The High Court of Karnataka has upheld the conviction of a man for the murder of a 3.5-year-old child but modified the sentence, ruling that Sessions Courts do not have the power to impose a sentence of imprisonment for life “until natural death.”
A Division Bench comprising Justice H.P. Sandesh and Justice Venkatesh Naik T. observed that the power to impose a punishment of life imprisonment without remission is conferred only upon Constitutional Courts (the Supreme Court and High Courts), not Sessions Courts. Consequently, the Bench modified the sentence of the appellant, Rudresh @ Rudraiah, from imprisonment until natural death to imprisonment for life.
Background of the Case
The case stems from a tragic incident that occurred in April 2017 at the Moolegadde Mutt in Hosanagara Taluk, Shivamogga District. The complainant (PW1) had visited the Mutt with her son, Srujaya, and other relatives to attend the coronation ceremony of a new Swamiji.
The appellant, Rudresh, who is a relative of the Swamiji (PW15), was serving in the Mutt. The prosecution stated that there was animosity between the accused and the complainant’s family because they frequently advised him against his alleged bad behavior and theft of devotees’ belongings.
On the night of April 10, 2017, the complainant and her family slept in the Mutt after dinner. The next morning, the child was missing. Several family members also complained of drowsiness and ill health. Upon searching, the accused was suspected as he remained silent when questioned. Subsequently, the police apprehended the accused, and the body of the child was recovered from a stream at his instance.
The V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga, sitting at Sagar, convicted Rudresh on November 27, 2017, for offences under Section 302 (murder) and Section 364 of the IPC. The Trial Court sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life, specifying that he must “remain in prison until his natural death.”
Arguments of the Parties
The Defence
Advocate Sunil Kumar S., appearing for the appellant, argued that the case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence with no eyewitnesses. He contended that the chain of circumstances was not complete. Specifically, he argued:
- The recovery of the body was from an open and accessible place, citing the Supreme Court judgment in Putai v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025).
- The prosecution witnesses were interested parties.
- The FSL report showed Clonazepam (sleeping tablets) in the deceased child but tested negative for other family members who allegedly consumed the same poisoned food.
- Citing Kiran v. State of Karnataka (2025), the counsel argued that the Sessions Court was not competent to award a sentence of imprisonment for the remainder of natural life.
The Prosecution
State Public Prosecutor Rajath Subramanya argued that the chain of circumstances was complete. He submitted that:
- Motive: Witnesses PW1, PW2, PW4, PW11, and PW15 consistently deposed that the accused harbored hatred against the complainant’s family for reprimanding him.
- Preparation: PW9, a medical shop owner, confirmed that the accused purchased Clonazepam tablets.
- Recovery: The body was recovered at the instance of the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, from a location known only to him.
- Medical Evidence: The post-mortem and FSL reports confirmed death due to Clonazepam poisoning and asphyxia from drowning.
Court’s Observations and Analysis
The High Court undertook a detailed re-appreciation of the evidence.
On Circumstantial Evidence
The Court found that the prosecution had successfully established the “five golden principles” (panchasheela) of proof in a case based on circumstantial evidence.
- Motive: The Court noted, “Having considered the evidence of P.W.1, 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.”
- Preparation: The Court relied on the testimony of the medical shop owner (PW9) and the seizure of the tablets (MO3), stating, “P.W.9 evidence is very clear that accused only had purchased the Clonazepam 0.5 mg. These evidences are very clear with regard to the preparation is concerned.”
On Recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act
Addressing the defence’s contention regarding the recovery of the body, the Court distinguished the facts from the cited judgments. The Bench observed that the body was found in an isolated stream behind the Mutt, surrounded by trees and not visible to the general public. The Court held: “It is very clear that on disclosure of information by the accused himself, two panch witnesses were secured… and showed the dead body… The principles laid down in the judgment with regard to Section 27 of the Evidence Act with regard to recovery is concerned is proved in the case on hand.”
On Medical and Scientific Evidence
The Court accepted the explanation of the Scientific Officer (PW18) regarding why traces of the drug were found in the deceased child but not in other victims. The Court noted that the other victims received medical treatment and provided blood samples after a delay, whereas the child’s physiological functions ceased upon death, retaining the drug traces.
On Sentencing Powers of Sessions Court
The most significant legal point addressed was the validity of the “natural life” sentence imposed by the Trial Court. The Bench referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Kiran v. State of Karnataka (2025).
The Court 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.”
The Bench further stated: “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.”
Decision
The High Court concluded that while the conviction under Section 302 IPC was sound based on the evidence, the sentence required modification.
The Court ordered: “The judgment of conviction dated 27.11.2017… is confirmed. However, the sentence is modified as life imprisonment by setting aside the life imprisonment until his natural death.”
The appeal was allowed in part to the extent of the sentence modification.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Rudresh @ Rudraiah v. State of Karnataka
- Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 69/2018
- Coram: Justice H.P. Sandesh and Justice Venkatesh Naik T.
- Counsel for Appellant: Sri. Sunil Kumar S.
- Counsel for Respondent: Sri. Rajath Subramanya, HCGP
