IMPORTANT POINTS
1. Unless there are substantial and compelling circumstances, the order of acquittal is not required to be reversed in appeal.
2. There is no rule or practice that in every case the evidence of a child witness should be corroborated before a conviction can be allowed to stand but, as a rule of prudence, the court always finds it desirable to seek the corroboration to such evidence from other dependable evidence on record.
3. To discard the evidence of a witness on the ground that he did not react in any particular manner is to appreciate evidence in a wholly unrealistic and unimaginative way.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 143, 147, 448, 302, 201 read with Section 149-Prosecution of accused persons for forming an unlawful assembly in front of the house of father of the deceased, with the common object to commit the murder and in execution of the said common object, trespassed into the house of father of the deceased during his absence where deceased was sleeping with her daughter-After entering into the house, accused persons assaulted deceased, threatened the eleven year old girl, and forcefully took the deceased away-Prosecution case that accused persons thereafter committed murder of deceased and threw her dead body in a well-Acquittal by Trial Court-Appeal- High Court reversed the judgment of Trial Court and convicted the accused- appellants-Appeals-Instantly PW-9 was given a threat when her mother was forcibly taken away but she had the courage to walk in the night to her grandmother who was in her mid-fifties- After coming to know about the incident, it defied commonsense that mother would not tell her other daughter and the son-in-law about the kidnapping of the deceased by her mother-in-law- She did not tell it to anyone for almost two days -No explanation as to why she had thought it apt to search for her daughter without even informing anyone else in the family or in the village or without going to the police station- In view of the obtaining fact situation, trial Judge held absolutely justified in treating conduct of the said witnesses unnatural and, felt that it was unsafe to convict the accused persons on the basis of their testimony- It was a plausible view and there were no compelling circumstances requiring a reversal of the judgment of acquittal- Impugned judgment of conviction passed by High Court set aside -Accused-appellants held entitled to be acquitted of the charges-Appeals allowed (Paras 20, 21)
        Evidence of Child witness-Admissibility of-It is well settled in law that the court can rely upon the testimony of a child witness and it can form the basis of conviction if the same is credible, truthful and is corroborated by other evidence brought on record- Corroboration is not a must to record a conviction, but as a rule of prudence, the court thinks it desirable to see the corroboration from other reliable evidence placed on record- The principles that apply for placing reliance on the solitary statement of witness, namely, that the statement is true and correct and is of quality and cannot be discarded solely on the ground of lack of corroboration, applies to a child witness who is competent and whose version is reliable (Para16)
       Facts of the Case :
        Accused persons were prosecuted herein in the instant case for forming an unlawful assembly in front of the house of father of the deceased, with the common object to commit the murder and in execution of the said common object, trespassed into the house of father of the deceased during his absence where deceased was sleeping with her daughter.After entering into the house, accused persons assaulted deceased, threatened the eleven year old girl, and forcefully took the deceased away. Prosecution case that accused persons thereafter committed murder of deceased and threw her dead body in a well. Trial Court acquitted accused persons. On appeal , High Court reversed the judgment of Trial Court and convicted the accused- appellants.
        B. Present appeals have been filed against said order of High Court.
       Findings of the Court :
        Instantly PW-9 was given a threat when her mother was forcibly taken away but she had the courage to walk in the night to her grandmother who was in her mid-fifties. After coming to know about the incident, it defied commonsense that mother would not tell her other daughter and the son-in-law about the kidnapping of the deceased by her mother-in-law. She did not tell it to anyone for almost two days .No explanation offered by prosecution as to why she had thought it apt to search for her daughter without even informing anyone else in the family or in the village or without going to the police station. In view of the obtaining fact situation, trial Judge held absolutely justified in treating conduct of the said witnesses unnatural and, felt that it was unsafe to convict the accused persons on the basis of their testimony. It was a plausible view and there were no compelling circumstances requiring a reversal of the judgment of acquittal. Impugned judgment of conviction passed by High Court was set aside .Accused-appellants were held entitled to be acquitted of the charges.
       Result : Appeals allowed

JUDGMENT

Dipak Misra, J.

The two appeals have been preferred by the accused- appellants against the common judgment dated 28.10.2005 in Criminal Appeal No. 937/1999 by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore whereby the Division Bench has overturned the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Ist Addl. Sessions Judge, Gulbarga, in S.C. No. 100/1995 acquitting all the accused persons of the offences under Sections 143, 147, 448, 302, 201 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and convicted the accused-appellants for the said offences. For the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of IPC, each of them was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. In respect of other offences, no separate sentence was imposed by the High Court.

2. Sans unnecessary details, the prosecution case is that the deceased, Karemma, was the wife of Mallinath, son of Ningawwa. After the unfortunate demise of Mallinath, dispute arose between Ningawwa, the mother-in-law of the deceased, and deceased Karemma, relating to certain landed property, which initially stood in the name of Mallinath, and subsequently, the entries were made in name of deceased Karemma as she was in possession. The dispute relating to property which is dear to the human race as it stands in contradistinction to poverty, which is sometimes perceived as a cause of great calamity, eventually led, as alleged by the prosecution, to morbid bitterness. In the intervening night of 12th and 13th June, 1994, accused- Ningawwa, along with her relatives formed an unlawful assembly in front of the house of Shankarappa, father of the deceased, with the common object to commit the murder and in execution of the said common object, they trespassed into the house of Shankarappa during his absence where deceased Karemma was sleeping with her daughter, Jagadevi. After entering into the house, the accused persons assaulted the deceased, threatened the eleven year old girl, Jagadevi, and forcefully took the deceased away. After the mother was forcibly removed from the house, Jagadevi proceeded to inform her grandmother, Chandamma, who, at that juncture, was residing in the house of another daughter. Being informed by the granddaughter, Chandamma came to the house of the deceased, searched for her daughter, but, eventually, it turned to be an exercise in futility.

3. As the prosecution story would further uncurtain, the accused persons committed murder of the deceased Karemma and threw her dead body in a well situate at Benur village. The dead body was found on 15.6.1994 and thereafter, one Dasharath, PW-10, informed the fact at the concerned police station. On 16.6.1994, the Investigating Officer went near the well, removed the dead body of the deceased from inside the well, held the inquest of the dead body as per Ext. P-7, conducted the spot panchnama vide Ext Nos. 8 and 10, seized certain articles, recorded statements of certain other witnesses and, ultimately, about 8.00 P.M., registered suo motu case forming the subject matter of Crime No. 29/94 at Nelogi Police Station. After completing the investigation, the prosecution submitted the charge-sheet before the competent Court which, in turn, transmitted the same to the Court of Session for trial.

4. The accused persons abjured their guilt on ground of false implication and claimed to be tried.

5. In course of trial, the prosecution examined 17 witnesses, brought on record Exts. P-1 to P-17 and M.Os. 1 to 9. The defence chose not to adduce any evidence, but got certain portion of the statements of PW-7 and PW-10 marked during the cross-examination. During the pendency of the trial, the accused Ningawwa, the mother- in-law of the deceased expired, as a consequence of which, the trial abated against her.

6. The learned trial Judge framed four principal points for consideration, namely,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2013 Supreme(SC) 455

Cases Referred (15)