N Criminal Appeal No 669 of 1982
Appeal by Special leave from the judgment and order dated the 29th October 1981 of the Karnataka High Court in Crl
Appeal No 241 of 1981 BD Sharma AC for the Appellant
M Veerappa and Ashok Kumar Sharma for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SEN J
Appellant Earabhadrappa  Krishnappa is under sentence of death and this appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka dated October 29 1981
The Sessions Judge Kolar by his judgment dated March 21 1981 convicted the appellant under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for having committed the murder of one Smt
Bachamma wife of PW 3 Makrappa and sentenced him to death
On reference the High Court has upheld the conviction of the appellant under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and confirmed the death sentence passed on him
The appellant has also been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for having robbed the deceased of her gold ornaments and clothes and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 10 years
Upon the evidence presented at the trial it transpired that on the night between March 21 and 22 1979 the deceased Smt
Bachamma was throttled to death at her house in village Mallur and relieved of her gold ornaments
On the night in question the deceased Smt
Bachamma as usual served dinner to the family members
After taking his meals PW3 went upstairs to his bed room her mother in law PW2 Smt
Bayamma went to the Kana  to keep a vigil while the deceased slept in the hall adjoining the kitchen and her son PW4 GM Parkash slept in the courtyard of the house
The appellant who had recently been employed as a servant by PW 3 slept in a room on the ground floor where the silk cocoons used to be reared and kept
On the 22nd morning at about 6 am when PW4 went to wake up his mother he found that she was lying dead and he therefore went upstairs and called his father PW3
They saw that the deceased had been strangulated to death and relieved of her ornament
Her gold mangalsutra and gold rope chain were missing so also the gold nose ring and gold ear rings
On 555 the right side of the bed was lying the screw of the missing gold nose ring
There was also lying a towel MO 1 which had been given by PW 3 to the appellant for his use and apparently the deceased has been strangulated with the towel
The iron safe and almirah kept in the hall were found open and bunch of keys which the deceased carried with her was found missing
All the jewellery and cash of Rs 1700 kept in the iron safe and six silk sarees kept in the almirah were also found missing
There was a search made for the appellant but he was not to be found either in the house or in the village and he had therefore absconded with the jewellery and valuables
Intelligence report received by PW 26 Abdul Mazeed Circle Inspector of Police who had taken over the investigation from PW 25 Sreenivasa Rao Station officer Shidalaghatta on 28 March 1980 revealed that the appellant was seen moving in Hosakote and Anekal Taluks and accordingly PW 26 along with his staff searched for the appellant in both the taluks but he could not be found and therefore he encamped at Anekal on that day
On March 29 1980 he got definite information that the appellant was seen in village Hosahally in Hosakote Taluk and was able to apprehend him at that village at about 2 pm
On being taken into custody the appellant made a statement exhibit P 35 leading to the discovery of the ornaments and clothes belonging to the deceased from several places
He first led PW 26 to the house of his sister PW 8 Smt
Yallamma in village Gudisagarapelly leading to the recovery of four silk sarees M Os 11 to 14 which were seized under seizure memo exhibit P 4
From that place he took him to village Mattakur from where he hails to the house of one Dasappa leading to the recovery of the screw of the missing gold nose ring MO 5 which was seized under seizure memo exhibit P 7
Thereafter he took PW 26 to the house of PW 12 Guruvareddy leading to the recovery of a silk saree MO15 which was seized under seizure memo exhibit P 5 and then to the house of PW 13 Narayanareddy leading to the recovery of the gold chain MO 6 and a pair of gold bangles MOS 7  8 which were seized under seizure memo exhibit P 6
The very day he took PW 26 to the house of PW 15 Chinnamma in Village Sollepura leading to the recovery of a silk saree MO10 which was seized under seizure memo exhibit P 8
On the next day ie on the 30th the appellant took PW 26 to the house of PW 21 Ramachari in village Hosur who led them to the shop of PW 22 Palaniyachar leading to the recovery of a pair of gold earrings MOs 3  4 and a gold ingot MO 9 556 which were seized under seizure memo exhibit P 15
The seized articles have all been identified by PW 3 Makrappa and his mother PW 2 Smt
Bayamma and son PW 4
GM Prakash as belonging to the deceased
The appellant abjured his guilt and denied the commission of the alleged offence stating that he had been falsely implicated
He also denied that he ever made the statement exhibit P 35 or that the stolen articles were recovered as a direct consequence to such statement
In cases in which the evidence is purely of a circumstantial nature the facts and circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is sought to be drawn must be fully established beyond any reasonable doubt and the fact and circumstances should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but they must be in their effect as to be entirely incompatible with the innocence of the accused and must exclude every reasonable hypothesis consistent with his innocence
The chain of circumstances brought out by the prosecution are these 1
The appellant who hails from village Mattakur was a stranger to village Mallur ostensibly in search of employment
He falsely stated his name to be Krishnappa and gave a wrong address stating that he belonged to a nearby village
The securing of employment by giving out false name and wrong address shows that he had some oblique motive in his mind
He obtained employment with pw 3 and gained his confidence and was allowed to sleep in a room on the ground floor where the silk cocoons were kept
He thus became familiar with the places where the inmates of the house used to sleep and where the jewellery cash and other valuable belongings used to be kept ie in the iron safe and almirah kept in the hall adjoining the kitchen
It appears that the appellant had pre planned the commission of robbery
Earlier in the evening he went to PW 6 Narayanappa and borrowed Rs 2 and thereafter went to the toddy shop of PW 7 Smt
Anasuyamma and took liquor
On the night in question he reached the kana  at about 9 pm 557 and was reprimanded by PW 2 for being late
Upon reaching the house he went upstairs in an inebriated state and told PW 3 that he no longer wanted to serve and he should settle his accounts
PW 3 told him to come in the morning and take his wages
It therefore appears that the appellant had made up his mind to leave the village
On the next morning ie on the 22nd at about 6 am it was discovered that the deceased Smt
Bachamma had been strangulated to death
The gold ornaments on her person and in the iron safe had been stolen
There was a search made for the appellant but he was not to be found anywhere
Near the dead body of the deceased was lying the blood stained towel MO 1 given by PW 3 to the appellant for his use with which the deceased had apparently been strangulated
The appellant had therefore absconded from the scene of occurrence after committing the murder and robbery
After the appellant had suddenly disappeared from the house of PW 3 with the gold ornaments and other valuables there was a frantic search made by PW 25 Sreenivasa Rao and PW 26 Abdul Mazeed at various places and he was absconding till March 29 1980 until he was apprehended by PW 26 at village Hosahally in Hosakote taluk at about 2 pm On being arrested after a year of the incident on March 29 1980 the appellant made the statement exhibit P 35 leading to the recovery of some of the stolen gold ornaments of the deceased and her six silk sarees from different places and they have all been identified by PWs 2 3 and 4 as belonging to the deceased
The appellant falsely denied the recoveries and could offer no explanation for his possession of the stolen articles
It appears from the prosecution evidence that after the commission of the murder and robbery the appellant had with him the incriminating articles and 558 taken them to his native place Mattakur where he disposed them of to several persons
The testimony of PW 26 reveals that in consequence of the information given by the appellant he recovered the missing screw of the gold nose ring MO5 from one Dasappa in village Mattakur that of PW12 Guruvareddy that appellant had sold to him the silk saree MO15 for Rs 150  and that of PW13 Narayanareddy discloses that the appellant had sold to him a gold rope chain MO6 and a pair of gold bangles MOs 78 for Rs 2000  The testimony of PW8 Smt Yallamma sister of the appellant hailing from village Gudisagarapally show that the appellant had given her four silk sarees MOs11 to 14 and that of PW15 Smt
Chinnamma of village Sollepura who was known to the appellant from before shows that the appellant gave her the silk saree for Re 1 when she refused to take his gratis
The testimony of PW 21 Ramachari of village Hosur shows that appellant brought with him a pair of gold ear rings and a gold ingot and wanted to sell them saying that he was hard pressed
This witness took him to PW 22 Palaniyachar and the appellant sold the gold ingot MO9 for Rs 330 and a pair of gold ear rings MOs 34 for Rs 500 
From this evidence it is apparent that the appellant while he was absconding moved from place to place trying to dispose of the stolen property to various persons
The learned Sessions Judge as well as the High Court have come to the conclusion that the circumstances alleged have been fully proved and they are consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused
We are inclined to agree both with their conclusion and the reasoning
The chain of circumstances set out above establishes the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt There is no controversy that the statement made by the appellant exhibit P 35 is admissible under section 27 of the Evidence Act
Under section 27 only so much of the information as distinctly relates to the facts really thereby discovered is admissible
The word fact  means some concrete or material fact to which the information directly relates
As 559 explained by Sir John Beaumont in Pulukuri Kottaya vs Emperor 1 It is fallacious to treat the fact discovered  within the section as equivalent to the object produced the fact discovered embraces the place from which the object is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this and the information given must relate distinctly to this fact
For the applicability of section 27 therefore two conditions are prerequisite namely 1 the information must be such as has caused discovery of the fact and 2 the information must relate distinctly  to the fact discovered
In the present case there was a suggestion during the trial that PW 26 had prior knowledge from other sources that the incriminating articles were concealed at certain places and that statement exhibit P 35 was prepared after the recoveries had been made and therefore there was no fact discovered  within the meaning of section 27 of the Evidence Act
We need not dilate on the question because there was no suggestion made to PW 26 during his cross examination that he had known the places where the incriminating articles were kept
That being so the statement made by the appellant exhibit P 35 is clearly admissible in evidence
In Jaffer Hussein Dastgir vs State of Maharasetra 2 the portion of the statement with reference to which this question arose read as follows I will point out one Gaddi alias Ramsingh of Delhi at Bombay Central Railway Station at III Class Waiting Hall to whom I have given a Packet containing diamonds of different sizes more than 200 in number
 The only question for decision in that case before the Court was whether the aforesaid statement made by the accused was admissible in evidence by virtue of section 27 of the Evidence Act the diamonds having been found with the person named
In the facts of that case the Court came to the conclusion that the police had already known that the diamonds were with the person named by the accused with the result that there was no fact discovered by the police as a result of the statement made by the accused
However it was held clearly that but for such knowledge of the police the aforesaid statement of the accused would have been admissible in evidence
560 In the present case some of the material portions in the statement exhibit P 35 which distinctly relate to the fact discovered read If I am taken to Gudisagarapally I shall get the four silk sarees At village Gudisagarapally the appellant took PW 26 to the house of his sister PW 8 Smt
Yallamma who produced four silk sarees MOs 11 to 14 which were seized under seizure memo exhibit P 4
PW 8 Smt
Yallamma states that she is the sister of the appellant and that he had given to her the four silk sarees
It was suggested that the police had not only planted PW 8 as a sister of the appellant but also the four silk sarees in question but there is no basis for this assertion
Then the statement exhibit P 35 recites If I am taken to native place Mattakur I shall get one gold nose ring without screw  one silk saree  one gold rope chain and one pair of gold ear rings
 At village Mattakur from where he hails the appellant took PW 26 to the house of one Dasappa leading to the recovery of the screw of the missing gold nose ring MO 5 which was seized under seizure memo exhibit P 7
Thereafter he took PW 26 to the house of PW 12 Guruvareddy leading to the recovery of a silk saree MO 15 which was seized under seizure memo exhibit P 5
He then took PW 26 to the house of PW 13 Narayanareddy leading to the recovery of a gold rope chain MO 6 and a pair of gold bangles MOs
78 which were seized under seizure memo exhibit P 6
The prosecution could not examine Dasappa because he was dead during the trial
PW 12 stated that the appellant had sold him a silk saree for Rs 150 while PW 13 stated that he had sold him a gold rope chain and a pair of gold bangles for Rs 2000 
The statement exhibit P 35 contains similar recitals leading to the recovery of the other incriminating articles viz 1 A silk saree MO10 given by the appellant to PW 15 Smt
Chinnamma of village Sollepura whom he knew from before for a token price of Re 1  2 A pair of gold ear rings MOs 34 and a gold ingot MO9 from PW 22 Palaniyachar which he had purchased from the appellant for Rs 830
Apart from the question of sentence two other contentions are raised namely 1 There is no proper identification that the seized ornaments belonged to the deceased Smt
Bachamma and 2 the presumption arising under illustration a to section 114 of the Evidence 561 Act looking to the long lapse of time between the commission of murder and robbery and the discovery of the stolen articles should be that the appellant was merely a receiver of the stolen articles and therefore guilty of an offence punishable under section 411 of the Indian Penal Code and not that he was guilty of culpable homicide amounting to murder punishable under section 302 as well
We are afraid none of these contentions can prevail
Our attention was drawn to the testimony of PW 13 Narayanareddy who during his cross examination stated that ornaments similar to the gold rope chain and the pair of gold bangles were available everywhere and that other ornaments were also in his house
From this it is sought to be argued that the seized ornaments cannot be treated to be stolen property as they are ordinary ornaments in common use
Nothing really turns on this because PW 2 Smt
Bayamma mother in law of the deceased her husband PW 13 Makarappa and son PW 4 GM Prakash have categorically stated that the seized ornaments belonged to the deceased Smt
Bachamma
There is no reason why the testimony of these witnesses should not be relied upon particularly when PW 2 Smt
Baymma was not cross examined at all as regards her identification of the seized ornaments and clothes as belonging to the deceased
Even if the seized ornaments could be treated to be ornaments in common use this witness could never make a mistake in identifying the seized six silk sarees MOs 10 to 15
It is a matter of common knowledge that ladies have an uncanny sense of identifying their own belongings particularly articles of personal use in the family
That apart the description of the silk sarees in question shows that they were expensive sarees with distinctive designs
There is no merit in the contention that the testimony of these witnesses as regards the identity of the seized articles to be stolen property cannot be relied upon for want of prior test identification
There is no such legal requirement
This is a case where murder and robbery are proved to have been integral parts of one and the same transaction and therefore the presumption arising under illustration a to section 114 of the Evidence Act is that not only the appellant committed the murder of the deceased but also committed robbery of her gold ornaments which form part of the same transaction
The prosecution has led sufficient evidence to connect the appellant with the commission of the crime
The sudden disappearance of the appellant from the house of PW3 on the morning of March 22 1979 when 562 it was discovered that the deceased had been strangulated to death and relieved of her gold ornaments coupled with the circumstance that he was absconding for a period of over one year till he was apprehended by PW 26 at village Hosahally on March 29 1980 taken with the circumstance that he made the statement exhibit P 35 immediately upon his arrest leading to the discovery of the stolen articles must necessarily raise the inference that the appellant alone and no one else was guilty of having committed the murder of the deceased and robbery of her gold ornaments
The appellant had no satisfactory explanation to offer for his possession of the stolen property
On the contrary he denied that the stolen property was recovered from him
The false denial by itself is an incriminating circumstance
The nature of presumption under illustration a to section 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
The question as to what amounts to recent possession sufficient to justify the presumption of guilt varies according as the stolen article is or is not calculated to pass readily from hand to hand
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
Finally there remains the question of sentence it was cruel hand of destiny that the deceased Smt
Bachamma met a violent end by being strangulated to death by the appellant who betrayed the trust of his master pw 3 and committed her pre planned cold blooded murder for greed in achieving his object of committing robbery of the gold ornaments on her person and in ransacking the iron safe and the almirah kept in her bedroom on the fateful night
The appellant was guilty of a heinous crime and deserves the extreme penalty
But we are bound by the rule laid down in Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab 1 where the Court moved by compassionate sentiments of human feelings has ruled that sentence of death should not be passed except in the rarest of the rare  cases
The result now is that capital punishment is seldom employed even though it may be a crime against the society and the brutality of the crime shocks the judicial 563 conscience
A sentence or pattern of sentence with fails to take due account of the gravity of the offence can seriously undermine respect for law
It is the duty of the Court to impose a proper punishment depending upon the degree of criminality and desirability to impose such punishment as a measure of social necessity as a means of deterring other potential offenders
Failure to impose a death sentence in such grave cases where it is a crime against the society particularly in cases of murders committed with extreme brutality will bring to naught the sentence of death provided by section 302 of the Indian Penal Code
The test laid down in Bachan Singh s case supra is unfortunately not fulfilled in the instant case
Left with no other alternative we are constrained to commute the sentence of death passed on the appellant into one for imprisonment for life
Subject to this modification in the sentence the appeal fails and is dismissed
section R Appeal dismissed


Summary:
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 PW 3 Makrappa the husband of the deceased Bachamma who was found murdered by strangulation on the night between March 21 22 1979 after having been robbed of her jewellery clothes etc
Based on circumstantial evidence the appellant who was found missing right from the early hours of the 22nd March 1979 and who was apprehended a year later on March 29 1980 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 High Court confirmed both the conviction and sentences imposed upon him
Hence the appeal by special leave
Dismissing the appeal and modifying the sentence the Court
 HELD 11 To sustain a charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Codethe 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
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 to have been integral parts of one and the same transaction and therefore the presumption arising under illustration a to section 114 of the Evidence Act is that not only the accused committed the murder of the deceased but also committed robbery of her gold ornaments which formed part of the same transaction
The prosecution had led sufficient evidence to connect the accused with the commission of the crime
561 G H 553 12 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
 Under section 27 only so much of the information as distinctly relates to the facts really thereby discovered is admissible
The word fact means some concrete or material fact to which the information directly relates
549A 550B C Pulukuri Kottayya vs Emperor LR 1947 IA 65 Jaffer Hussein Dastgir V State of Maharashtra 1970 2 SCR332 referred to
21 The nature of presumption under illustration a to section 114 of the Evidence Act from recent and unexplained possession must depend upon the nature of the evidence adduced
As to the meaning of recent possession it was observed 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
The question as to what amounts to recent possession sufficient to justify the presumption of guilt varies according as the stolen article is or is not calculated to pass readily from hand to hand
The fact that a period of one year had elapsed between the commission of the crime and the recovery of the ornaments on a statement made by the accused leading to their discovery under section 27 of the Evidence Act immediately upon his being apprehended by the police cannot be said to be too long particularly when the accused had been absconding during that period and the stolen articles were such as were not likely to pass readily from hand to hand
There was no lapse of time between the date of his arrest and the recovery of the stolen property
The accused had no satisfactory explanation to offer for his possession thereof
On the contrary he denied that the stolen property was recovered by him
The false denial by itself is an incriminating circumstance
56 H 562 A E 3
In Bachan singh V State of Punjab  the Supreme Court moved by compassionate sentiments of human feelings has ruled that sentence of death should not be passed except in the rarest of rare cases
The result now is that capital punishment is seldom employed even though it may be a crime against the society and the brutality of the crime shocks judicial conscience
The test laid down in Bachan Singh s case is unfortunately not fulfilled in the instant case
That being so the Court is constrained to commute the sentence of death passed on the appellant into one for imprisonment for life
562 F H 563 A Observation of Dissent A sentence or pattern of sentence which fails to take due account of the gravity of the offence can seriously undermine respect for law
It is the duty of the court to impose a proper punishment depending upon the degree of criminality and desirability to impose such punishment as a measure of social necessity as a means of deterring other potential offenders
Failure to impose death sentence in such grave cases where it is a crime against society particularly in cases of murders committed with extreme brutality will bring to naught the sentence of death provided under Section 302 of the Penal Code 563 A B 554