IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Principle “falsus in uno falsus in omnibus” may not have unadulterated application to criminal jurisprudence.
(2) Verdict of acquittal cannot be overturned without concrete reasons.

JUDGMENT :

V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.

1. Aggrieved by the conviction for an offence under Section 302 IPC and the sentence of imprisonment for life handed over to them by the High Court of Karnataka, reversing the order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Court, accused Nos.1 and 2 have come up with the above appeal.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned standing counsel for the State of Karnataka.

3. The appellants herein were prosecuted along with 20 other persons, before the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, for alleged offences under Sections 143, 144, 148, 147, 448 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC. By a judgment dated 8.8.2001, all the accused except those against whom the prosecution abated, were acquitted by the Sessions Court.

4. However on appeals filed by the State of Karnataka, a Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka set aside the acquittal of the appellants herein (A1 and A2) and held them guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced them to imprisonment for life. But the acquittal of all the other accused was confirmed by the High Court.

5. Aggrieved by the said judgment of reversal, accused Nos.1 and 2 have come up with the above appeal.

6. The case of the prosecution was that on 30.11.1997 at about 11 p.m., all the 22 accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and that armed with deadly weapons, they committed trespass by entering into the house of the deceased Siddaraju and committed the murder of the deceased in furtherance of a common object.

7. The motive for the murder according to the prosecution, was that when A1 was passing through the house of the deceased, he heard the deceased hurling abuses in a foul and filthy language. Though the victim was purportedly abusing his own father, A1 mistook as though he was being abused. Therefore, he picked up a quarrel with the deceased and thereafter went to the village, secured the other accused and went to the house of Siddaraju, broke open the door, pulled him out to the street and hacked him to death.

8. The case of the prosecution rested on the ocular testimony of PW1 and PW4 who were the mother and maternal uncle of the deceased. Though the father and sister of the deceased were also examined as PW2 and PW3, they were not treated as eyewitnesses on the ground that they had not seen the incidence.

9. Four Panch witnesses examined as PWs 5, 6, 7 and 8 did not support the case of the prosecution and were declared as hostile. PW9, the mahazar witness also turned hostile. PW10 was the doctor who conducted the postmortem on the body of the deceased.

10. At this stage, it is relevant to note that PW1, mother of the deceased, gave a complaint at 00.45 hrs on 1.12.1997, on the basis of which Exhibit P8 FIR was registered. Thereafter, one Nagamma, wife of the deceased is said to have given another complaint which was marked as Exhibit P9. On the basis of the said complaint, a second FIR was registered for more offences, including offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. But for reasons not known, this Nagamma was not examined as a witness, though cited as a witness in the charge sheet.

11. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, the Sessions Court recorded certain findings with regard to the appellants herein (A1 & A2) which are reproduced in the words of the Sessions Court itself, as follows:

“1. PW1 speaks about the presence of only six persons and they are A1, A2, A3, A11, A16 and A18. Whereas A14 speaks about the presence of only 7 persons viz.., A1, 2, 8, 11, 16 and 12. In this way PW1 speaks about the presence of 7 accused persons. The accused stated by these two witnesses are not exactly the same. Both the witnesses have spoken about only the presence of A1 ,A2, A11 and A16 and they had not spoken about the presence of others.

2. The presence stated by PW1 and PW4 put together, are A1 to A3, A8, A11, A12, A16, A18 and A2