Allowed

Basavaraju v. the State

Karnataka HC24 May 2023CRL.A/361/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka in criminal appeals involving violence, witnesses accounts with inconsistencies and delays in medical examinations and recordings trial court acquittal was affirmed and conviction was set aside on grounds of prosecution failure to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence against accused Nos.1 to 8 set aside; accused acquitted of all charges; bail bonds cancelled

Basavaraju Vs the State — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

CRL.A No.361/2016 C/w CRL.A No.1822/2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF MAY, 2023 PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.361/2016 (C)

¶8

C/w

¶9

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1822/2016 (A)

¶10

CRL.A. No.361/2016:

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

BASAVARAJU S/O SIDDARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶13

DODDEGOWDA S/O SIDDARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

¶14

SUSHEELAMMA W/O BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

¶15

Digitally signed by A K CHANDRIKA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

SIDDALINGAIAH S/O ERAIAH

¶17

AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

¶18

PARAMESHWARAIAH S/O CHANDRAIAH AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS

¶19

MAHALINGAIAH S/O CHANDRAIAH (S ANNAIAH) AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

¶20

NAGARAJU S/O SHIVANNA

¶21

AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

¶22

¶23

CRL.A No.361/2016 C/w CRL.A No.1822/2016

¶24

KRISHNAPPA S/O ERAIAH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT BASAVAPURA GOLLARAHATTI TURUVEKERE TALUK – 572 201 …APPELLANTS

¶25

(BY SRI P.P.HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI VENKATESH SOMAREDDI, ADVOCATE)

¶26

AND:

¶27

THE STATE THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE DANDINA SHIVARA POLICE STATION DANDINA SHIVARA, TURUVEKERE CIRCLE TURUVEKERE TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 001 …RESPONDENT

¶28

(BY SMT.RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP)

¶29

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 374(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 18.02.2016 PASSED BY THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TIPTUR IN S.C.NO.11/2013.

¶30

CRL.A.NO.1822/2016:

¶31

STATE BY DANDINASHIVARA POLICE TURUVEKERE TALUK REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU- 560 001 …APPELLANT

¶32

(BY SMT.RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP)

¶33

AND :

¶34

BASAVARAJU S/O SIDDARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

¶35

DODDEGOWDA S/O SIDDARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

¶36

¶37

CRL.A No.361/2016 C/w CRL.A No.1822/2016

¶38

SUSHEELAMMA W/O BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

¶39

SIDDALINGAIAH S/O ERAIAH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

¶40

PARAMESHWARAIAH S/O CHANDRAIAH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS

¶41

MAHALINGAIAH S/O CHANDRAIAH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

¶42

NAGARAJU S/O SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

¶43

KRISHNAPPA S/O ERAIAH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS

¶44

ALL ARE R/AT BASAVAPURA GOLLARAHATTI

¶45

TURUVEKERE TALUK – 572 227 …RESPONDENTS

¶46

(BY SRI P.P.HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI VENKATESH SOMAREDDI, ADVOCATE)

¶47

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S.378 (1) & (3) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 18.02.2016 PASSED BY THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TIPTUR IN S.C.NO.11/2013.

¶48

THESE CRIMINAL APPEALS COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, K.S.MUDAGAL J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶49

¶50

CRL.A No.361/2016 C/w CRL.A No.1822/2016

¶51

JUDGMENT

¶52

Challenging the judgment and order in S.C.No.11/2013 on the file of V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tiptur, accused Nos.1 to 8 have preferred Crl.A.No.361/2016 and the State has preferred Crl.A.No.1822/2016.

¶53

For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be

¶54

referred to henceforth according to their ranks before the trial Court.

¶55

Accused Nos.1 to 8 were prosecuted in S.C.No.11/2013 on the file of V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tiptur for the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 326, 307 read with Section 149 of IPC on the basis of the charge sheet filed by Dandina Shivara police of Tumkur Taluk, Tumkur in Crime No.148/2012 of their police station. The said case was registered against the accused on the basis of the complaint as per Ex.P2 filed by PW.2 Ningaraju S/o. Siddalingaiah.

¶56

The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

¶57

(i) PW.2 Ningaraju is the younger brother of PW.5 Somashekhar. Accused Nos.1 and 2 are brothers and accused

¶58

¶59

CRL.A No.361/2016 C/w CRL.A No.1822/2016

¶60

No.3 is the wife of accused No.1. Accused Nos.4 and 8 are brothers. Accused Nos.5 and 6 are brothers. Accused No.7 is son of late Shivanna.

¶61

(ii) On 07.09.2012 at 6.00 p.m., accused Nos.1 to 4 came to the land of the complainant party situated behind their house in Basavapura Gollarahatti Village and started to plough the same with tractor illegally. When PW.2 resisted that, accused Nos.1 to 4 picked up quarrel with him. Accused No.1 assaulted him with stone MO.1 on his left elbow. Accused No.2 fisted on his chest and assaulted on his left lower limb with club MO.2. Accused Nos.3 and 4 dragged PW.2, kicked him with their legs, bet him with hands and caused him hurt. PW.5 on seeing the quarrel rescued PW.2 and pacified the quarrel. PW.2 went to the police station to file the complaint.

¶62

(iii) On learning about the incident, PW.4 elder brother of PW.2 who had gone to the town was returning to the village on his motorcycle. At 6.30 p.m., near the land of one Veeranna, accused Nos.1 to 8 intercepted him and abused him saying that his brother has gone to file the complaint and he is supporting him. Accused No.3 abetted other accused to assault PW.4 and handed over club to accused No.1 who

¶63

¶64

CRL.A No.361/2016 C/w CRL.A No.1822/2016

¶65

assaulted PW.4 on his left eye. Accused No.2 assaulted with the same club on the right knee of PW.4. Accused No.4 assaulted PW.4 with hands on his left thigh. Accused Nos.4 and 8 grappled him and kicked on his stomach. Accused No.3 tried to throttle him by hands. Accused No.5 assaulted him with stone on his head. Accused No.6 bet him with his hands. Accused No.7 assaulted PW.4 with club on his head and they all caused grievous injuries and attempted to commit his murder.

¶66

(iv) Regarding the incident, PW.2 filed the complaint as per Ex.P2. PW.3 on the basis of the complaint Ex.P2 registered first information report as per Ex.P2 against the accused. He conducted spot mahazar Exs.P3 and P6 and then handed over investigation to PW.10. PWs.8 and 9 treated PW.4 in Tumkur General Hospital. PW.4 was initially taken to Gubbi Hospital. From there he was shifted to District Hospital, Tumkur. From Tumkur he was shifted to Nimhans Hospital. PW.10 conducted further investigation, collected medical records and filed the charge sheet.

¶67

After the committal of the case, the trial Court on hearing the parties, framed charges for the offences

¶68

¶69

CRL.A No.361/2016 C/w CRL.A No.1822/2016

¶70

punishable under Section 307, 323, 324, 326, 341, 143, 144, 148 read with Section 149 IPC. The accused denied the charges. Therefore, the trial was conducted. In support of the case of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 11 were examined and Exs.P1 to P11 and MOs.1 and 2 were marked. After their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C with reference to the incriminating material, the accused did not lead any defence evidence. However, on their behalf, by way of confrontation to PW.4 and PW.6, Exs.D1 and D2 were marked.

¶71

The trial Court on hearing the parties, by the impugned Judgment, convicted accused nos. 1 and 2 for the offences under Sec.324 IPC and accused nos. 1 to 8 for the offences punishable under Section 341, 323, 324, 325 read with Sec.149 of IPC with reference to the assault on PW.4. The trial Court acquitted accused nos.3 and 4 with reference to assault of PW.2 and all the accused for the offences under Sec.144, 148, 307, 326 read with Section 149 IPC.

¶72

With reference to assault on PW.4, the trial Court held that evidence of PWs.2 and 4 was cogent and consistent with regard to overt acts of accused Nos.1 and 2 with reference to the first incident and accused Nos.1 to 8 with

¶73

¶74

CRL.A No.361/2016 C/w CRL.A No.1822/2016

¶75

reference to the incident relating to PW.4. The trial court further held that evidence of PWs.2 and 4 was corroborated by evidence of PWs.5, 6 and 11 and the medical evidence.

¶76

Submission of Sri P.P.Hegde, learned Sr.Counsel along with Sri Venkatesh Somareddy, learned counsel for accused nos. 1 to 8:

¶77

There were innumerable, inherent contradictions, improvements and omissions in the ocular evidence and the documentary evidence. There was inordinate delay in delivering the FIR to the Court. Though PW.2 claimed that he was assaulted with club and stone and suffered hurt, he was not medically examined and no wound certificate was produced. The version of PW.1 regarding registering of FIR is contrary to the evidence of PW.3 who registered the FIR. The evidence of PWs.2 and 5 was unreliable. With regard to assault on PW.2 in acquitting accused Nos.3 and 4, the trial Court unjustifiably convicted accused Nos.1 and 2 on the same evidence. So far as the assault on PW.4, his evidence and complaint were irreconcilable as, initially crowbar was introduced as weapon of offence and much later, on the basis of alleged further statements of PWs.2 and 4, the

¶78

¶79

CRL.A No.361/2016 C/w CRL.A No.1822/2016

¶80

Investigating Officer substituted the weapon clubs to crowbar. Though PW.4 was allegedly wrongly restrained while travelling on the motorcycle, the motorcycle was not seized by the prosecution. So far as second incident, though PW.6, CWs 4, 5 and 6 were cited as eyewitnesses, CWs.5 and 6 were not examined. Only CW.4 was examined as PW.6. She states that she is not an eyewitness and she came to the scene of offence after the incident took place. PW.11 was cited in the charge sheet as witness to the spot mahazar. But she was examined before the Court as if she was an eyewitness for assault on PW.4. The Investigating Officer did not say that he has recorded statement of PW.11 as eyewitness. Though, in the complaint which was allegedly registered at 9 p.m. on the same day, the names of accused Nos.1 to 8 were spelt, in the medical records where the victim was taken, assailants' names did not figure. No weapons were seized from the site where PW.4 was allegedly assaulted. The evidence of PW.4 with regard to assault by accused Nos.1 to 8 was not cogent and consistent. His statements were purportedly recorded after more than two months though he was discharged from the hospital on 21.09.2012 as per the medical evidence. The trial Court, without noticing the said inherent inconsistencies,

¶81

10 - CRL.A No.361/2016 C/w CRL.A No.1822/2016

¶82

proceeded to hold that the evidence of injured witnesses alone is sufficient to convict the accused. The same is untenable.

¶83

In support of the submission he relies on the following judgments:

¶84

1. Govind Narain and another vs. State of Rajasthan¹

¶85

2. Balakrushna Swain Vs.The State of Orissa²

¶86

Submissions of Smt.Rashmi Jadhav, learned HCGP:

¶87

PWs.2 and 4 were the injured witnesses. There

¶88

was no reason to disbelieve their evidence more particularly, PW.4 had suffered several grievous injuries. He had no reason to falsely implicate the accused. If the IO has failed to refer PW.2 for medical examination or did not secure the required documents or failed to record the evidence of material witnesses or promptly recorded the statement of PW.4, that will not enure to the benefit of the accused. Defect in investigation is not a ground to acquit the accused when the injured witnesses were consistent in their evidence regarding overt acts of the accused. Therefore, the acquittal of accused nos.3 and 4 so far as assault on PW.2 and the acquittal of the

¶89

1 1993 (3) SCC 343

¶90

2 AIR 1971 SC 804

¶91

11 -

¶92

CRL.A No.361/2016 C/w CRL.A No.1822/2016

¶93

accused for charges for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC is unsustainable.

¶94

Having regard to the submissions of both side and the material on record, the questions that arise for

¶95

consideration are:

¶96

(1) Whether the trial Court was justified in convicting accused Nos.1 and 2 and acquitting accused nos.3 and 4 so far as the alleged assault on PW.2?

¶97

(2) Whether the trial Court was justified in convicting accused nos. 1 to 8 for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 325 read with Section 149 IPC?

¶98

(3) So far as assault on PW.4, whether the trial Court was justified in acquitting the accused of the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 144, 147, 326 & 307 read with Section 149 IPC?

¶99

ANALYSIS

¶100

Regarding Point Nos. 1 and 2:

¶101

The relationship between PWs 2 and 4 and accused inter se is not in dispute. As per the complaint the

¶102

case involves two different incidents of assault. As per the complaint Ex.P2 and the version of PW.2, accused Nos.1 to 4

¶103

12 -

¶104

CRL.A No.361/2016 C/w CRL.A No.1822/2016

¶105

were ploughing his land with the tractor illegally. When he questioned that they assaulted him. Land disputes were pending between the complainant party and the accused party. Further, other criminal cases were also filed between the parties.

¶106

So far as second incident, accused nos. 1 to 8 assaulted PW.4 on the ground that he has prompted PW.2 to file a police complaint with regard to the assault on PW.2. That was motive for the second incident. Thus, it is clear that for the second incident, first incident is the foundation. If the first incident is not proved then the second incident has no legs to stand.

¶107

So far as the first incident, as per the contention, the accused assaulted him with MOs 1 and 2 the club and the stone and accused Nos. 3 and 4 dragged, kicked and bet him and thus the accused caused hurt to him and the said incident was witnessed by PW.5. PW.2 claims that soon after the assault at 6.00 p.m., he went to Dandinashivar Police Station and filed the complaint. The FIR Ex.P5 shows that the scene of offence was at a distance of 10 kms. from the Police Station. FIR is purportedly registered at 9.00 p.m. PW.3

¶108

13 -

¶109

CRL.A No.361/2016 C/w CRL.A No.1822/2016

¶110

deposed that PW.2 appeared before him at 9.00 p.m. and submitted the complaint. Soon after the receipt of the same, he registered the FIR. Whereas, PW.2 in his chief examination itself states that he reached the police station by 7.30 - 8.00 p.m. He presented the complaint but, the Police did not receive the same immediately. He says, police made him to sit in the police station and sent some other police to the village to verify, by that time, PW.6 the wife of PW.4 informed him about the assault on PW.4 and that she is taking him to the hospital. Thereafter, Police who had gone to his village, came back and got confirmed the information telephonically from PW.6 and received his complaint and registered the same.

¶111

The endorsement of Magistrate Ex.P5 is that FIR

¶112

was delivered on 8.9.2012 at 6.00 p.m. i.e. next day evening. This delay was not explained by PW.3. As alleged by PW.2, he was assaulted with stone MO.1 and Club MO2. If that be so, he should have suffered some contusions if not external injuries. He was not referred to any medical officer for examination by the IO. Again, for that, there is no explanation.

¶113

14 -

¶114

CRL.A No.361/2016 C/w CRL.A No.1822/2016

¶115

The evidence on record shows that there was ill

¶116

will between the complainant party and the accused party. Several cases were pending between them. Having regard to the said ill will, there is a chance of complainant party also implicating the accused party falsely. Therefore, the evidence of the witnesses has to be strictly evaluated. Having regard to the circumstances discussed above, the evidence of PW.2 required corroboration. The next question is whether the evidence of PW.5 was acceptable and reliable?

¶117

PW.5 in his cross-examination admits that there were two houses at the scene of offence. It is not elicited in the evidence of PW.5 as to why he has gone to the scene of offence. If there were other houses near the scene of offence, the Investigating Officer would have examined the neighbours with reference to the assault on PW.2. PW.5 is from Basavanapurahatti of Turuvekere Tq. He does not say that he is the neighbour of PW.2. It is suggested to PW.5 that when accused party were cultivating their land, obstructing them, the complainant party themselves assaulted the accused party.

¶118

15 -

¶119

CRL.A No.361/2016 C/w CRL.A No.1822/2016

¶120

Since there was no explanation for delay in delivery of FIR to the court, though name of PW.5 figures as eye witness in Ex.P2, that itself cannot be taken as assurance for PW.5 being the eyewitness to the incident. He does not state that after PW.2 suffering hurt, he accompanied him to the police station. PW.5 is none else but the elder brother of PW.2. If he was an eyewitness or pacifier, in the ordinary course he would have accompanied PW.2 to the police station. That creates doubt about he being an eyewitness. He says in his cross-examination that except he learning about the assault on his younger brother PW.4 by telephonic message, he does not know anything about it. As per the evidence of PW.1 the Doctor, PW.4 was accompanied only by his wife/ PW.6

¶121

There were several inconsistencies, attempts of improvements with regard to the implication of accused nos.1 to 8 in the alleged assault on PW.4 which will be discussed in the later part of the order. The trial Court, considering several such discrepancies though disbelieved the version of the prosecution with regard to assault on PW.2 by accused Nos. 3

¶122

16 - CRL.A No.361/2016 C/w CRL.A No.1822/2016

¶123

and 4, based on the same evidence, proceeded to convict accused Nos.1 and 2.

¶124

The other thing to be noticed is that as per the version of Investigating Officer -PW.3, he visited the scene of offence on 11.09.2012 and MOs 1 and 2 weapons of offence were still lying at the scene of offence. Therefore, he seized them between 10.00 to 10.30 p.m. As per the evidence of PW.2, Police visited the scene of offence and verified with reference to the allegations and received the complaint and registered the same on 7.9.2012. If that is the case when the police visited the spot, they should have found those weapons. PW.2 does not say that weapons were lying there only. He did not make any efforts to collect and hand over the same to the Police.

¶125

In the light of the above discussion, it can be said without hesitation that prosecution has failed to prove the charge that accused Nos. 1 and 2 were involved in the alleged assault on PW.2 on 07.09.2012 at 6.00 p.m. with MOs.1 and 2 club and stone and caused him hurt. Therefore, the impugned order of conviction and sentence of accused Nos. 1

¶126

17 -

¶127

CRL.A No.361/2016 C/w CRL.A No.1822/2016

¶128

and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC does not sustain.

¶129

Reg. Point No.3:

¶130

PW.2 in his complaint Ex.P2 states that while he

¶131

was in police station and his brother Basavaraj/PW.4 was proceeding to Dandina shivara from some other place, on learning about the incident, accused Nos.2 and 4 to 8 wrongfully restrained him near the house of one Veeranna, abused him, that he has prompted PW.2 to file police complaint and assaulted him with crow bar and attempted to commit his murder. It is further stated, when PW.4 suffered grievous injuries, they ran away from the spot.

¶132

To the said incident, PW.6 and CWs.5 and 6 were cited as eyewitnesses. Out of them, only PW.6 was examined. PW.6 who is the wife of PW.4 in her examination-in-chief unequivocally states that she learnt about the incident from PW.11 Sakamma then she rushed to the spot. Whereas, in the complaint or charge sheet, Sakamma PW.11 was not cited as eye witness. She was cited only as witness to Mahazar Ex.P3 allegedly conducted at the spot where PW.2 was assaulted.

¶133

18 - CRL.A No.361/2016 C/w CRL.A No.1822/2016

¶134

The Investigation Officer does not say that he has recorded the statement of PW.11. Therefore, the evidence of PW.11 she being the eyewitness to the incident is wholly unreliable. As per evidence of PW.4, after the incident, PW.4 was taken to Nittur Hospital, from there, he was sent to Gubbi hospital, from Gubbi Hospital he was sent to Tumakuru Hospital and from there, he was taken to NIMHANS Hospital. No medical records relating to Nittur Hospital were collected and the Doctor who treated PW.4 in that hospital was not cited as charge sheet witness. In Ex.P1 which was issued by PW.1 and in the history given before PW.1, the names of assailants were not disclosed.

¶135

Ex.P7 the MLC Register Extract of Gubbi Hospital, in the column meant for the particulars of the injured, the history is mentioned as " History of alleged assault near his residence at 6.30 p.m. " later, the words " by Doddegowda, Nagaraju and Co. on 7.9.2012 " i.e. accused Nos.2 and 7 are interpolated. The author of Ex.P7 relating to PW.4 was not examined. Ex.P7 the extract of Out-patient record of Community Hospital, Gubbi shows that PW.4 was taken to the said hospital on 07.09.2012 at 7.15 p.m. with the alleged

¶136

19 -

¶137

CRL.A No.361/2016 C/w CRL.A No.1822/2016

¶138

history of assault. The names of assailants were not found there also. In that, place of assault is also not mentioned. The entry in Ex.P7 depicting the names of Doddegowda and Nagaraju was purportedly made on 7.9.2012 at 9.15 p.m.

¶139

Ex.P8 is the in-patient record of District Hospital, Tumakuru. In the said document, it is mentioned that PW.4 was brought with alleged history of assault with stick, iron rod by known persons while riding two-wheeler on 7.9.2012 at 6.30 p.m. As rightly pointed out by Sri.P.P.Hegde, learned Senior Counsel, the above record shows that there were several improvements, manipulations with regard to assault, names of assailants and the weapons of offence. It is also to be noted that though in the complaint, initially weapon of offence was shown as crowbar, Investigating Officer purportedly records, further statements of PW.5 and PW.2 to the effect that weapon used was club and not the crowbar.

¶140

The other thing to be noticed is, as per Ex.P8, PW.4 was admitted into Tumakuru District Hospital on 11.9.2012. At the time of admission, PW.2 was conscious and oriented and as per the said record he was discharged on

¶141

20 -

¶142

CRL.A No.361/2016 C/w CRL.A No.1822/2016

¶143

29.9.2012. Still, his statement was not recorded soon after the incident. PW.10 Investigating Officer claimed to have recorded his statement on 24.11.2012.

¶144

All the aforesaid facts go to show that there was something amiss in implication of accused Nos. 1 to 8. Having regard to the said circumstances, PW.4 the injured eyewitness needed corroboration. PW.6 the only alleged eyewitness to the incident was examined to corroborate the evidence of PW.4. As already pointed out, she unequivocally stated in her chief examination that she was not an eyewitness to the incident.

¶145

The prosecution tried to project MOs. 1 and 2 as the weapons used in assaulting PW.4 also. But, PW.4 in his deposition states that MO.2 was not the said club, did not identify the weapons used to assault him. Though he was treated as hostile witness, to the said effect nothing was elicited in his cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor to show that MOs.1 and 2 were the weapons of offence employed in assaulting PW.4.

¶146

21 - CRL.A No.361/2016 C/w CRL.A No.1822/2016

¶147

In addition to that, the cross-examination of PW.4

¶148

shows that he was a controversial person. He admits in his cross-examination that there were 4 to 5 cases between him and accused party and some of them were already decided, over 8 to 9 years he was the President of School Development Monitoring Committee (SDMC). He also admits that during the said period, an article was published against him in Anavarana' fortnightly newspaper under the caption Gosumbe Basavanna' with an allegation that he was troubling the BEO demanding suspension of teachers.

¶149

In the similar circumstances, Hon'ble Supreme

¶150

Court in Balakrushna Swain's case, referred to supra has held, the long delay on the part of the investigating officer in recording the statements of material eyewitnesses during the investigation of murder case will render the evidence of such witnesses unreliable.

¶151

In Govind Naraian's case referred to supra, the

¶152

Hon'ble Supreme Court held, if there are contradictions, manipulations and omissions of vital details in FIR, the ocular evidence of eyewitnesses should be scrutinized more carefully. In para 7 of the said judgment, it was further

¶153

22 -

¶154

CRL.A No.361/2016 C/w CRL.A No.1822/2016

¶155

observed that when a witness is introduced as eye witness in the case falsely and the taint in the investigation is established, the Court has to exercise greater caution in such cases.

¶156

In the cross-examination, PW.4 states that at the time of assault, he was alone. Therefore, the prosecution version that incident was witnessed by CWs.5, 6 and PW.11 fails. Having regard to the antecedents of PW.4 he having opponents in the village cannot be ruled out. There were inherent inconsistencies and contradictions in the prosecution case with regard to weapons, manner of assault, eyewitnesses and the place of incident. That shadow of doubt in prosecution evidence would enure to the benefit of accused. The trial Court, without noticing all the aforesaid contradictions, improvements and manipulations, proceeded to convict the accused which is unsustainable.

¶157

Therefore, the appeal of the accused deserves to

¶158

be allowed. The appeal of the State is liable to be is dismissed. Hence the following:

¶159

O R D E R

¶160

Criminal Appeal No.1822/2016 is hereby dismissed.

¶161

23 - CRL.A No.361/2016 C/w CRL.A No.1822/2016

¶162

Criminal Appeal No.361/2016 is hereby allowed.

¶163

The impugned Judgment and Order of conviction and

¶164

sentence passed by the trial Court against accused Nos.1 to 8 is hereby set aside.

¶165

Accused Nos.1 to 8 are acquitted of all the charges brought against them.

¶166

The bail bonds of accused Nos.1 to 8 shall stand cancelled.

¶167

Fine amount deposited, if any by the accused before this Court shall be refunded to them.

¶168

The order of the trial Court with regard to disposal of properties is maintained.

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

KSR, SK

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5

Basavaraju v. the State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Basavaraju v. the State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Krishnappa @ Kittappa Vs State of Karnataka

The State of Karnataka Vs Muniyappa

Sri Syed Ali Vs State of Karnataka

Maranna @ Marappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Lakshmamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Nagaraju Vs State of Karnataka by