Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, VIKRAM NATH, SANJAY KAROL, JJ.
Ravasaheb @ Ravasahebgouda Etc. - Appellants
Versus
State Of Karnataka - Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos.1109-1110 of 2010, Crl. A. No. 1229 of 2011, Crl. A. No. 1230 of 2011, Crl. A. No. 213 of 2012 & Crl. A. No. 682 of 2013
Decided on : 16-03-2023
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 504, 143, 147 and 148 – Murder, intentional insult and rioting – Conviction and sentence – Presence of accused on spot is not disputed – Courts below have concurrently, fully appreciating testimony of sole eyewitness, found accused to have committed crime by using different weapons – Simply because a number of witnesses had turned hostile, does not on its own give a ground to reject evidence of sole eyewitness – If a witness is absolutely reliable then conviction based thereupon cannot be said to be infirm in any manner – Delay in receipt of FIR with concerned Magistrate cannot be a reason to disbelieve prosecution case – Appeals dismissed. (Paras 10, 12, 17.3, 20 and 27)
(B) Criminal Law – Appreciation of evidence – Corroborated part of evidence of a hostile witness regarding commission of offence is admissible – Evidence examined as a whole, must reflect/ring of truth – Court must not give undue importance to omissions and discrepancies which do not shake foundations of prosecution case – A witness being a close relative is not a ground enough to reject his testimony – Unless serious prejudice is caused, mere delay in sending FIR to Magistrate would not, by itself, have a negative effect on case of prosecution. (Paras 17.1, 17.2, 17.4 and 17.6)
(C) Constitution of India – Article 136 – Appeal by Special Leave – Scope and ambit – In absence of very special circumstances or in presence of gross errors of law committed by High Court, Supreme Court does not interfere with concurrent findings of fact of Courts below – Limitations under Article 136 are self-imposed limitations where in ordinary course appreciation of evidence is not to be done in absence of manifest error of judgment, subject matter of special leave, being ex-facie perverse. (Para 17.10)
Facts of the case:
Only point which arises for consideration is whether on the basis of testimony of a solitary witness, eight men can be allowed to suffer incarceration for life, as has been concurrently held by courts below.
Findings of Court:
With neither number nor presence of the accused being disputed, accused have been wrongly convicted by the courts below.
Result : Appeals dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KAROL J.
1. The only point which arises for consideration is whether on the basis of testimony of a solitary witness, eight men can be allowed to suffer incarceration for life, as has been concurrently held by the courts below. In the aforesaid backdrop, we are duty bound to examine as to whether the testimony of this sole eyewitness Yankappa Panchagavi (PW-1) is worthy of credence; Is he trustworthy?; Has he deposed truthfully?; Is his testimony believable and free from embellishments, improvements or material discrepancies so as to render it shaky or doubtful?; and as to whether the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt, against all accused persons or not? All this is what we are called upon to examine.
2. It is not in dispute that one Satyappa was found to have been murdered in broad day light in village Kaltippi, Jamakhandi Taluka. It is also not in dispute that in relation to the said incident, the very same day, i.e., on 13.08.2004 at 04.00 p.m. a report was lodged with Terdal Police Station, District Bagalkot, Karnataka. It is also not in dispute that the I.O Shri Hanamappa Sangappa Keri (PW-32), who conducted the investigation reached the spot and after making preliminary inquiries and conducting investigation, recovered the dead body and sent it for postmortem which was conducted by Dr. Shabbir Patel, PW-27. The post-mortem report (Ex.P-25) duly proven by the said expert, does establish the deceased to have sustained 21 stab injuries inflicted on different vital parts of the body. The multiple injuries serious in nature, were caused by sharp-edged weapon(s). They being on all the vital parts of the body, resulted into the death of the deceased. Herein only, this Court notices, that in relation to the said crime, the trial court convicted all the eight accused persons, namely, Ramappa (accused No.1), Shanker (accused No.2), Krishnappa (accused No.3), Gulappa Gavappa Karigar (accused No.4), Beerappa (accused No.5), Ravasaheb Laxman Patil (accused No.6), Yankappa Shivappa Naik (accused No.7) and Parappa @ Gulappa (accused No.8), for having committed murder of the deceased with the use of different weapons, i.e., jambia/jambe (sharp-edged weapon), button knives. Chilli powder was also used as a weapon of assault.
3. In the considered view of the trial court, despite most of the prosecution witnesses (32 in number) having turned hostile, the prosecution case stood established beyond reasonable doubt, through the unrefuted testimony of PW-1 as supported by the unrefuted part of testimony on the hostile witness, namely, Shasappa Reddi (PW-7). Hence, the trial court convicted the accused and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment as indicated in the tabular form hereunder :
Sr. No. Name Section under which sentence was awarded under Indian Penal Code, 1860
1 Ramappa Shanker (A-1) 143 -6 months simple imprisonment & fine of Rs. 500/-each
147 -6 months simple imprisonment & fine of Rs. 500/-each
148 – 1 year simple imprisonment & fine of Rs.1000/-each
504 – 1 year simple imprisonment & fine of Rs.1000/-each
302 – Life Imprisonment & fine of Rs. 1,000/-each
2 Shanker (A-2)
3 Krishnappa (A-3)
4 Gulappa Gavappa Karigar (A-4)
5 Beerappa (A-5)
6 Ravasaheb Laxman Patil (A-6)
7 Yankappa Shivappa Naik (A-7)
8 Parappa @ Gulappa (A-8)
The sentences, identical for all accused persons, were awarded to run concurrently.
4. The High Court, while concurring with the reasons and findings returned by the trial court, also took note of the factum of prior animosity inter se the parties in relation to a land/boundary dispute.
5. Before us, only three accused, namely, (i) Ravasaheb @ Ravasahebgouda (A-6), (ii) Yankappa Shivappa Naik (A-7) and (iii) Parappa @ Gulappa (A-8), have assailed the said judgment by way of these two appeals by special leave.
6. Briefly, we may summarise that the deceased died as a result of multiple injuries inflicted with sharp-edged weapons. For the sake of brevity, we need
(1) If a witness is absolutely reliable then conviction based thereupon cannot be said to be infirm in any manner.(2) Court must not give undue importance to omissions and discrepancies which do not ....
Point of law: Conviction set aside - Real and reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the appellants - Conviction in a criminal trial is required to be certain and not doubtful
(1) Supreme Court need not delve into each and every individual’s testimonies and instead only examine whether path adopted by Courts below is compromised by any manifest error.(2) Convictions on the....
The sole testimony of a witness with a dubious background and questionable reliability cannot sustain a murder conviction without corroborative evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Eyewitness testimony, even from an interested witness, can sustain a conviction if corroborated by credible evidence and circumstances.
The judgment underscores the principle that a conviction cannot be based solely on the testimony of a single witness unless it is wholly reliable and corroborated by other evidence.
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
