IMPORTANT POINT
While High Court has full power to interfere with finding of trial Court but should be very slow in reversing the decision of trial Court because trial Court has occasion to watch the demeanour of witnesses very closely.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 324, 341 and 302/149-Six respondent-accused were convicted under by trial Court out of 17 accused charge-sheeted by police-Accused belonging to one faction in village armed with chopper, iron rods, clubs and stones assaulted deceased, way laid him-PW 1, wife of deceased and PW 4 when came to rescue of deceased they were also beaten-Post mortem report showed 29 injuries including fracture of parietal and occipital bones-High Court set aside conviction on ground that when witnesses were disbelieved for large number of accused involved, it was not trustworthy to uphold conviction of six on same evidence-State appeal-Consistent evidence as regards involvement of six accused in incident though all seventeen accused had even not been named in FIR-Utmost care and caution required to be exercised by Court while appreciating evidence of witnesses who belonged to one faction was observed by trial Court-High Court came to conclusion without discussing evidence of witnesses in detail-Some exaggeration or embellishment can appear in testimony of witnesses because of lapse of time or poor memory-Nature of injuries found in post mortem report corresponded with version given by witnesses some injuries on person of A1 or some damage to house of accused would not improbabilise prosecution case-Conviction of accused was liable to be restored.
Held : Therefore, from the ratio of the above decisions it is more than clear that while the High Court has full power to interfere with the finding of the trial court but the High Court should be very slow in reversing the decision of the trial court because the trial court has the occasion to watch the demeanour of the witnesses very closely . There is no two opinion that the High Court has full power to re-appreciate the evidence and come to a conclusion independently but the conclusion which is arrived at by the High Court should be rational and proper appreciation of the testimony of the witnesses. In the present case, the High Court has not examined the statement of the witnesses and just on a bald statement that when the prosecution version has been accepted in full and the witnesses have tendency to over implicate, then what is the guarantee that other part is also true. The Division Bench has disbelieved the entire prosecution evidence. This approach of the High Court, in our view, is not correct. There should be proper appreciation of evidence and finding has to be recorded against each witness as to why the said witness is not being believed when he was believed by the trial court. On the contrary, we have closely examined the evidence of the witnesses and after taking chaff from the grain we found that so far as the statement of P.W.1, the wife of the deceased and P.W.4, Shankar, the nephew of the deceased, their testimony is trustworthy and there is no reason to disbelieve these two witnesses leave apart other eye witnesses. These two witnesses who were injured witnesses as they were examined by the doctors and P.W.4, Shankar who received such serious injuries that he became unconscious, therefore, the testimony of these two witnesses is wholly reliable so far as these accused persons are concerned and they have been corroborated by other eye witnesses i.e. P.Ws. 5, 6 & 7 and they have been supported by the medical evidence also. We are of the view that the testimony of these witnesses fully substantiate the prosecution case. (Para 10)

JUDGMENT

A.K. Mathur, J.-This appeal is directed against an order of the Karnataka High Court whereby the Division Bench of the High Court has acquitted all the six accused persons by its order dated April 3, 1998 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 962 of 1996. Hence the present appeal has been filed against the order of acquittal of the aforesaid six accused persons.

2. Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are that a charge-sheet was filed by Kavalande Police-Station against 17 accused persons under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter to be referred to as "I.P.C.") read with Section 149, I.P.C. Allegations were that accused 1 to 17 on March 24, 1996 at about 4.00 p.m. at Mallahalli village, Nanangud Taluk, formed an unlawful assembly with the common object to cause the death of Dasanaika, husband of P.W. 1. In pursuance of such common object such assembly was formed and they were armed with deadly weapons like Chopper, iron rod, clubs and stones. All the accused persons wrongfully restrained Dasanaika and murdered him intentionally causing injuries. They also caused injuries on P.W. 4 by stone. It is alleged that there are rival factions in the village and the whole incident leading to lodging of F.I.R. is alleged to have taken place in the early hours of March 24, 1996 when P.W. 1 Malligamma, went to the village well for fetching water. It is alleged that she had filled one pitcher and she was drawing water to fill the next pot, at that time Jayaraju, son of Puttamada Nayak- A-3, came there to fetch water for his bullocks. Jayaraju allowed the bullocks to take water from one pitcher filled by Malligamma. This was objected to by P.W.1. Thereupon, Jayaraju kicked the water pitcher and kicked P.W. 1. However, with the intervention of other elderly women Karigamma, Nanjamma and Kempanaik, she was persuaded to go back to her house. In the afternoon at 2.30 P.M. when her husband came back from Nanjangud Court she narrated whole incident of the maltreatment given by Jayaraju to her and she asked him to lodge a complaint. But her husband went to his younger brother, Puttaswamy for consultation and thereafter they went to their elder brother, Ponnanaika. The houses of Puttaswamy and Ponnanaika are adjacent to each other. It is alleged that at 4.00 P.M. she heard some shouting and she saw her husband, Dasanaika was being chased by a group of 10 to 12 persons. They were all persons of other factions of the village and they were chasing her husband towards the house of Chairman-Dasanayaka. It is alleged that A-1, Papanaika was holding a chopper, A-2, Mahadevanaika @ Mahadeva @ Chikkavanu son of Govindanaika was armed with an iron rod and A-7 & A-8 were holding clubs and other accused persons had clubs or stones in their hands. When her husband, Dasanaika came near the house of Chairman-Dasanayak, A-1 gave a blow by his chopper on the head of her husband and on other parts of the body. Similarly, A-2, Mahadevanaika beat her husband by means of an iron rod on different parts of the body and rest of the accused persons beat her husband with the clubs and stones. She ran towards her husband to rescue him and she raised her hands to ward off the blows on her husband; the blows fell on her right hand and caused injuries to her wrist. Her husband fell down and became unconscious. Meanwhile, one Shankar, P.W. 4, son of Ponnanaika came running to rescue her husband but he was also beaten with stones and clubs which hit his forehead and all over his body. He fell down near the house of Ramanaika and became unconscious. A report of this incident was immediately lodged at the Police-Station and on the basis of the statement of the P.W. 1, an F.I.R. was chalked out. Thereafter, Dasanaika, the injured was immediately taken to the hospital and ultimately he succumbed to his injuries. He received as many as 29 injuries on dissection of his body, 9 injuries were also found including fracture of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

2004 Supreme(SC) 1317

IMPORTANT POINTWhile High Court has full power to interfere with finding of trial Court but should be very slow in reversing the decision of trial Court because trial Court has occasion to watch the demeanour of witnesses very closely.

Cases Referred (2)

Judicial Analysis

IMPORTANT POINT
While High Court has full power to interfere with finding of trial Court but should be very slow in reversing the decision of trial Court because trial Court has occasion to watch the demeanour of witnesses very closely.