Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru)
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, M.M. SUNDRESH,
Mohan @Srinivas @ Seena @Tailor Seena - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Karnataka - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 759 of 2018, 1420 of 2014
Decided on : 13-12-2021
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302 and 120B read with Section 34 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 378 and 384 – Murder of Police Officer – Reversal of acquittal by High Court – High Court rendered conviction on mere surmise, even though an inference can never be basis of a conviction when testimony of a witness is not believed on cogent reasoning – Most of witnesses turned hostile – Independent witness also states that she has not seen occurrence and she heard that deceased was dead before taking to hospital – Trial court took enormous pains in considering evidence of witnesses one by one – High Court did not undertake exercise as mandated under Section 378 read with Section 384 Cr.P.C. in reversing reasoned decision rendered by trial court – Orders of conviction passed by High Court set aside. (Paras 32 and 33)
Facts of the case:
A well merited judgment of the Court of Sessions acquitting two young men accused of murdering a police officer, was overturned by the High Court convicting them for life. Seeking to set themselves at liberty, these appeals.
Findings of Court:
The trial court considered the testimonies of the other witnesses first before embarking upon eye witnesses and the material witness. It gives exhaustive reasoning for its ultimate conclusion. The trial court took enormous pains in considering the evidence of all the witnesses one by one.
Result : Appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT :
M.M. SUNDRESH, J.
1. A well merited judgment of the Court of Sessions acquitting two young men accused of murdering a police officer, was overturned by the High Court convicting them for life. Seeking to set themselves at liberty, these appeals are before us.
2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused documents and the written arguments filled. Incidentally we called for the trial court records and went through them.
FACTS:
3. PW-4 and PW-5 are brothers. The deceased was the maternal uncle of the aforesaid two witnesses. They attacked the mother of A-1 leading to a complaint given to PW-1, Sub-Inspector of Police.
4. Not satisfied with the registration of the first information report qua the offence at the hands of PW-1, a complaint was given before the Lokayukta by A-1. Incidentally, PW-1 was suspended. He was facing other charges as well. It was in vogue even at the time of giving evidence.
5. On the aforesaid motive, both the accused carried three weapons, waylaid the deceased at a signal in a main road at about 5 p.m. and after the initial attack, dragged him to the pavement, and thereafter inflicted multiple injuries. Both the accused and the deceased were travelling in two-wheelers. PW-1, who was working in a police station, a bit far away, was coming from his house after taking lunch. He was a chance witness. He saw the occurrence from a fair distance. He was known to the deceased. The deceased had his intestine coming out. The deceased told him the story implicating the accused. Preceding PW-1, PW-2 was present at the scene. He was also a police head constable. Both PW-1 and PW-2 are working in the traffic department. He heard the statement made by the deceased, as one of the accused threw a weapon at PW-2, which recovery was shown subsequently at a different open place, as is the case of the other recoveries. PW-1, thereafter, chased the accused but could not secure them. The statements made by PW-1 and PW-2 differ with respect to the street.
6. PW-1 and PW-2 stopped an auto and placed the deceased into it along with one Ramesh, since deceased (not examined). Incidentally, he is not only known to PW-1 but also a friend of the deceased and thus, yet another chance witness.
7. PW-1, thereafter, went to the police station and gave an oral complaint which was admittedly not registered. Thereafter, PW-1 came to the hospital which was about two kilometres from the place of occurrence, while another nursing home was in existence at about 50 meters. The hospital in which the deceased was admitted was run by PW-25, a doctor very well known to PW-1.
8. PW-25 gave treatment to the deceased at about 5.05 p.m. He died of multiple injuries caused by haemorrhage at about 5.45 p.m. The case sheet indicates that the deceased was allegedly attacked by two known persons, namely the accused. About 40 days thereafter – i.e., 03.12.2001, at the request of the police, PW-25 gave another certificate introducing adequate material to indicate that there was a dying declaration.
9. In the meanwhile, PW-1 went to the police station for the second time and gave a complaint which was registered by PW-28 at about 6 p.m. PW-28 is the investigating officer, who did his part by completing it and filed the final report with the major offences being Section 302, Section 506-B, and Section 120B r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
10. Before the trial court, the prosecution examined as many as 28 witnesses and marked Exhibit P-1 to P-60. Material objects are marked as MO-1 to MO-17. On behalf of the defence, a doctor was examined to show that considering the nature of the injuries suffered, the death must have been instantaneous. Certain portions of Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CrPC’) statements given by the prosecution witnesses have been marked to contradict their deposition before the Court.
11. The Court of Sessions without exception, threadbare considered all the materials i
An inference can never be basis of conviction when testimony of a witness is not believed on cogent reasoning.
(1) Appeal against acquittal – There is presumption of innocence in favour of accused, unless proven guilty – Presumption continues at all stages of trial and finally culminates into a fact when case....
(1) If a decision is arrived at on the basis of no evidence or thoroughly unreliable evidence and no reasonable person would act upon it, order would be perverse.(2) When there is a direct evidence i....
The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 IPC are (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide.
Dying declarations must be corroborated by credible evidence; in absence of reliable proof, an acquittal is warranted due to the presumption of innocence.
1. If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the Appellate Court should not disturb the findings of acquittal. 2. The acquittal re-enforces and reaffirms the....
(1) Though, motive may pale into insignificance in a case involving eyewitnesses, it may not be so when an accused is implicated based upon circumstantial evidence.(2) Report of Ballistic Expert is a....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
