1. Murder and grievous hurt — Unlawful assembly — Conviction under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 302 read with Section 149, IPC — Appeal against conviction. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1797
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, SANJAY KAROL, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Sri Chikkegowda & Ors. – Appellants
VS.
State of Karnataka Etc. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 541-543 of 2015
With
Neelakantappa – Appellant
VS.
State Of Karnataka Etc. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1509-1510 of 2015
Decided On : 07-10-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajesh Mahale, Sr. Adv. Mr. Parikshith Maliye, Adv. Mr. Anirudh Gupta, Adv. Ms. Anuradha Bhat, Adv. Mr. Harisha S.r., AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. D. L. Chidananda, AOR
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajesh Mahale, Sr. Adv. Mr. Parikshith Maliye, Adv. Mr. Anirudh Gupta, Adv. Ms. Anuradha Bhat, Adv. Mr. Harisha S.r., AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. D. L. Chidananda, AOR
Ocular evidence, especially from an injured party, is given primacy and cannot be dismissed based solely on medical evidence unless irreconcilably inconsistent.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 302 read with Section 149 - Unlawful assembly, culpable homicide - Conviction of accused affirmed by High Court; previously acquitted by Trial Court on grounds of benefit of doubt - Court found errors in trial court's conclusion and upheld that medical evidence must not overshadow ocular testimony. (Paras 6, 8, 24-28)
(B) Evidence - Testimony of injured eyewitness - High Court reaffirmed the primacy of consistent ocular evidence over medical evidence unless completely irreconcilable. (Paras 9, 10, 23)
(C) Burden of Proof - Prosecution is to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt; high scrutiny applied to trial court's findings not based on reasonable grounds. (Paras 20, 28)
Facts of the case:
16 accused charged with murder and grievous hurt to the deceased and his wife, respectively; the Trial Court acquitted as per its understanding of evidence; High Court re-evaluated testimonies leading to conviction of 7 out of 16.
Findings of Court:
High Court noted manifest errors in the Trial Court’s findings and reaffirmed the validity of PW-1’s testimony.
Issues: Discrepancies in testimony of PW-1 regarding time of death, credibility of witness PW-1, and the notion of benefit of doubt versus conviction criteria.
Ratio Decidendi: Ocular evidence, particularly that of the injured, should prevail unless proven unreliable; High Court ruled the Trial Court disregarded established legal principles in extending the benefit of doubt to the accused.
Result: Appeals dismissed; convictions upheld.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Interference with acquittal — Probable view versus perversity — Reliability of injured witness — Conflict between ocular and medical evidence — Defense theory of conspiracy. (Para 17 , 18 )
3. High Court correctly identified perversity in Trial Court's acquittal — Ocular testimony of injured witness prevails over estimated medical time of death — Defense theory unsubstantiated. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 24 , 25 , 28 )
4. Ocular evidence takes primacy over medical evidence unless the two are totally irreconcilable or the oral evidence is found to be totally unreliable. (Para 23 )
5. Appeals dismissed — Conviction and sentence upheld. (Para 30 )
6. How should a court resolve a conflict between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the time of death?
Ocular evidence takes primacy unless it is totally irreconcilable with medical evidence. Medical estimates of death time are probable and have a margin of error, and cannot override consistent ocular testimony unless the oral evidence is found totally unreliable. (Para 9 , 10 , 21 , 23 )
7. Under what circumstances can an appellate court substitute a conviction for a trial court's acquittal?
An appellate court can reverse an acquittal if it finds the trial court's reasoning perverse or that the conclusion reached was not a probable view based on the evidence. (Para 7 , 17 , 20 )
8. What is the evidentiary value of the testimony of an injured witness who is also the informant?
An injured witness's testimony is highly credible, especially when consistent from the FIR stage through trial. If the injuries are not disputed or alleged to be self-inflicted, such testimony can form the basis of conviction. (Para 8 , 18 , 22 , 24 )
JUDGMENT
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. Sixteen (16) accused were put to trial for the charges of unlawful assembly and culpable homicide amounting to murder of one Mohan Kumar (deceased) and for the charges of causing grievous hurt and outraging modesty of the injured Smt. Annapurna (PW-1), the wife of the deceased. During trial, accused no.10 died, as such, proceedings against him were abated. The trial proceeded against the surviving fifteen (15) accused being accused nos.1 to 9 and 11 to 16. The Trial Court vide judgment dated 13.09.2010 acquitted all the accused of all the charges framed against them in Sessions Case Nos.144 of 2003 and 196 of 2003. It would be relevant to note that Session Case No.144 of 2003 proceeded against accused nos.2 to 16 as accused no.1 had been absconding, however, later on, when he was arrested his trial was also committed and was registered as Session Case No.196 of 2003.
2. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, the State preferred Criminal Appeal No.161 of 2011 against all the surviving fifteen (15) accused, whereas the informant/injured preferred Criminal Appeal No.335 of 2011 against accused nos.2 to 9 and 11 to 16 and further preferred Criminal Appeal No.345 of 2011 against accused no.1. All the three appeals were clubbed together and vide common judgment dated 29.10.2014, the appeals were partly allowed. The High Court confirmed the acquittal of accused nos.7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 of all the charges and at the same time convicted the accused Nos.1 to 6 and 11 for offences punishable under Sections 143 , 147, 148, 324, 302 read with Section 149 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 [IPC] and awarded them life sentence under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and further lesser punishment under the other offences. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The High Court acquitted the above convicted accused from the offences under Sections 326 , 354, 341, 307 read with Section 149 IPC. Aggrieved by their conviction, Appeal Nos.541 and 543 of 2015 has been preferred by the convicted accused nos.1 to 6. Further, Appeal Nos.1509-1510 of 2015 has been preferred by the accused no.11.
3. On the fateful day, i.e., 16.03.2003, at about 06:00 a.m., when the deceased came out of his house in the village carrying milk to the dairy, the sixteen (16) accused persons, who bore previous enmity with the deceased and the prosecution witnesses, blocked his way and assaulted him with dangerous weapons, causing fifteen (15) injuries as per the post-mortem report. They further inflicted life-threatening injuries on the wife of the deceased (PW-1), who had tried to save and shield her husband and stop the accused from assaulting him. Thereafter, upon the arrival of other residents of the village, the accused persons fled the scene of crime.
4. The deceased and the injured (PW-1) were taken to the Primary Health Centre (PHC) at Gandasi. Dr. Sunil Kumar (PW-18) posted at the Primary Health Centre referred them to the District Hospital as he did not have sufficient facilities to treat the deceased who was still alive at that time. Both the injured i.e. the deceased and his wife (PW1) were then taken to J.C. Hospital at Hassan, where after examining them, the doctors declared that Mohan Kumar had been brought dead and further started the treatment of his wife, the injured(PW1). While the injured were still at the Primary Health Centre at Gandasi, the police had reached there, and PW-1 had narrated the entire incident. On the written complaint prepared by the police at her dictation, she affixed her signatures. On the basis of the said complaint, a First Information Report was registered and investigation commenced. The Investigating Officer conducted the necessary inspections, prepared the site plan and the inquest, collected blood-stained and plain earth from the place of occurrence, and took into possession the weapons used in the crime, which had been discarded by the accused while leaving the scene. Upon the a
