (PW-27) lacks material aspects required to prove the disclosure statement followed by the recovery – There is also material omission on his part in not conducting a Test Identification Parade of the recovered articles, more particularly when the prosecution case was based solely upon recoveries of these articles – Prosecution’s case is weak, not proved beyond reasonable doubt – Chain of circumstantial evidences not so complete, so as to lead to the only hypothesis of the guilt of the accused totally inconsistent with their innocence – Appellants acquitted. [Paras 28, 26, 25, 27, 29] Murder – Case based solely on circumstantial evidence – Appreciation of evidence – Discussed. [Paras 14, 15] Case Law Cited Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v.

State of Maharashtra [1985] 1 SCR 88 : (1984) 4 SCC 116; Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and * Author [2025] 1 S.C.R. 949