Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 778
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU (DHARWAD BENCH)
M.G. Uma, J.
Abdul Latif Abdullaziz Rangarej - Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka R/by State Pp - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2635 of 2011
Decided On : 30-07-2020
S.B. Deyannavar, Advocate, Shivaprabhu S Hiremath, Advocate
The competence and reliability of child witnesses and the use of corroborative evidence to establish guilt under relevant IPC sections.
Headnote:
IPC - Offence under Section 304(II) - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the prosecution's contention of the deceased dying a homicidal death and the author of the injuries. It relied on the evidence of eye witnesses, circumstantial witnesses, and the doctor's autopsy report to establish the guilt of the accused under Section 304(II) of IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased was stabbed and assaulted, resulting in his death. The appellant sought to set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, claiming the trial court erred in relying on interested and tutored witnesses.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the prosecution successful in proving the deceased's homicidal death and the guilt of the accused under Section 304(II) of IPC. It dismissed the appeal, confirming the trial court's judgment.
Issues: The issues revolved around the credibility of witnesses, the cause of the deceased's injuries, and the applicability of the relevant IPC sections.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the competence and reliability of the child witnesses, the corroborative evidence of circumstantial witnesses, and the autopsy report to establish the guilt of the accused under Section 304(II) of IPC.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court.
JUDGMENT
M G Uma, J. - The appellant/accused No.1 is before this Court seeking intervention of the Court to set aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.03.2011 passed by the learned Fast Track IV Court and Additional Sessions Judge, Belagavi, whereunder accused No.1 was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304(II) of IPC, while acquitting him and accused No.2 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 504 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that accused Nos.1 and 2 intentionally insulted the decease Gani Gafur Jamadar and gave provocation to break public peace, thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 504 read with 34 of IPC and on 01.11.2019 at 11.15 am, when deceased Gani Gafur Jamadar was in his residential house, bearing No.2960 situated at Laxmi Nagar, Hindalaga, Belagavi, accused No.1 stabbed him with a knife on his chest and caused fatal injuries and accused No.2 assaulted with a cooker on his head and caused grievous injuries, as a result of the injuries, injured Gani Gafur Jamadar died and thereby accused Nos.1 and 2 have committed the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC.
3. Heard the learned advocate for the appellant Sri.S.B.Deyannavar, through video conference and learned AGA Sri.Shivaprabhu S.Hiremath for respondent-State. Perused the materials on record, including the trial Court records.
4. The prosecution in order to prove its contention examined 19 witnesses, got marked 18 documents and identified 7 material objects. The accused have denied all the incriminating materials available on record, in their statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., but have not chosen to lead any evidence in support of their defence. However Ex.D1 was marked during cross examination of PW3.
5. After considering all these materials on record, the trial Court proceeded to convict accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 304(II) of IPC while acquitting him and accused No.2 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 504 of IPC. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court, accused No.1 preferred this appeal on various grounds.
6. Learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court is illegal, perverse and the same is liable to be set aside. The trial Court erred in relying on the evidence of PWs3 and 4, as they are interested and tutored witnesses. The trial Court has not considered the fact that they are the minor children, amenable for tutoring. The trial Court has also not considered the fact that the complainant is not an eye witness, but he has given the hearsay evidence. He further stated that when PWs3 and 4 have categorically stated during cross examination that they have not given any statement before the police, their evidence cannot be relied on. The evidence of these witnesses are full of omissions and contradictions, which go to the root of the matter. If the evidence of the prosecution witnesses are taken into consideration, there is serious discrepancies with regard to the scene of offence. The trial Court also ignored the fact that the independent eye witness i.e. PW5 has not support the case of the prosecution, so also the mahazar witnesses. Even though PW16 is said to have informed the complainant PW1 about the incident, he had also not supported the case of the prosecution. Further it is his submission that the injuries found on the head of the deceased are not explained by the prosecution. Under such circumstances, the trial Court should have acquitted the accused by extending the benefit of doubt. The trial Court committed an error in convicting the accused without any basis. Therefore he prays for allowing the appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order sentence and acquit the accused for the charges levelled against
