Back
2015 Supreme(SC) 1003
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Pinaki Chandra Ghose, R.K. Agrawal, JJ.
K.A. KOTRAPPA REDDY AND ANR. – APPELLANTS
VERSUS
RAYARA MANJUNATHA REDDY @ N.R. MANJUNATHA & ORS. – RESPONDENTS
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.774 -776 OF 2010
Decided On : 15-10-2015
IMPORTANT POINT
Examining only related and interested witnesses, undue delay in lodging FIR, lodging FIR at distant police station ignoring those in the vicinity, delay in sending articles to FSL etc. are all fatal to prosecution case.
Headnote:(a) Criminal trial – Motive – Political rivalry between the parties and repair of road in front of house of the accused cited as motive for assault and murder of deceased – Material on record negativing both contentions – Prosecution failing to prove motive. (Para 7)
(b) Criminal trial – Eye witnesses – All the five prosecution witnesses either related or the party members of deceased – Partisan or interested witnesses – Despite the occurrence in broad daylight and about 50 persons gathering, prosecution failing to examine any independent witness – Injuries on PW1 and 2 minor and self inflicted – PW 10 and 11 Anganawadi workers failing to explain their presence – The only non-partisan and chance witness turning hostile – All the prosecution witnesses not trustworthy. (Para 8)
(2011) 6 SCC 288 – Distinguished
(c) Criminal trial – Delay in lodging FIR and sending articles to FSL – FIR not lodged at nearby police stations but the one 16 km away – Connivance of informant with police not ruled out – Prosecution not explaining material irregularities – Fatal to prosecution. (Para 10, 11, 13)
(2003) 8 SCC 180; (2015) 5 SCALE 634 – Relied upon
(1997) 1 SCC 416; (2013) 12 SCC 796 – Referred
Facts of the case:
On 13.09.2005 at about 10:30 A.M., one Ajjanna Reddy (deceased), who was the President of Nandigavi Village Panchayat in Harihara Taluk, District Davangere, Karnataka, was monitoring execution of the road repair work in front of Ishwar Temple situated near the house of accused Nos.1 to 4. Accused No.6 objected to the same as the said repair would reduce the area of the front yard of his house. The accused persons picked up quarrel with Ajjanna Reddy and asked him to stop the work which he refused to do so. It is alleged that the accused persons, who were 12 in number, formed an unlawful assembly carrying dangerous weapons, abused and beat the deceased at about 12:30 P.M. and soon, about 50 odd people gathered at the place of occurrence and there was a chaos. PW1, PW2 and PW5 came to rescue the deceased but they were also thrashed. Further, the accused left the scene, the deceased was taken to Davangere Hospital where he was declared brought dead at 2:30 PM. PW1 went to lodge the FIR at about 6:30 P.M. at Malebennur Police Station against 11 accused persons and one Siddappa (not accused herein).
The Trial Court convicted the accused Nos. 1 to 9 for the offences punishable under Section 143, 148 and 302 read with 149 IPC. Accused No. 10 was found to be guilty of the offence punishable under Section 114 read with 302 IPC. Accused Nos.2, 4 and 9 were also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC. However, the Trial Court gave benefit of doubt to accused Nos.11 and 12 and acquitted them of all the charges. Accused Nos.1 to 9 challenged their order of conviction by filing Criminal Appeal No.829 of 2007, accused No.10 separately challenged his conviction order by filing Criminal Appeal No.790 of 2007 before the High Court and the State also filed Criminal Appeal No.1408 of 2007 against the acquittal of accused Nos.11 and 12. The High Court allowed the first two appeals and dismissed the third appeal filed by the State.
Finding of the Court:
There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
-
The prosecution's case is significantly weakened by procedural irregularities, including the delay in lodging the FIR at a police station distant from the scene, and the delay in sending articles to the forensic science laboratory. These irregularities cast doubt on the authenticity of the investigation and the evidence collected (!) (!) .
-
The credibility of the eyewitness testimonies is questionable due to their relationship or interest in the case, and the absence of independent witnesses. The witnesses’ injuries were minor and possibly self-inflicted, and their presence at the scene during the incident is doubtful. The evidence of the eyewitnesses was scrutinized and found to be unreliable (!) (!) (!) .
-
The prosecution failed to establish a motive for the accused, as the evidence did not substantiate the alleged political rivalry or the repair work in front of the accused’s house as reasons for the violence. The absence of concrete proof of motive weakens the case against the accused (!) (!) .
-
The delay in lodging the FIR, the absence of forensic evidence linking the accused to the crime, and the lack of proper investigation procedures further undermine the prosecution’s case. The evidence collected was not properly seized or documented, and there were inconsistencies in the investigation process (!) (!) .
-
The appellate court found that the evidence presented by the prosecution did not prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court's decision to acquit the accused was justified, and there are no compelling reasons to interfere with the judgment. The evidence was deemed insufficient and unreliable to sustain a conviction (!) (!) .
-
Overall, the case highlights the importance of proper procedural conduct, credible witness testimony, and concrete evidence in criminal trials. The failure to meet these standards results in reasonable doubt and the potential for wrongful conviction or acquittal (!) .
These points collectively emphasize that procedural irregularities, questionable witness credibility, and lack of concrete evidence are critical factors that led to the decision to uphold the acquittal of the accused.
JUDGMENT
Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.
1. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 19th November, 2008 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengalore in Criminal Appeal Nos.790, 829 and 1408 of 2007. Criminal Appeal Nos.790 of 2007 and 829 of 2007 were filed by accused Nos.1 to 10 against their conviction and the same were allowed by the High Court. Criminal Appeal No.1408 of 2007 was filed by the State of Karnataka against the acquittal of accused Nos.11 and 12, which was dismissed by the High Court.
2. The brief facts necessary to dispose of these appeals are that on 13.09.2005 at about 10:30 A.M., one Ajjanna Reddy (deceased), who was the President of Nandigavi Village Panchayat in Harihara Taluk, District Davangere, Karnataka, was monitoring execution of the road repair work in front of Ishwar Temple situated near the house of accused Nos.1 to 4. Accused No.6 objected to the same as the said repair would reduce the area of the front yard of his house. The accused persons picked up quarrel with Ajjanna Reddy and asked him to stop the work which he refused to do so. It is alleged that the accused persons, who were 12 in number, formed an unlawful assembly carrying dangerous weapons, abused and beat the deceased at about 12:30 P.M. and soon, about 50 odd people gathered at the place of occurrence and there was a chaos. PW1, PW2 and PW5 came to rescue the deceased but they were also thrashed. Further, the accused left the scene, the deceased was taken to Davangere Hospital where he was declared brought dead at 2:30 PM. PW1 went to lodge the FIR at about 6:30 P.M. at Malebennur Police Station against 11 accused persons and one Siddappa (not accused herein).
3. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against 12 accused persons (name of 12th accused Siddappa was substituted with Nadigara Tipeswamy). After considering the material on record and hearing the counsel for the accused, they were charged for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 504, 114, 323, 324 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”). The charges were read over and explained to them. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.
4. The Trial Court by its judgment and order convicted the accused Nos. 1 to 9 for the offences punishable under Section 143, 148 and 302 read with 149 IPC. Accused No. 10 was found to be guilty of the offence punishable under Section 114 read with 302 IPC. Accused Nos.2, 4 and 9 were also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC. The convictions were based on the evidences of the eye witnesses, which included two injured witnesses, and the recovery of weapons used further corroborated by the extra-judicial confession made to PW14 (B.M. Halaswamy) and the motive being established. However, the Trial Court gave benefit of doubt to accused Nos.11 and 12 and acquitted them of all the charges. Accused Nos.1 to 9 challenged their order of conviction by filing Criminal Appeal No.829 of 2007, accused No.10 separately challenged his conviction order by filing Criminal Appeal No.790 of 2007 before the High Court and the State also filed Criminal Appeal No.1408 of 2007 against the acquittal of accused Nos.11 and 12. The High Court by the impugned judgment and order allowed the first two appeals and dismissed the third appeal filed by the State, on the ground that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and as such, they were entitled for benefit of doubt. The acquittal was based on ground that there was delay in filing the FIR and the eye witnesses who were relied upon by the Trial Court were interested and partisan witnesses. The motive was also not clearly established since there was no proof of any repair work in front of the house of the accused and it was proved on record that the accused never contested any election against the deceased.
5. The Informant PW1 has filed the present appeals before
