Back
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Sreenivas Harish Kumar and P.N. Desai, JJ.
Maruthi and Ors. —Appellants
versus
State By: The Circle Inspector of Police
and Ors. —Respondents
Criminal Appeal No.100130 of 2016 c/w Criminal Appeal No.100139 of 2016 and Criminal Appeal No.100233 of 2016
Decided on 24.2.2021
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 154—FIR—Registration of FIR at the earliest point of time rules out manipulations and embellishments—Delay gives room for doubting contents of FIR. (Para 9)
(B) Criminal Law—Appreciation of evidence—While appreciating evidence in criminal cases, there cannot be a strait-jacket formula—Evidence must be appreciated from perception of a prudent common man—How a prudent common man behaves in normal set of circumstances is guiding factor and if a question is put whether there is any rule for appreciating evidence, answer is no rule—If testimony of a sole eyewitness is believable in one case, it may not be found believable in another case—If delay does not matter in one case, same matters in another case—Every case is distinct and different—There cannot be a particular yardstick. (Para 17)
(C) Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 143, 147, 148, 302, 120-B r/w 149—Murder, rioting and conspiracy—Common object—Conviction and sentence—If according to defence, non-conduction of inquest at the spot materially affected prosecution case, concerned police officer should have been questioned and he would have answered—They are not questioned—Conduct of a stranger eyewitness to an incident cannot be equated with conduct of a close relative of deceased, if eyewitness happens to be wife of deceased and if her conduct appears unusual, it cannot be simply ignored—Instead of being near dead body, if she remained near temple and if she even did not show interest to see whether her husband was still breathing or not, it appears unnatural—If prosecution case is assessed as a whole, recovery of weapons at instance of accused 1 and 2 cannot be considered for drawing a conclusion that prosecution has stood proved beyond reasonable doubt—All doubts are not reasonable, doubts which do not find an answer or suitable explanation, can only be treated as reasonable—For certain doubts there are no explanations and conclusion drawn by trial court to hold accused guilty of offences charged against them cannot be sustained—When two views are possible, its benefit must be given to accused—Impugned judgment cannot be sustained—Accused persons acquitted. (Paras 13, 30, 40, 41 and 42)
Result: Criminal Appeals Partly allowed.
Key Points: - The judgment discusses that registration of FIR at the earliest point rules out manipulation; delays may cast doubt on contents of FIR. (!) - It emphasizes that there cannot be a strait-jacket formula for appreciating evidence; perception by a prudent common man is the guiding factor, and two cases with similar facts may yield different conclusions. (!) (!) - It questions the credibility of PW5 as the sole eyewitness due to alleged unnatural conduct and discrepancies in presence at the spot, cross-examination findings, and timing of statements. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - It critiques the reliance on recovery of weapons and inquest procedures, noting potential inconsistencies and delays that affect the prosecution’s case. (!) (!) (!) (!) - It ultimately holds that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained and acquits accused Nos.1 to 7; appeals regarding acquittal of accused 8 and 9 are treated separately. (!) (!) - It discusses that inquest, spot panchanama, and identification procedures may be scrutinized for propriety and timing, affecting credibility. (!) (!) (!) (!) - It notes that if two views are possible, the benefits must go to the accused. (!)
JUDGMENT
Sreenivas Harish Kumar, J.—These appeals are directed against judgment of the I Addl. Sessions Court, Ballari, in S.C.No.131/2009. Accused 1 to 7 are the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.100130/2016, they have been convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302, 120-B r/w 149 IPC; the major punishment being imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each, for each of the offences under Section 302 and Section 120B of the IPC.
2. Accused No.1 to 7 have preferred Criminal Appeal No.100130/2016 challenging their conviction for the offences noted above. The State and PW5 have preferred Criminal Appeals No.100233/2016 and 100139/2016 under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. and 372 Cr.P.C. respectively questioning the correctness of acquittal of accused No.8 and 9.
3. The name of the deceased is Virupanagowda. PW1 is his father and PW5 is his wife. The prosecution case in brief is that on 19.03.2009, when the deceased and his wife PW5 went for a morning walk at 5.45 a.m., all the accused caused his death in the presence of PW5. The place of occurrence was near Maremma Temple, Elubenchi village. PW1 made a report of this incident to the Police as per Ex.P.1 against seven named accused 1 to 7 and the investigation that followed Ex.P.1 disclosed conspiracy and ultimately totally nine accused came to be charge sheeted.
4. The prosecution sought to prove its case by examining 26 witnesses, and producing 42 documents and 18 material objects. The defence elicited contradictions as per Exs.D1 to D6 during cross-examination of some of the prosecution witnesses. Perusal of the entire evidence shows that the prosecution has based its case mainly on the testimonies of PW1, PW5, PW6, PW7, among whom PW5 is an eyewitness. PW19 is the doctor who conducted postmortem examination. Ex.P31 is the postmortem report. His opinion about the death is that, it was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of the following ante mortem external injuries that he noticed before dissecting the body.
1. Chop injuries measuring 11 cm x 5cm x mandible deep present over right side of the chin and lower part of face, underlying mandible is cleanly cut into pieces with extravasation of blood.
2. Chop injury measuring 8 cm x 2 cm x muscle deep present over front and right side of neck 1 cm below the injury No.1.
3. Chop injury measuring 9 cm x 3 cm x cervical bone deep present over front 2 sides of middle of neck, underlying the cheek and esophagus, muscles, vessels, nerves are cleanly cut with fracture dislocated of C2-C3 cervical vertebra, underlying spinal cord lacerated.
4. Chop injury measuring 6 cm x 1 cm x bone deep present over right temporal region.
5. Chop injury measuring 7 cm x 1 cm x bone deep present over left side back of head.
6. Avulsed laceration measuring 6 cm x 4 cm x bone deep present over back of left ear with laceration of left ear pinna.
7. Chop injury measuring 8 cm x 1 cm x bone deep present over right side back of head.
8. Chop injury measuring 7 cm x 1 cm x bone deep present over root of left shoulder with beveling of lower margin for a length of 4 cm.
9. Grazed abrasion measuring 22 cm x 20 cm present over middle of back of lower part of chest and abdomen.
10. Abrasion measuring 10 cm x 1 cm present over lower part of back of left thigh region.
11. Chop injury measuring 7 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep present over back of lower part of left elbow.
12. Chop injury measuring 6 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep present over lower part inner side of left arm.
13. Chop injury measuring 10 cm x 3 cm x bone deep present over middle of front of upper part of chest with abrasion over right side.
14. Abrasion measuring 9 cm x 4 cm present over upper part front of chest.
15. Abrasion measuring 4 cm x 3 cm present over back of upper part of right forearm.
He has deposed that on dissection, he noticed that the underlying spinal card was lacerated. This internal injury corresponded to external i
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
