Back
2016 Supreme(Kar) 224
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Mohan M. Shantana Goudar and Budihal R.B., JJ.
N. Nataraja and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
The State of Karnataka and Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 175 of 2006
Decided On : 31-03-2016
For the Appellant : B.V. Pinto for M.C. Basavaraju, Advs.
For the Respondents: K.R. Keshava Murthy, SPP-2.
Headnote:INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 - Section 134: [Mohan M. Shantanagoudar & Budihal R.B., JJ] Number of witnesses - Evidence has to be weighed and not counted - Hence, number of witnesses no relevant.
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 - Section 302: [Mohan M. Shantanagoudar & Budihal R.B., JJ] Murder - Sole eye-witness - Trustworthy being wife of deceased and also supported by medical evidence - Minor discrepancies in ocular evidence - Held, The Courts will have to bear in mind that different witnesses react differently under different situations; whereas some become speechless, some start wailing while some others run away from the scene and yet there are some who may come forward with courage, conviction and belief that the wrong should be remedied. As a matter of fact it depends upon individuals and individuals. There cannot be any set pattern or uniform rule of human reaction and to discard a piece of evidence on the ground of his reaction not falling within a set pattern is unproductive and a pedantic exercise. It is indeed necessary to note that one hardly comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain some exaggeration or embellishment. Total repulsion of the evidence Is unnecessary. The Court can sift the chaff from the grain and find out the truth from the testimony of the witnesses. The evidence is to be considered from the point of view of trustworthiness. If this element is satisfied, it ought to inspire confidence in the mind of the Court to accept the stated evidence though not however in the absence of the same. It is also by now well settled that there is no rule of law that the testimony of single witness cannot be accepted and the conviction cannot be based on such evidence, if believed. The testimony of a single witness if it is straight-forward, cogent and if believed is sufficient to prove the prosecution case, the conviction can be made on the testimony of such a single witness There is no statutory requirement that a conviction cannot be made on the testimony of a single witness unless it is corroborated. The Court can accept the evidence of single witness though uncorroborated and convict an accused except in cases where the nature of the testimony of the single witness itself required, as a matter of prudence, that corroboration should be insisted upon, as in the case of a child witness, an accomplice or any others of an analogous character.
Mohan M. Shantana Goudar, J.
1. By the impugned judgment, the trial Court has convicted accused Nos. 1 to 6 for the offences punishable under Section 302 r/w. Section 149, Sections 143, 147, 341 r/w. Section 149 of IPC. So also by the very judgment, accused Nos. 1 and 3 are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 148 of IPC. Accused No. 4 is separately convicted for the offence punishable under Section 114 of IPC.
2. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to note that this appeal was heard and allowed by another Division Bench of this Court, by the judgment and order dated 7.1.2010 acquitting the accused. The said judgment dated 7.1.2010 was questioned by PW.1 (complainant) before the Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 634/2011 which came to be allowed on 27.8.2015. The Apex Court by its judgment dated 27.8.2014, set aside the judgment of acquittal passed by this Court and remitted the matter to this Court with a direction to rehear this criminal appeal on merits. Accordingly, we have heard the appeal on merits.
3. Case of the prosecution in brief is that accused Nos. 1 and 2 had animosity with the deceased Devilingaiah, inasmuch as the deceased was not permitting accused Nos. 1 and 2 to draw the electricity line through his land; on the date of incident, i.e., on 5.2.2004 at about 7.00 a.m., deceased Devilingaiah went to his areca nut garden which is situated about half-a-kilometer from his house; PW.1 (wife of the deceased) also went with a view to answer the calls of nature and to work in the areca nut garden; when PW.1 was answering calls of nature at about 7.30 a.m., all the accused came there by forming themselves into an unlawful assembly; accused Nos. 1 and 3 were armed with chopper and sickle and other accused were not armed with any weapon; all the accused by pronouncing that the deceased should not be allowed to live, came near the deceased; after seeing the accused, the deceased Devilingaiah rushed towards the garden land of Shivabasavaiah (PW.2), which is abutting the garden land of the deceased; all the accused chased the deceased and among them accused Nos. 1 and 3, who were armed with chopper and sickle assaulted the deceased on various parts of the body, consequent upon which the deceased died on the spot; at that point of time, all other accused were holding the deceased in order to prevent him from escaping. It is also alleged that accused Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6 instigated other accused to do away with the life of the deceased; since accused Nos. 1 and 3 were armed with weapons and after seeing the ghastly crime committed by the accused in front of the complainant (PW.1), she did not dare to rescue her husband; immediately after the incident, the accused disappeared from the scene of offence; thereafter, PW.1 raised hue and cry and started running towards the village; she informed about the incident to the villagers; she also sent words to her near relatives who were living in adjoining villages; after arrival of her relatives, she went and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P1 before Turuvekere Police Station at about 11.45 a.m. on the very day, i.e., on 5.2.2004, which came to be registered in Crime No. 12/2014; immediately thereafter, the police came to the spot and conducted the investigation. PW.21, the Sub-Inspector of Police completed the investigation and laid the charge sheet.
4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution in all has examined 21 witnesses and got marked 19 Exhibits and 10 Material Objects. On behalf of the defence, no witness is examined. As aforementioned, the trial Court on evaluation of the material on record, convicted all the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and for other offences with which they were charged.
5. Sri A.G. Sridhar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of accused Nos. 3 to 6 taking us through the material on record, submits that the evidence of sole eye witness (PW.1) is not trustworthy, inasmuch as she is not at all an eye w
