Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Karnataka Division Bench of Justice H.P. Sandesh and Justice Venkatesh Naik T partly allowed an appeal by a man convicted for the murder of a three-and-a-half-year-old child, and modified the sentence imposed by the sessions court. While affirming the conviction for murder, the Bench set aside the direction that the convict must remain in prison “until his natural death” and substituted it with the sentence of imprisonment for life as understood in law. The Court held that sessions courts have not been conferred the power to award life imprisonment without the possibility of remission, a course reserved to constitutional courts.

The criminal appeal arose from a conviction recorded by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga, sitting at Sagar, against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 364 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case was that the complainant, a devotee of Moolegadde Mutt, had visited the Mutt along with her three-and-a-half-year-old son to attend a coronation ceremony. The accused was serving at the Mutt at the relevant time.

Also Read: Release On Probation Does Not Erase Conviction Stigma In Departmental Proceedings: Supreme Court

On the intervening night, food was consumed by the complainant, her relatives, and other devotees. The following morning, the child was found missing, and several persons who had consumed the food reported dizziness. A complaint was lodged suspecting the involvement of the accused. During investigation, the police recovered the child’s body from a stream at the instance of the accused and seized sleeping tablets allegedly used in the commission of the offence.

The prosecution examined twenty-one witnesses, including family members, panch witnesses, medical officers, forensic experts, and the investigating officer, and relied upon documentary, medical, and scientific evidence. The Trial Court convicted the accused and imposed life imprisonment till natural death. The accused challenged both conviction and sentence before the High Court.

The Division Bench examined whether the conviction based on circumstantial evidence satisfied the settled legal principles governing such cases. The Court “re-appreciated both oral and documentary evidence available on record” and noted that the complaint itself recorded suspicion against the accused at the earliest point of time.

While analysing motive, the Court observed: "Having considered the evidence of P.W.1(complainant/mother), P.W.2, P.W.4, P.W.11 and P.W.15, it is very clear that accused was having hatreadness against the P.W.1 and P.W.2. The prosecution has proved the motive for committing the murder.”

On preparation, the Court accepted the recovery of tablets and documentary proof from the medical store, noting that “the evidence of P.Ws.7, 8 and 9 clearly establishes that the accused had purchased Clonazepam 0.5 mg tablets prior to the incident.”

With regard to recovery of the dead body, the Bench held that Section 27 of the Evidence Act was properly invoked, stating that “the accused, while in custody, disclosed information which distinctly led to the discovery of the dead body.” The Court further recorded that “the place where the body was recovered was an isolated area surrounded by trees and not visible to the public.”

Addressing the defence contention on open access, the Court observed that “the argument that the place of recovery was accessible to all cannot be accepted in view of the evidence on record.”

On scientific evidence, the Bench accepted the FSL reports, noting that “Clonazepam was detected in the viscera of the deceased, while its absence in others was satisfactorily explained by delay and medical treatment.”

The Court concluded that “each link in the chain of circumstances stands proved, leading to an irresistible conclusion regarding the guilt of the accused.”

The Court referred to Supreme Court's decision in Kiran v/s State of Karnataka (2025) and observed: "The power to impose punishment of imprisonment for life without remission was conferred only on the Constitutional Courts and not on the Sessions Courts. Having taken note of the principles laid down in the judgment, wherein question was also raised in paragraph No.8 and so also in paragraph No.13, a conclusion was arrived by the Apex Court, wherein it is categorically held that the Supreme Court as well as High Courts can impose life sentence beyond any remission can be awarded substituting the death penalty.

The Court further observed: “But powers of the Sessions Court not conferred and the same was only on the Constitutional Courts i.e., Supreme Court as well as High Court. Having perused this principle laid down in this judgment and also the judgment of the Trial Court, while sentencing the accused, the Trial Court imposed life imprisonment that he has to suffer sentence till his natural death. Hence, it is very clear that Section 428 of Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked in view of specific sentence and no right accrues to the accused to seek for any remission when the imprisonment for life is imposed, till the remainder of life. Hence, the Session Court cannot prohibit the benefit of set off as provided under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, with regard to sentence is concerned, it requires interference that, imprisonment for life till natural death is converted to imprisonment for life"

Also Read: Business To Ply Bike Taxis Protected Under Article 19(1)(g); Karnataka High Court Allows Aggregators’ Appeals, Directs State To Consider Permits Without Blanket Ban

The High Court ordered that “the Criminal Appeal is allowed in part. The judgment of conviction dated 27.11.2017 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC is confirmed. The sentence is modified as life imprisonment by setting aside the life imprisonment until his natural death.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Appellant: Sri. Sunil Kumar S., Advocate

For the Respondent-State: Sri. Rajath Subramanya, High Court Government Pleader

Case Title: Rudresh @ Rudraiah v State of Karnataka
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 69/2018
Bench: Justice H.P. Sandesh, Justice Venkatesh Naik T