SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(SC) 561

2011 (4) Supreme 354
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. B.S. Chauhan and Swatanter Kumar, JJ.
A. Shankar — Appellant
versus
State of Karnataka — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1006 of 2007
Decided on : 9-6-2011

IMPORTANT POINT
Unless the judgment of acquittal is perverse or contrary to evidence, it cannot be reversed.

Headnote:(a) Criminal Trial – Conviction – Material discrepancy in the evidence noticed – Motive for the offence also not established – FSL report not produced – Conviction cannot be sustained. (Paras 12, 14 and 18)

        AIR 2009 SC 152; AIR 2009 SC 331; (2009) 11 SCC 334; JT 2010 (12) SC 287; (2010) 8 SCC 191; (2011) 4 SCC 324; AIR 2011 SC 280 – Relied upon

        (b) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 154 – Unexplained delay in lodging FIR is fatal to the case. (Para 15)

        (c) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 378 – Unless the judgment of acquittal is perverse or contrary to evidence, it cannot be reversed – High Court reversing the trial court’s judgment without meeting the grounds pointed out by it – Cannot be sustained. (Para 19)

        (2011) 2 SCC 750; (2011) 4 SCC 779 – Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

        This is an appeal against conviction by High Court by reversing the verdict of acquittal by the trial court.

       Finding of the Court:

        High Court erred in reversing the judgment of the trial court.

       Result : Appeal allowed.

       

JUDGMENT

Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J. —

1. This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 2(a) of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 against the judgment and order dated 28.2.2007 of the High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore, in Criminal Appeal No.1069 of 2000 by which the High Court has reversed the judgment and order dated 31.10.1998 passed by the XVth Additional City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in Sessions Case No.366 of 1996, acquitting the appellant of the charges under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter called ‘IPC’).

2. Facts and circumstances, as per the prosecution case giving rise to this appeal had been that the law was put into motion by younger brother of the deceased, Shankara (PW.8), who lodged a complaint orally on 26.3.1996 that the appellant came to the Barber Saloon of Murthy Prasad, deceased, on 25.3.1996 at about 8 p.m. and demanded Rs.150/- from the deceased. Since the deceased did not give the money demanded, the accused got angry and threatened that he would take care of him later. Appellant accused again came back at 9.30 p.m. to the shop of the complainant, sought shelter therein, had food, and slept there with the deceased and the complainant. At about 2 a.m. the complainant heard sounds and after being awaken he saw that the appellant was hitting his elder brother with a knife on the chest and on shouting of the complainant the appellant hit him also with the same on the left abdomen and hands and ran away. Murthy Prasad died of assault and the complainant got injured, and was taken to the hospital for treatment.

3. On the basis of the said oral complaint, an FIR No.82/96 dated 26.3.1996 (Ext.P4) was recorded. The investigation ensued and the appellant was arrested on 31.3.1996. After conclusion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant and he was put to trial under Sections 302 and 307 IPC. In order to prove the guilt of the appellant, prosecution examined 17 witnesses. The appellant was examined under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”) wherein apart from denying the evidence against him given by the witnesses directly, he also denied to have gone to the Saloon of the deceased at all as alleged by the prosecution.

4. After considering the entire evidence on record, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had committed murder of Murthy Prasad or made an attempt to kill the complainant Shankara (PW.8). Thus, vide judgment and order dated 31.10.1998, the appellant was acquitted of the charges under Sections 302 and 307 IPC.

5. Being aggrieved, the State of Karnataka preferred Criminal Appeal No.1069 of 2000 which has been allowed by the High Court convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC for committing the murder of Murthy Prasad, deceased and awarding him life imprisonment. The appellant also stood convicted under Section 324 IPC for causing injuries to the complainant Shankara (PW.8) and has been awarded six months imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default of depositing the fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. Hence, this appeal.

6. Shri Sanjay Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the High Court has committed an error in interfering with the well reasoned judgment of acquittal by the Trial Court and relying upon the evidence on record while ignoring the material inconsistencies between the evidence of the witnesses; and medical and ocular evidence. No motive was proved by the prosecution to commit the offence. There had been an inordinate delay of 4 hours in lodging the F.I.R. as the murder was alleged to have been committed at 2 a.m. while the complaint was lodged at 6 a.m. on the same day, though the Police Station was at a distance of only one kilometr


















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top