advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Thursday, March 16, 2017

It is settled law that the First Information Report is not an encyclopaedia, and if the necessary details are there, on its basis detailed narration by the witnesses cannot be doubted.; the trial court committed grave error by accepting the defence case that the deceased might have died of the injuries suffered in an accident, as the possibility was not ruled out by PW-2 Dr. C. Francis. We have carefully gone through the statement of Dr. C. Francis. What he has stated in the cross-examination is “such injuries can be caused to a person if he meets accident”. There is no suggestion of the fact that at the place of incident any vehicle had passed through at the time of the indicent. The trial court appears to have taken support of conjectures and surmises. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the High Court has correctly held that the view taken by the trial court is perverse and against the evidence on record.= where two views are possible, the High Court should not interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the trial court. We agree with the principle of law that when two views are possible, the view taken by the trial court should not be disturbed, but in the present case the view taken by the trial court, as discussed above, was perverse and rightly held so by the High Court. For the reasons, as discussed above, we find no force in this appeal which is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                       CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 435 OF 2006


M. G. Eshwarappa and others                  … Appellants

                                   Versus

State of Karnataka                                 …Respondent


                               J U D G M E N T

Prafulla C. Pant, J.


This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 07.02.2006,  passed
by the High Court of Karnataka in Criminal Appeal No. 1055 of  1999  whereby
the High Court has allowed the appeal filed by the State, and  reversed  the
judgment of acquittal passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,  Shimoga,  in
Sessions Case No. 40 of 1998.

Prosecution story, in brief, is that PW-16  Niranjanappa  (complainant)  was
elder brother of  accused  No.  1  M.G.  Eshwarappa.   Accused  No.  2  M.G.
Shivaraj and accused  No.  3  M.G.  Girish  are  sons  of  M.G.  Eshwarappa.
Accused No. 4 Hebballi Shivappa is brother-in-law  of  accused  No.  2  M.G.
Shivaraj.  There was a  family  dispute  between  the  complainant  and  his
brother Eshwarappa pertaining to immovable property, and reaping  of  fruits
of tamarind tree in the backyard of the complainant’s house.  There used  to
be quarrel every now and then between the families of two  brothers.   Prior
to the incident, on 03.03.1998 at  about  3.00  p.m.  the  accused  persons,
armed with deadly weapons, came to the house of  the  complainant  objecting
to the  plucking  of  tamarind  fruits  by  the  complainant’s  family,  and
threatened  them  of  dire  consequences.   With  the  intervention  of  the
neighbours dispute got pacified temporarily.   Thereafter,  as  the  accused
persons went away, the complainant along with his son  Basavaraj  (deceased)
and daughter Rajeshwari (PW-1)  went  to  Honnali  to  consult  their  legal
counsel, and to get the complaint lodged against  the  accused.   The  three
left the village Marigondanahalli at about 5.00 p.m. for  Honnali,  but  the
counsel was not found at his residence.  On this,  complainant  Niranjanappa
(PW-16) asked his son and daughter to return to the village as he wanted  to
wait for the arrival of the counsel.   At  about  6.30  p.m.  Basavaraj  and
Rajeshwari left Honnali on way back to their  village.   When  the  two  had
covered a distance of about two kilometers,  and  were  only  one  kilometer
away from their  village,  four  accused  namely  -  M.G.  Eshwarappa,  M.G.
Shivaraj, M.G. Girish and Hebballi Shivappa  intercepted  them.   Eshwarappa
(A-1) was armed with club, Shivaraj  (A-2)  was  armed  with  Kandli  (heavy
sharp edged weapon), and Girish (A-3) and Shivappa  (A-4)  were  armed  with
iron rods.  The first blow was given by Shivaraj with Kandli on the head  of
Basavaraj on which he fell down.  His sister Rajeshwari (PW-1) to  save  her
brother lied down on him and requested the accused  to  leave  her  brother.
On this Shivaraj (A-2) dragged her on one side.  In  the  process  she  also
suffered  minor  injuries.   Thereafter  Girish  (A-3)  and  Shivappa  (A-4)
assaulted already injured  Basavaraj  with  iron  rods.   Basavaraj  started
bleeding from the injuries received by him.  The accused  persons  presuming
that the injured is dead left the place.  PW-1  Rajeshwari  started  crying.
One Kammar Rudresh, who was  returning  on  a  bicycle  from  Shimoga  after
selling his flowers, asked her as to what had happened, and  then  left  for
the village to inform his family members of the  injured  in  order  to  get
some bullock cart.  This incident occurred around 7.30 p.m.  There was  moon
light.  At about 8.00 p.m. Parvathamma (PW-29) mother of the injured,  along
with other villagers reached at the spot and  injured  Basavaraj  was  first
taken to Chellur.  After some time Niranjanappa (PW-16) also reached  there,
and after engaging a motor van, the injured was taken to  Shimoga  hospital,
where he was admitted at 10.45 p.m.  However, Basavaraj could not  be  saved
and succumbed to the injuries soon after midnight  at  about  0040  hrs.   A
report (Ext. P-5) was given at the nearest Police Station Doddapet on  which
PW-28 M. Gopalappa (Station House Officer) rushed to the hospital.  He  sent
intimation (Ext. P-6) to the jurisdictional Police Station  Nyamathi,  where
the same was registered as Crime No. 49 of 1998.  PW-33 S.G.  Patil  (Police
Inspector) took up the investigation and, after taking the dead body in  his
possession,  prepared  the  inquest  report  (Ext.  P-28)  and  interrogated
witnesses including Rajeshwari (PW-1), Niranjanappa (PW-16) and  Parvathamma
(PW-29).  PW-2 Dr. C. Francis  conducted  the  post  mortem  examination  on
04.03.1998 at 11.00 a.m. and prepared the autopsy  report  (Ext.  P-2).   He
opined that the deceased had died due to shock and haemorrhage as  a  result
of injuries suffered by him on the head.   On  conclusion  of  investigation
the charge-sheet was filed against all the four accused for their  trial  in
respect of offences punishable under Sections 506, 354  and  302  read  with
Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC).

After the case was committed to the  Court  of  Sessions,  the  trial  court
framed charge of offences punishable under Sections 506, 323,  354  and  302
read with Section 34 IPC, to  which  the  accused  pleaded  not  guilty  and
claimed to be tried.  As many as 33  witnesses  were  got  examined  by  the
prosecution.  The oral and documentary evidence was put to the accused  and,
after hearing the parties, the trial court  acquitted  the  accused  holding
that the charge against them is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

The State of Karnataka preferred appeal against  acquittal  of  the  accused
before the High Court.  The High Court, after re-appreciating the  evidence,
held that the finding recorded by the trial court is perverse  and  contrary
to the evidence on record.  The  appeal  was  allowed  by  the  High  Court.
(Since accused No. 3 M.G.  Girish  had  meanwhile  died,  his  appeal  stood
abated.)  The High  Court  convicted  rest  of  the  three  accused,  namely
Eshwarappa, Shivaraj and Hebballi Shivappa under Sections 506, 354  and  302
read with Section 34 IPC,  and  after  hearing  on  sentence,  each  of  the
convicts is sentenced  under  Section  302  read  with  Section  34  IPC  to
imprisonment for life and to pay fine of ?10,000/-.  In default  of  payment
of  fine,  the  defaulter,  if  any,  was  directed  to   undergo   rigorous
imprisonment for a further period of one year.   In  view  of  the  sentence
awarded in respect in respect of offence  punishable  under  Section  302/34
IPC, qua rest of the offences no punishment was awarded by the  High  Court.
The convicts have preferred  this  appeal  under  Section  379  of  Code  of
Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).  During pendency of appeal before this  Court,
appellant No. 1 (M.G. Eshwarappa) has died and his appeal stands abated.

We have heard learned counsel for the appellants (A-2 M.G. Shivaraj and  A-4
Hebballi Shivappa) and  learned  counsel  for  the  State  and  perused  the
evidence on record.

Perusal  of  the  record  shows  that  the  prosecution  got  examined  PW-1
Rajeshwari (sister of the deceased), PW-2  Dr.  C.  Francis  (who  conducted
post mortem examination), PW-3  Dr.  Nanda  Koti,  PW-4  Kammar  Rudreshi  @
Rudrachari, PW-5 H.R. Haleshi, PW-6 Basavangowda, PW-7 Eshwarappa  (not  the
accused),  PW-8  Palakshappa,  PW-9  Shankarappa,  PW-10  M.   Raju,   PW-11
Chandrashekaraiah, PW-12 B. Vasavarajappa, PW-13 T.R. Mahadevappa, PW-14  C.
Chandrappa,  PW-15  S.  H.   Parameshwarappa,   PW-16   M.G.   Nirannjanappa
(complainant), PW-17 H.N. Puttaiah,  PW-18  Shankar,  PW-19  Aravind,  PW-20
Basavarajappa @ Basappa, PW-21 M.R.  Haleshappa,  PW-22  Rudreshappa,  PW-23
Angadi Nataraja,  PW-24  Koti  Rudreshi  @  Rudreshappa,  PW-25  Dr.  Suresh
(Incharge of  General  Hospital  Honnali),  PW-26  C.R.  Umesh,  PW-27  N.M.
Shankar,  PW-28  M.  Gopalappa  (SHO  of  Police  Station  Doddapet),  PW-29
Parvathamma (mother of the deceased), PW-30  Chanabasappa,  PW-31  Laxmappa,
PW-32 M.K. Gangal and PW-33 S.G.  Patil  (Inspector,  who  investigated  the
crime).

Before further discussion, we think it just and proper to mention the  ante-
mortem injuries found on the dead body of the  deceased,  recorded  by  PW-2
Dr. C. Francis in Ext. P-2 as under: -


(1)   Lacerated wound 3” x ½” bone  deep  on  the  scalp  and  left  fronto-
parietal region.
(2)   Sutured wound ½” x ¼” on the helix of left ear.
(3)   Sutured lacerated wound ½” x ½” on the left muscular region.
(4)   Sutured wound ½” x ¼” on the back of left elbow.
(5)   Sutured wound ½” x ¼” on the back of lower right arm.
(6)   Multiple, irregular, sutured wounds about ½” x ¾” all  over  the  left
leg.
(7)   Multiple, irregular, sutured wounds situated all over the right leg.
(8)   Punctured would ¼” x ¼” bone deep situated on  the  medial  aspect  of
lower third of  right  leg.   On  dissection  the  muscles  are  irregularly
lacerated and comminuted fractures of tibia and fibula on  the  upper  third
and compound fracture of tibia and fibula at the lower  third,  the  muscles
are lacerated and plenty of blood clots present.
(9)   Diffused  swelling  of  left  arm,  on  dissection,  the  muscles  are
lacerated and large blood clots present.

      In the opinion of the  medical  officer  (PW-2  Dr.  C.  Francis),  as
mentioned in Ext. P-2, the deceased died  of  shock  and  haemorrhage  as  a
result of injury to vital organ, i.e. brain.

The star witness of the prosecution case is PW-1 Kumari M.N. Rajeshwari  who
is the sister of the  deceased.   After  narrating  the  prior  incident  of
03.03.1998 which occurred at 3.00 p.m., she has stated that her father  (PW-
16 Niranjanappa) along with her brother  (deceased)  and  herself  left  the
village Marigondanahalli at about 5.00 p.m. for  Honnali  to  consult  their
lawyer to lodge the report.  She further told that Mr.  Srinivas,  advocate,
to whom they had gone to meet, was not available at Honnali and as such  her
father decided to wait for him, and advised her and her brother to  go  back
to the village.  She further told that she left Honnali  at  6.30  p.m.  and
came with her brother Basavaraj to Kadadakatte  on  their  way  back.   PW-1
Rajeshwari has further stated that at 7.00 p.m. she and her brother  reached
Kadadakatte, and by 7.30  p.m.  they  had  covered  distance  of  about  two
kilometers on  foot,  when  the  four  accused  namely  Eshwarappa,  Girish,
Shivaraj and Shivappa appeared, and intercepted them.  Accused Girish  said,
“Anna Bandaru” (brother! they have come), and Shivaraj  (A-2)  gave  a  blow
with Kandli (heavy sharp edged  weapon)  on  the  head  of  Basavaraj.   She
further told that she lied down on her brother and pleaded  to  the  accused
to leave him, but Shivaraj (A-2) dragged her away, and thereafter Girish (A-
3) and Shivappa (A-4) assaulted Basavaraj with iron rods.  She further  told
that Shivappa (A-4) assaulted on her leg.   And  Eshwarappa  who  was  armed
with club, assaulted her brother near  his  ear,  and  also  at  the  elbow.
After assaulting the two, the  accused  persons  left  towards  the  village
uttering “Soolemaga Sathu Hoda” (he is dead).

PW-1 Rajeshwari, narrating the incident further, stated that  left  helpless
after the incident, she started crying,  when  one  Kammar  Rudresh  passing
through on bicycle came, and she told about the incident.  And said  Rudresh
went to the village and informed to the  villagers,  who  in  turn  came  in
bullock cart.   Thereafter,  in  another  bullock  cart  her  mother  (PW-29
Parvathamma) reached.  And Basavaraj  was  taken  on  a  bullock  cart  upto
Kadadakatte crossing from where an autorikshaw was engaged  up  to  Chellur.
According to  PW-1  Rajeshwari,  on  receiving  the  information  about  the
incident her father also came to Chellur, and from there  they  all  boarded
matador van, and took the injured Basavaraj to the  Shimoga  Hospital.   She
further told that  at  about  10.30  p.m.  Basavaraj  was  admitted  in  the
Hospital but succumbed to injuries in the night.  Lastly she told  that  her
father (PW-16 Niranjannappa) gave  report  to  the  police.   She  has  also
corroborated the fact that the police prepared the inquest report, and  that
she had shown place of incident to the police  during  interrogation.   PW-1
Rajeshwari has been subjected to lengthy cross-examination but  nothing  has
come out which creates doubt in her testimony.

Explaining the motive of the commission of  crime  PW-16  M.G.  Niranjanappa
(complainant) has stated that there was dispute of property between him  and
his brother (A-1 Eshwarappa) for fifteen years prior to  partition.   It  is
further stated by PW-16 Niranjanappa that in the family partition  when  the
land was partitioned, four acres of  land  was  separately  kept  aside  for
maintenance of their mother who used to live with A-1 Eshwarappa.   But  A-1
sold the property given to their mother.  He has further  stated  that  when
the mother purchased a property  in  village  Marigondanahalli,  complainant
demanded his share which was denied to him.  Not only  this,  the  house  in
which the two brothers used to live separately with  their  families,  stood
in the  name  of  the  complainant  which  A-1  Eshwarappa  demanded  to  be
transferred to his name.  A Panchayat was called which resolved the  dispute
by directing A-1 to pay ?15,000/- to the  complainant,  but  A-1  paid  only
?5000/-.  PW-16 Niranjanappa further told that about  eleven  months  before
the incident, due to above  dispute  there  was  Galata  (commotion/scuffle)
between the  rival  parties  with  regard  to  which  a  criminal  case  was
registered which was pending against A-1 Eshwarappa and A-3  Girish.   Also,
fifteen days prior to the incident in question there had been  quarrel  over
plucking of tamarind fruits by the family of the complainant.  This  witness
(PW-16 Niranjanappa) has also corroborated the fact  that  on  the  date  of
incident (03.03.1998) at 5.00 p.m. he, along with  his  son  Basavaraj   and
daughter PW-1 Rajeshwari, had gone to meet their counsel,  but  he  was  not
available, and Basavaraj and Rajeshwari were asked by him to go back to  the
village as he wanted to wait to meet the counsel.  The witness  has  further
told that he made the complaint (Ext. P-17) to the police which  was  signed
by him.

PW-30 Chanabasappa has corroborated the fact that one Rudresh  came  to  his
house on 03.03.1998 at 8.00 p.m. and informed about the  incident  on  which
he went to Chellur and saw Basavaraj in injured condition.

PW-3 Dr. Nanda Koti of Mc Gann Hospital, Shimoga, where Basavaraj was  taken
after the incident, has stated that at 10.40 p.m. the  injured  was  brought
to the hospital with the history of assault by four accused (Eshwarappa  and
others).  This witness  has  proved  the  wound  certificate  (Ext.P-4)  and
stated that the injured succumbed to injuries in the night  at  about  00.45
hours.  He further told that at  the  time  of  admission  in  the  hospital
Baswavaraj was unconscious.

PW-29 Pavarthamma has also corroborated the  prosecution  story  and  stated
that after she received the information of the incident through  one  Kammar
Rudresh, she rushed to the spot with Halesh, Nataraj, Kammar Rudresh and  M.
Rudresh  on  a  bullock  cart.   She  further  told   that   Gurushanthappa,
Basavanagowda, Umesha and Shankara had  already  reached  there  with  their
bullock cart.  She further narrated that they all took the injured  to  some
distance on bullock cart whereafter an autorikshaw was engaged upto  Chellur
and from Chellur, where her husband (Niranjanappa) also  joined,  they  took
the injured in a van to Mc Gann Hospital,  Shimoga.   She  has  also  stated
that her daughter PW-1 Rajeshwari had also suffered minor injuries.

PW-25 Dr. Suresh has stated that on 04.03.1998 (next day  of  the  incident)
he medically examined PW-1 Rajeshwari and found following  injuries  on  her
person: -

(i)   Contusion on medial aspect of the right leg which was about 3 cms x  1
cms in size.
(ii)  Pain and tenderness was present on the left side of the neck.
(iii) Abrasions on the left hand is about 1 cm x ½ cm in diameter.
(iv)  Tenderness present all over the body

            He also proved the wound certificate (Ext.P-25).

The trial court has disbelieved the evidence  of  injured  eye-witness  PW-1
Rajeshwari observing that the same is not corroborated  by  other  witnesses
of fact who have turned hostile or partly hostile.  But the trial court  has
committed grave error in ignoring the fact  that  such  witnesses  were  not
witnesses of the incident.  The prosecution case is that  they  reached  the
spot  subsequently.   The  trial  court  strangely  did  not   believe   the
prosecution story on the ground that advocate Srinivas was not  produced  by
the  prosecution.   It  is  relevant  to  mention  here  that  as  per   the
prosecution story he was not at his residence when PW-16  Niranjanappa  with
his son and daughter had gone to meet him in  connection  with  the  earlier
incident of the day.

Having gone through the entire evidence on record,  as  narrated  above,  we
agree with the High Court that the trial  court  committed  grave  error  by
accepting the defence  case  that  the  deceased  might  have  died  of  the
injuries suffered in an accident, as the possibility was not  ruled  out  by
PW-2 Dr. C. Francis.  We have carefully gone through the  statement  of  Dr.
C. Francis.  What he has stated in the cross-examination is  “such  injuries
can be caused to a person if he meets accident”.  There is no suggestion  of
the fact that at the place of incident any vehicle  had  passed  through  at
the time of the indicent.  The trial court appears to have taken support  of
conjectures and surmises.  In the circumstances, we are of the opinion  that
the High Court has correctly held that the view taken by the trial court  is
perverse and against the evidence on record.

As  discussed  above,  the  statement  of  PW-1  Rajeshwari   (injured)   is
corroborated not only from  the  statements  of  PW-16  Niranjanappa,  PW-29
Parvathamma and PW-30 Chanabasappa but also from  the  medical  evidence  on
record.  The First Information Report in the  present  case  is  prompt  and
copy of the same appears to have been sent on  the  very  next  day  to  the
Magistrate without delay.  On behalf of the State it  is  pointed  out  that
from the record it is clear that all the three  appellants  were  absconding
from the  village  after  the  incident,  and  could  be  arrested  only  on
10.03.1998.  Also, there is mention in the Wound Certificate (Ext.  P-4(b)),
issued by PW-3 Dr. Nanda Koti, regarding  history  of  assault  -  which  is
quoted below: -

                             “WOUND CERTIFICATE

      Wound or injuries found on  the  person  of  a  male  calling  himself
Basavaraj aged 28 years, an inhabitant  of  Marigondanahalli  who  was  sent
with --from -- and accompanied by Channappa for report as  certain  injuries
said to have been caused on 3.3.98 and to  be  due  to  said  to  have  been
assaulted by 4 persons, Eswarappa and others with club on  3.3.98  at  about
7.30 p.m…………………..”


On behalf of the accused/appellants Shri  B.H.  Marlapalle,  learned  senior
counsel argued that had the incident taken place in the manner suggested  by
the prosecution, the injured would  have  been  taken  to  nearest  hospital
available was at Chellur but he was  taken  to  hospital  at  Shimoga  which
creates doubt as to the place of the incident.  We  find  no  force  in  the
argument for the reason that there is nothing on record to show  that  there
were facilities to treat the critically injured patient at Chellur.  It  has
come on record that the injured was in  a  critical  condition  and  he  was
unconscious when admitted in Shimoga hospital.  Merely for the  reason  that
one doctor used to be posted at  Chellur  does  not  mean  that  there  were
facilities to treat the patient of  critical  condition,  as  such,  in  our
opinion, there  appears  nothing  unusual  in  taking  the  injured  to  the
hospital where the injured could be given better treatment and time  is  not
lost.
The another argument advanced on behalf of the appellants is that there  are
no details of  assault  in  the  First  Information  Report  and  the  story
narrated by PW-1 Rajeshwari is nothing  but  an  improvement.   However,  on
carefully going through the  First  Information  Report  we  find  that  all
necessary facts are narrated and only  the  details  like  from  which  side
particular accused came are not stated.  It is settled law  that  the  First
Information Report is not an encyclopaedia, and  if  the  necessary  details
are there, on its basis  detailed  narration  by  the  witnesses  cannot  be
doubted.
The third point raised before us is that in the wound certificate  (Ext.  P-
4) there are only  two  injuries,  i.e.  bone  fracture  of  right  leg  and
puncture  wound  below  left  angle  of  mandible  covered  with  blood  are
mentioned, while in the post  mortem  report  there  are  nine  ante  mortem
injuries.  As such there is apparent discrepancy between the two  documents.
 On deeper scrutiny, we find that there is  no  material  contradiction  for
the reason that PW-3 Dr. Nanda Koti has proved Ext. P-4(b)  wherein  it  has
been mentioned that the patient needed immediate treatment,  as  such,  only
gross injuries were entered in the register (not  the  minor  injuries)  and
the patient was shifted to emergency ward.  In the cross-examination he  has
clearly  stated  that  Basavaraj  (deceased)  was   unconscious.    In   the
circumstances, addition of stitched wounds in post mortem report (Ext.  P-2)
does not create doubt regarding the incident in question.

As to the source of light it is argued that it is not clear as to  how  PW-1
Rajeshwari recognized the accused.  Had the accused  been  unknown  persons,
we would have accepted this argument.  But the accused were close  relatives
living in the house of the witness, as such, it cannot be said that  it  was
difficult at all for her to recognize them when they assaulted  her  brother
at 7.30 p.m. on the way back from Honnali to Marigondanahalli.


Shri  B.H.  Marlapalle  further  contended  that  not  recording  of   dying
declaration of the deceased is a material fact in the present case.  We  are
unable to agree with the  contention  of  learned  senior  counsel  for  the
reason that it has come on record that the deceased was not in  a  conscious
condition when he was admitted in  the  hospital.   As  such,  there  is  no
question of recording  of  dying  declaration  of  the  patient  in  such  a
critical condition.

Learned senior counsel for the appellants drew our attention to the case  of
Irlapati Subbaya v. The Public Prosecutor, Andhra Pradesh[1], and  submitted
that in the similar circumstances this Court did not find sufficient  reason
for the High Court to set aside the order of acquittal.  On perusal of  said
case law, we find that that was  a  case  where  prosecution  witnesses  had
given different time of occurrence between  noon  and  just  before  sunset.
There was also doubt as to the place of incident in said case.  But  in  the
present case there is no doubt either as to the time of incident or  to  the
place of incident.

Next case referred on behalf  of  the  appellants  is  Joseph  v.  State  of
Kerala[2], and it is submitted that the evidence of  the  sole  injured  eye
witness should not be accepted without corroboration and caution.  On  going
through the case law referred, we find that  this  Court  observed  in  said
case that the testimony of the sole injured eye witness was not reliable  as
there were two separate versions of the incident in  two  First  Information
Reports and one was suppressed.  The First Information  Report  relied  upon
was found doubtful as PW-1 himself did not acknowledge his signature in  the
First Information Report relied by the prosecution.  In  the  present  case,
in  our  opinion,  the  evidence  of   PW-1   Rajeshwari   is   sufficiently
corroborated from the statements of PW-16  Niranjanappa,  PW-29  Parvathamma
and PW-30 Chanabasappa.


Lastly, learned senior counsel for the appellants referred to  the  case  of
Muluwa son of Binda and others v. The State of Madhya Pradesh[3] and  it  is
submitted that where two views are  possible,  the  High  Court  should  not
interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the trial court.   We  agree
with the principle of law that when two views are possible, the  view  taken
by the trial court should not be disturbed, but  in  the  present  case  the
view taken by the trial court, as discussed above, was perverse and  rightly
held so by the High Court.

For the reasons, as discussed above, we find no force in this  appeal  which
is liable to be dismissed.  Accordingly, the same is dismissed.

The appellants M.G. Shivaraj and Hebballi Shivappa (appellant   Nos.  2  and
3) are on bail.  Their bail bonds  stand  cancelled  and  the  sureties  are
discharged.  They shall  surrender  forthwith  before  the  trial  court  to
undergo the sentence awarded by the High Court.



                                                            ………………………..…….J.
                                                               [N.V. Ramana]



                                                            ………………………..…….J.
                                                          [Prafulla C. Pant]
New Delhi;
March 02, 2017.

-----------------------
[1]    (1974) 4 SCC 293
[2]    (2003) 1 SCC 465
[3]    (1976) 1 SCC 37



No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.