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

2014 Supreme(SC) 284

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.M. LODHA & SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.
Muralidhar @ Gidda & Another
Versus
State of Karnataka
Criminal Appeal No. 551 of 2011 With Criminal Appeal No.791 of 2011 & Criminal Appeal No.1081 of 2011
Decided On : 09-04-2014

IMPORTANT POINT
Principles for hearing appeal against acquittal is well settled.

Headnote:Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 32 – Statement recorded by a constable as dictated by PSI – Also tampered with – Trial court rightly refusing to treat the same as dying declaration disbelieving it. (Para 15, 17, 19)

       Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 378 – Acquittal by trial court strengthening innocence of accused – View of trial court was a possible view – High Court upsetting order of acquittal not keeping in view well known principles of hearing appeal from acquittal. (Para 21)

       AIR 1934 PC 227; AIR 1952 SC 52; AIR 1954 SC 1; AIR 1954 SC 637; AIR 1955 SC 807; AIR 1956 SC 217; AIR 1957 SC 216; AIR 1963 SC 200; AIR 1964 SC 286; (1970) 2 SCC 450; (1973) 2 SCC 793; (1973) 2 SCC 424; (1974) 4 SCC 603; (1974) 3 SCC 288; (1978) 1 SCC 228; (1979) 1 SCC 355; (1987) 2 SCC 529; 1995 Supp (1) SCC 248; (1997) 7 SCC 677; (1998) 5 SCC 412; (2002) 4 SCC 85; (2002) 6 SCC 470; (2003) 1 SCC 1; (2005) 9 SCC 291; (2007) 3 SCC 755; (2007) 4 SCC 415; (2008) 10 SCC 450 – Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

       A-1 to A-6 were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 144, 148 read with Section 149 IPC.

       The trial court acquitted all the accused persons.

       The High Court maintained the acquittal of A5 (Swamy) but convicted A1 to A4 and A6 for the offences under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC. The High Court has also convicted them for the offence under Section 148 IPC.

       Finding of the Court:

       High Court erred in upsetting the trial court judgment.

       Result: Appeal allowed.

Judgment :-

R.M. Lodha, J.

These three criminal appeals arise from the common judgment and, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by the common judgment.

2. The statement (Ex.P-22) recorded by the police on 17.08.2002 between 9.55 P.M. and 10.20 P.M. at K.R. Hospital, Mandya triggered the prosecution of the appellants and one Swamy. Ex.P-22 is in Kannada, which in English translation reads:

“The statement of Pradeep son of Swamygowda, 28 years, Vakkaligaru by community, agriculturist residing at Majigepura village, Srirangapatna Taluk. Today at about 8.30 p.m. night, I was sitting in front of shaving shop by the side of shop of Javaregowda on K.R.S. – Majigepura Road along with Vyramudi, Prakash and Umesh. At that time Naga, S/o Ammayamma, Jagga S/o Sentu Kumar’s sister, Gunda, Gidda, S/o Fishari Nanjaiah, Swamy, Manju and Hotte Ashoka and others who were having old enmity assaulted me by means of chopper, long on my hand, head, neck and on other parts of the body with an intention to kill me and they have assaulted Umesh who was with me. Vyramudi said do not kill us and went away. Prakash ran away. Please take action against those who have attempted to kill me.”

3. After registration of the First Information Report (Exhibit P-5) on the basis of the above statement made by Pradeep which has become dying declaration in view of his death, the investigation commenced. In the course of investigation, 37 witnesses were examined. The investigating officer, on completion of investigation, submitted challan against Naga @ Bagaraju (A-1), Jaga @ Santhosh Kumar (A-2), S. Sathish @ Gunda (A-3), Muralidhar @ Gidda (A-4), Swamy @ Koshi (A-5) and Manju (A-6).

4. The concerned Magistrate then committed the accused to the court of Sessions for trial. The Court of Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court–I, Mandya conducted the trial against A-1 to A-6 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 144, 148 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “IPC”). The prosecution examined 37 witnesses of which PW-4 (Umesha), PW-5 (Prakash) and PW-15 (Vyramudi) were produced as eye-witnesses. Exhibit P-22 is recorded by PW-30 (Rajashekar) on the oration of PW-36 (Kodandaram, PSI) in the presence of PW-25 (Dr. Balakrishna).

5. The three eye-witnesses PW-4, PW-5 and PW-15 have turned hostile to the case of prosecution and have not supported the prosecution version at all. In the circumstances, the only evidence that has become significant is the dying declaration (Ex.P-22). The trial court by its judgment dated 28.09.2004 on consideration of the entire oral and documentary evidence reached the conclusion that prosecution had failed to prove the offence against the accused persons and, accordingly, acquitted them.

6. The State of Karnataka preferred an appeal before the Karnataka High Court against the judgment of the Fast Track Court-I, Mandya acquitting the accused. The High Court on hearing the public prosecutor and the counsel for the accused vide its judgment dated 21.10.2010 maintained the acquittal of A5 (Swamy) but convicted A1 to A4 and A6 for the offences under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life with fine and defaulting sentence. The High Court has also convicted them for the offence under Section 148 IPC and they were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. Both sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. It is from this judgment that these appeals, by special leave, have arisen.

7. The High Court has convicted the appellants on the basis of dying declaration alone, as in its view the dying declaration is credible and genuine. In this regard, the reasoning of the High Court is broadly reflected in paragraphs 16 and 17 which reads as follows:

“16. Having heard both sides and carefully gone through the evidence of the witnesses and on reappreciation of the evidence we find that Ex. P22 which is the dying declaration of the deceased has b

















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