IMPORTANT POINT
The High Court cannot be said to have committed any error in reversing the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Judge when testimonies of sons and sister of the accused cannot be said to be wholly unreliable.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324, 342, 504 and 302/149 — Conviction for offences by reversing acquittal — Sustainable when — Land dispute — Accused persons allegedly in furtherance of their common object of assaulting deceased and her sons came to the land in question with deadly weapons — They chased PW25, brother of accused 1 and 2 and assaulted him — Prosecution case that they assaulted deceased, a lady, causing bleeding injuries with sticks — She was tied around her neck with her own saree — A large number of witnesses were examined but many turned hostile — Trial Court acquitted accused holding that prosecution case has been supported only by the interested witnesses — High Court recorded judgment of conviction holding that there was no reason to disbelieve PW25 and sons of deceased, particularly when PW25 was an injured witness and first informant — Whether High Court was justified in reversing judgment of acquittal — (Yes) — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 378.
       Held : The High Court has noticed and in our opinion rightly that although the prosecution witnesses turned hostile, they made no whisper about the incident having occurred in the manner as alleged by the appellants. It is of some significance that the injuries sustained by PW.25 is not in dispute. Why the evidence of the injured witnesses was not believed by the learned Trial Judge is beyond any comprehension. He was the brother of accused 1 and 2. He was also a party to the deed of sale. The High Court had assigned cogent and sufficient reasons in relying upon the evidence of PW.25, particularly, when there are evidences on record to show that he had been assaulted with material objects. (Paras 22)
       Even if, the version of the respondent that accused no.1 suffered injury at the hands of PW.27 while he was firmly held by the deceased and PW.26 is believed, the presence of PWs. 26 and 27 stands accepted. (Paras 23)
       We, therefore, are of the opinion that keeping in view the fact that PW.26 is the sister of the deceased and PWs.27 and 28 were her sons, their testimonies before the Court cannot be said to be wholly unreliable. As per evidence of the Investigating Officer, the accused no.1 when questioned, declined to tell him anything. If he was not at the place of occurrence at the time when the incident had taken place, it was expected that he would tell his side of the story including the manner in which he had suffered injuries to the Investigating Officer. There was absolutely no reason why he would suppress the fact from the Investigating Officer. This clearly goes to show that accused no.1 made all attempts to conceal the circumstances under which he had sustained injuries on his person. If in the aforementioned situation the High Court has believed the prosecution story, we do not see any infirmity therein, particularly, when no complaint was made in that behalf by the accused no.1 or by anybody else in their behalf to the police. (Para 24)
       We have been taken through the depositions of PWs. 25 to 28. We agree with the inference arrived at by the High Court as regards credibility of their evidences before the court. There may be some contradictions in the depositions of the said witnesses but they are minor in nature. We cannot loose sight of the fact that they deposed in court about 3 = years after the date of occurrence and, thus, minor variations from their earlier statements are but natural. (Para 26)
       The High Court, thus, in our opinion, in a case of this nature cannot be said to have committed any error in reversing the judgment of acquittal by the learned Trial Judge. The jurisdiction of the High Court albeit is limited in this behalf, as would appear from some of the decisions of this Court but the High Court in our considered view did not exceed its jurisdiction. (Para 27)

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J. — Appellants herein have filed this statutory appeal under the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment dated 9.6.2005 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No.252 of 1999(A) whereby and whereunder, a judgment of acquittal passed by a III Additional Sessions Judge, Dharwad acquitting the appellants herein for offence punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324, 342, 504 and 302 read with Section 149 of I.P.C., was reversed.

2. The alleged occurrence took place at about 10.30 A.M. on 13.12.1994 near the Bus stand at Village Ichangi situated in the District of Dharwad. A First Information Report was lodged by one Devendrappa (PW-25). He is the brother of appellants 1 and 2 herein being original accused nos.1 and 2. Appellant no. 4 is married to the sister of the appellants 1 and 2. Appellants 1 and 2 and the first informant allegedly sold 5 acres 20 gunthas of land situated in the said Village Ichangi to deceased Ratnavva. The contention of the accused no.1, however, was that his signature on the alleged deed of sale was a forged one. The property, however was in possession of the deceased Ratnavva. On 13.12.1994 at about 7.30 A.M. Ratnavva and her sons Shivananda Basavaraj and Veeresh went to the land in question for plucking groundnuts. The accused persons in furtherance of their common object of assaulting them came to the land in question with deadly weapons. They chased Devendrappa and assaulted him. They assaulted the deceased with sticks causing bleeding injuries. They were also abused. Allegedly in the scuffle that followed, accused no.1 instigated accused no.4 to stab Devendrappa and when an attempt was made in this behalf, bleeding injuries accidentally were caused to accused no.1. Devendrappa ran away from the said place. He was, however, caught near a place known Udachammana Gudi at Ichangi. His hands were tied. He was wrongfully confined to the house. It is stated that the accused persons also threw stones at the deceased and her companions PWs.26 to 28. One of them had hit the deceased. PWs.25 to 28 being frightened, moved a little away from the scene leaving the deceased on the spot. She was forcibly taken near the Bus stand of their village, tied to an electric pole and her garments were taken off. She was tied around her neck with her own saree. She was assaulted with sticks. She begged for water but the same was denied to her. The accused continued to assault her with sticks. She breathed her last at that spot. The first informant Devendrappa (PW-25) who was kept confined in his house allegedly had become unconscious. After regaining consciousness he came to know of the said murder and lodged the First Information Report.

3. The post-mortem examination of the deceased was conducted by Dr. Mohantappa (PW-13). The dead body was received at the hospital for post mortem examination on or about 11.30 P.M. in the night. The post-mortem examination was conducted in the morning of 14.12.1994. PW 13 found the following external injuries on the dead body:-

”1. Oblique ligature mark on the upper part of the neck, mark is interrupted, stating from right angle of the jaw and along the border of the mandible and to the left angle of the jaw, traversing to the nape of the neck, measuring about 14"2 x in length. Interrupted ligature mark along the lower border of jaw from right to left side of the jaw 4 in No. measuring 1" x ½ ” x ½ x ½ ’ x ½ ’ x ½ ” x ½ ” respectively. Ligature mark on the middle of the nape of measuring ½ ” x ½ ”. Ligature marks were reddish, dry, parchment like, ecchymosed margins. Both the hands were clinched.

2. There are 3 ligature marks on the right forearm about 3" away from the wrist, measuring 6" x ¼ “, 8” x ¼ , 8½ ” x 1/4" respectively.

3. Ligature marks on the left fore arm two in No. measuri

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2007 Supreme(SC) 612

IMPORTANT POINTThe High Court cannot be said to have committed any error in reversing the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Judge when testimonies of sons and sister of the accused cannot be said to be wholly unreliable.

Cases Referred (4)

IMPORTANT POINT
The High Court cannot be said to have committed any error in reversing the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Judge when testimonies of sons and sister of the accused cannot be said to be wholly unreliable.