KRISHNEGOWDA & ORS.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA BY ARKALGUD POLICE

                            [2017] 4 S.C.R. 934


A                      KRISHNEGOWDA & ORS.
                                     v.
           STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ARKALGUD POLICE                     1 •·

                     (Criminal Appeal No. 635 of 2006)               ;   '.

B                           MARCH 28, 2017
           [N. V. RAMANA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.J
          Penal Code, 1860 - ss.34, 149, 302, 323 and 324 - Enmity
  between two groups - Unlawful assembly formed by accused persons
  attac.';ed victim party - Death of one 'C' (father of PW2) - Trial
c court  acquitted accused persons on the basis of inconsistent evidence
  of prosecution witnesses with that of medical evidence and other
  probable circumstances, holding that prosecution could not prove
  the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt - Appeal by
  respondent-State, High Court reversed acquittal and convicted
D accused persons - On appeal, held: The basic principle of criminal
  jurisprudence is that the accused is presumed innocent until his
  guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt - In the instant case, at
  each and every stage of trial, there were lapses on part of
   investigating agency - Evidence of eyewitnesses was only consistent
E on the aspect of injuries inflicted on the deceased but on all other
  factors there were lot of discrepancies - The contradictions went
   into the root of the matter and thus were not trustworthy to form
   basis for conviction - Judgment of High Court set aside and order
  of acquittal passed by Trial Court, affirmed.
          Witness:
F
         Eyewitnesses - Evidence of - Discrepancies in - Appreciation
  of - Held: Generally in criminal cases, discrepancies in the evidence
  of witness is bound to happen as there is considerable gap between
  the date of incident and the time of deposing evidence before Court
  - But, if these contradictions create serious doubts in the mind of
G Court about the truthfulness of witnesses and it appears that there
  is clear improvement, then it is not safe to rely on such evidence .
         . Related witnesses - Corroboration of - When needed - Held:
    There· is no absolute rule that the evidence of related witnesses has
    to be corroborated by independnet witnesses - However, it would
H
                                    934
   KRISHNEGOWDA & ORS. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY                          935
               ARKALGUD POLICE

be trite in law to have independent witnesses when the evidence of A
related eyewitnesses is found incredible and not trustworthy.
       FIR - Contents of - Name of two accused missing in FIR -
Effect of - Held: It is true that FIR need not be an encyclopedia
and it need not contain all the details - However, in the instant case
when prosecution witnesses consistently deposed that A2 and A5           B
had inflicted major injuries causing death of the deceased, then
                                               a
non-mentioning of their names in FIR casts doubt on the whole
episode - High Court erred in holding that non-mentioning of their
names in FIR was not fatal to prosecutions case.               ·
      Criminal Trial:                                                    c
      Laches in investigation- Held: Mere /aches on the part of
Investigating Officer itself cannot be a ground for acquitting the
accused- Courts have to independently deal with the case and
should arrive at a just conclusion beyond reasonable doubt basing
on the evidence on record- However, in the present case, there were D
clear /aches in investigation in which case benefit of doubt has to
go to the accused persons.
       Duty of Court - Held: Court should always make an endeavor
to find the truth - A criminal offence is not only an offence against
an individual but also against the society - Court should be able to     E
perceive both sides i.e. the prosecution as well as the defence - It
would be failure of justice if an innocent man is punished.
      Evidence - Medical evidence and ocular evidence -
Contradictions between - Effect of - Held: Once there is a clear
contradiction between the medical and ocular evidence coupled            F
with severe contradictions in the oral evidence, the benefit of doubt
has to go to the accused - On the basis of material on record, finding
of High Court wrong that o.cular evidence and medical evidence
are in conformity with the case of prosecution to convict the accused
persons - High Court wrongly brushed aside the vital defects in the
prosecution case.                                                        G
      Allowing the appeals, the Court
      HELD: 1.1 Oral Evidence: (i) PW 1 to 3 are sons of the
deceased. Their evidence is consistent about one aspect that is
with regard to the injuries sustained by the deceased at the hands
                                                                         H
936           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2017] 4 S.C.R.


A of accused, but the evidence on record makes it clear that there
  are several contradictions in the evidence of witnesses which
  creates doubt in the mind of the Court as rightly observed by the
  Trial Court. [Para 18) [944-G-H; 945-A-B]
          1.2 Having gone through the evidence of the prosecution
 B witnesses and the findings recorded by the High Court it is clear
   that the High Court had failed to understand the fact that the
   guilt of the accused has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt
   and this is a classic case where at each and every stage of the
   trial, there were lapses on the part of investigating agency and
 C the evidence of the witnesses is not tr~stworthy which can never
   be a basis for conviction. The b.asic principle of criminal
   jurisprudence is that the accused is presumed to be innocent
   until his guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt. [Para 19) [947·
      BJ
         1.3 Generally in the criminal cases, discrepancies in the
 D evidence of witness is bound to happen because there would be
   considerable gap between the date of incident and the time of
   deposing evidence before the Court, but if these contradictions
   create such serious doubt in the mind of the Court about the
   truthfulness of the witnesses and it appears to the Court that
 E there is clear improvement, then it is not safe to rely on such
   evidence. [Para 20) (947-C-D]
            1.4 In the case on hand, the evidence of eyewitnesses is
      only consistent on the aspect of injuries inflicted on the deceased
      but on all other factors there are lot of contradictions which go to
 F    the root of the matter. [Para 21) [947-D-E]
         1.5 It is to be noted that all the eyewitnesses were relatives
   and the prosecution failed to adduce reliable evidence of
   independent witnesses for the incident which took place on a
   public road in the broad day light. Although. there is 'DO absolute
 G rule that the evidence of related witnesses has to be corroborated
   by the evidence of independent witn~ss.es, it would be trite in
   law to have independent witnesses when the evidence of related
   eyewitnesses is found to be incredible and not trustworthy. The
   minor variations and contradictions in the evidence of
   eyewitnesses will not tilt the benefit of doubt in favor of the
 H
     KRISHNEGOWDA & ORS. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY                      937
                 ARKALGUD POLICE

accused but when the contradictions in the evidence of A
prosecution witnesses prove to be fatal to the prosecution case
then those contradictions go to the root of the matter and in such
cases accused gets the benefit of doubt. [Para 2S) (948-D-F)
       1.6 It is the duty of the Court to consider the
trustworthiness of evidence on record. In the facts on hand, the       B
evidence of the witnesses is filled with discrepancies,
contradictions and improbable versionLwhich leads to the
irresistible conclusion that the evidence of these witnesses cannot
be a basis to convict the accused. [Para 26] (948-G]
      2;1 Laches in Investigation: (i) One of the major lacuna in      c
the case is non-mentioning .of the names of A2 & AS by PWl to
the police at the earliest point of time. The High Court went
wrong in observing that this will not amount to laches and it will
not go to the root of the matter. It is no d~ubt true that the FIR
need not be an encyclopedia and also it need not contain all the
details but when the names of A2 & AS were not figured in the          D
FIR it casts a doubt on the whole episode. [Para 27) [948-G-H;
949-A-B]
      2.2 It is settled law that mere laches on th-.e part of
Investigating Officer itself cannot be a ground for acquitting the
accused. If that is the basis, then every criminal case will depend    E
upon the will and design of the Investigating Officer. The Courts
have to independently deal with the case and should arrive at a
just conclusion beyond reasonable doubt basing on the evidence
on record. [Para 28] [949-G-H)
      3.1. Medical Evidence: In terms of the material on record,       F
the finding of the High Court that the ocular evidence and the
medical evidence are in conformity with the case of prosecution
to convict the accused is disagreed. The High Court brushed
aside the vital defects involved in the prosecution case and in a
very unconventional way convicted the accused. [Para 31) [9SO-         0
F]
     3.2 Once there is a clear contradiction between the medical
and the ocular evidence coupled with severe contradictions in
the oral evidence, clear laches in investigation, then the benefit .
of doubt has to go to the accused. [Para 30] [950-E]
                                                                       H
938            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2017] 4 S.C.R.


A            3.3 The Court should always make an endeavor to find the
      truth. A criminal offence is not only an offence against an in~ividual
      but also against the society. There would be failure of justice if
      innocent man is punished. The Court should be able to perceive
      both sides i.e. the prosecution as well as the defence. (Para 32)
B     (950-G)
            Takhaji Hiraji v. Thakore Kubersing Chamansing & Ors.
            (2001) 6 SCC 45; State of MP.v. Mishrilal (dead) & fJrs.
            (2003) 9 sec 426 - referred to.
                              Case Law Reference
 c          c2001) 6 sec 45           referred to               Para 15
            (2003) 9 sec 426          referred to               Para 15
           CRIMINAL APPELI;ATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
   · No. 635 of 2006.
           From the Judgment and Orderdated25.10.2005 of the High Court
 D of Kamataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No. 763 of 1999
                                         WITH
           Cr!. A. No. 1067 of 2006.
           Kiran Suri, Sr. Adv., Ms. T. Shanthi, Anando Selvam, Pravesh
     Thakur, P. Narasimhan, Ad vs. for the Appellants.
 E         V. N. Raghupathy, Lagnesh Mishra, Parikshit P. Angadi, l>rakash
     Jadhav, Advs. for the Respondent.
           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
         .N. V. RAMANA,J. 1. These two appeals ariseoutofacommon
   judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of
 F Kamataka in Criminal Appeal No. 763/1999 wherein the High Court
   has set aside the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court and convicted
   the accused under various sections of Indian Penal Code {for short
    'IPC').
          2. The Criminal Appeal 635/2006 is preferred by accused [Al,
 G A4 a11d AIO] who were convicted by the High Court for the offence
   punishable under Section 324 read with Section 149, IPC and sentenced
   them to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine
   of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo 2 months further imprisonment. A IO
   was further convicted for the offence under Section 323, lPC and imposed
                                                                     a
 H fine of Rs 500/- and in default to undergo imprisonment for further
   KRISHNEGOWDA & ORS. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY                              939
         ARKALGUD POLICE [N. V. RAMANA, J.)

period of2 months.                                                           A
      3. The Criminal Appeal 1067/2006 is preferred by accused Nos.
2 & 5 who were convicted by the High Court for the offences punishable
under Section 302 read with 34, lPC and Section 324 read with 149,
IPC. Under Section 302 they were sentenced to undergo life
imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs 10,000/-, in default to undergo further   B
imprisonment for one year. Under Section 324 the punishment imposed
was imprisonment for a period of one year and fine of Rs 500/- and in
default to undergo imprisonment for a further period of2 months.
         4. Brief facts as unfolded by the prosecution are that Chennegowda
  (deceased), the resident ofMudugere Village, had 12 acres of land near c
· Masarangala Village our of which eight acres were consisting of coffee
  plantation and four acres were wet land. Due to construction of bridge
  over Hemavathi river which caused submersion of some surrounding
  lands in the backwaters, Channegowda and his sons used to pass through
  the cart track in Survey No. 42 and other lands in Survey No. 43 belonging
  to the accused persons since they were located between coffee estate D
  of Chennegowda and the road to Kendenne village, to have access to
  his coffee estate, the deceased could get a road sanctioned from the
  authorities. Accused No. 7, Rajappa got temporary injunction against
  that sanction which led to the deceased to move the Court and got the
  temporary injunction vacated. When a Court commissioner inspected E
  the disputed lands, a quarrel had erupted between the accused and victim
  parties. The Panchayat settled the issue by directing the deceased to
  pay Rs.I 000/- to the brother ofAccused No. 13. Accordingly the payment
  was made but the enmity between the twd:_!¥oups continued.
        5. In the backdrop of this factual scenario, on27'h February, 1991 F
 at about 8 am, when Sannegowda (PWl), Channegowda (PW5) and
 Swamygowda (PW6) - all belonging to victim party, were carrying milk
 to the collection centre of Daarikongalale village, accused Nos. 1 to 7
 and 9 to 13 formed into an unlawful assembly and restrained Sannegowda
 (PWl) near Higher Primary School and assaulted him with clubs and
 stones. At that point of time Channego~da (father of PW 1), G
 Mogannagowda (PW2) and Papegowda (PW3) came and interfered
 questioning the accused reasons for the assault. Then Puttegowda (A5)
 and Nanjegowda (A2) attacked Channegowda (father of PW 1) seriously
 injuring him with chopper and club respectively. Sannegowda (PW!),
 Moganangowda (PW2) and Papaegowda:(PW3) were injured at the H
940            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                             [2017] 4 S.C.R.


A hands of A2 and A3. The injured were shifted to hospital and the same
  was informed to police.
        6. The Investigating Officer, Lakshmi Prasad, PSI (PWl 9)
  recorded the statement (Ex.Pl) of Sannegowda (PW 1) and registered
  the case against Krishnegowda (Al) and five others for the offences
B punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 324 read with Section 149,
  IPC. Meanwhile, the seriously injured Channegowda (father of PW 1)
  was treated in S.C. Hospital at Hassan for two days, thereafter he was
  shifted to NIMHANS, Bangalore, from there to Victoria Hospital,
  Bangalore and finally again to S.C. Hospital at Hassan where on 6'h
  March, 1991 he succljmbed to the injuries. Consequently, charge under
C Section 302, IPC was added against the accused, inquest report prepared,
  pos.tmortem conducted, statements of witnesses have been recorded
  and Investigating Officer got prepared sketch of scene of occurrence
  and seized choppers and clubs from the place of occurrence and sent it
  to Forensic Science Laboratory at Bangalore.
D        7. The Principal Sessions Judge at Hassan took cognizance of the
   offence and framed charges. Before framing charges, accused No. 8
   died. Hence charges were framed against remaining 12 accused for the
   offences punishable under Sections 148, 302/149, 324/149 and 323/249
   of IPC. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution
 E examined 22 witnesses, PW s 1 to 6 and 11 being eyewitnesses, marked
   Ext. P-1 to P-41 and MOs 1 to 6 were produced at trial. However, in
   defence no witness was examined on behalf of the accused.
             8. The Trial Court after a full fledged trial has acquitted the accused
      as the Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution could not prove
 F    the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The whole e:nphasis
      and basis for the Trial Court to come to such a conclusion is on the
      following:
             (a) The evidence of the eyewitnesses is inconsistent and not
                 trustworthy. The first information report did not contain the
 G               names of accused and this would lead to the inference that
                 the evidence given by PWl before the Court is an obvious
                 improvement.
             (b) The evidence of PW2 is that All & 12 hit the decea£ed with
                 stones on his chest which is not spoken by PW 1 and also not
                 supported by medical evidence. When there is inconsistency
 H
  KRISHNEGOWDA & ORS. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY                               94'1
        ARKALGUD POLICE [N. V. RAMANA, J.]

          between medical evidence and ocular evidence, the benefit          A
          of doubt should be given to the accused.
      (c) The omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the
          injuries on the person of the accused assumes greater
          importance. In view of the inherent improbabilities, the serious
          omissions and infirmities, the prosecution miserably failed to     B
          prove the case.
      (d) The police suppressed the factum of the direction given to
          police to seize the gun held by the deceased and to include an
          offence punishable under relevant Sections of the Arms Act.
      (e) Accused Nos. 7-13 were implicated in the case after 06-03-         C
          1991 as their names do not find place in the first or second
          FIR.                    .

      (f) The prosecution has not stated PW4 as witness and PW 1 &
          2 had not mentioned about his presence at the time of
          occurrence.                                              D
      (g) The evidence of PWS is not consistent with other witnesses.
      (h) The evidence of the Investigation Officer and PW 1 & 2 with
          regard to the arrest is inconsistent with others and appears to
          be tainted.
                                                                             E
      (i) The blood found on M04 is of 'O' group and both the blood
           groups of the deceased and AS are of same group.
      (j) The statement given by PWl is inconsistent with pre"ious
          statement recorded by police u/sec 171, CrPC
      (k) PW2 who was injured on 27-02-1991 went to hospital on 08-          F
           03-1991 for examination and treatment which creates an
           amount of doubt.
                                                       '
      9. Basing on the above inconsistent evidence of prosecution
witness~s with that of medical evidence and other prob<J.ble
circumstances, Trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution       G
could not prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and
therefore acquitted the accused from the offences charged against them.
       10. Aggrieved by the judgment passed by the Trial Court, the
State of Kamataka carried the matter to the High Court. The Division
                                                                             H
942           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                             [2017] 4 S.C.R.


A Bench of the High Court being conscious of the powers of the appellate
  Court in an appeal against acquittal observed that, appellate Court should
  not interfere with the order of the acquittal, ifthe view taken by the Trial
  Court is also a reasonable view of the evidence on record and the findings
  recorded by the Trial Court are not manifestly erroneous, contrary to the
  evidence on record or perverse proceedings. The High Court went ahead
B
  to scrutinize the legality or otherwise of the order of acquittal.
             11. The High Court has compartmentalized the reasons given by
      the Trial Court and thereafter dislodged the same one by one on the
      following grounds:
 c          (a) PWl to PW3 who are sons of deceased consistently deposed
                about the injuries inflicted by AZ & A5 and their evidence is
                consistent and unshaken. The evidence of PWl establishes
                factum of happening of the incident. Even though there were
                contradictions in the evidence of eye witnesses it does not
                affect the pith and substance of eye witnesses. Hence need
D               not be considered.
            (b) Though these witnesses are interested witnesses they are
                natural witness and nothing contra is elicited as such their
                evidence has to be taken into consideration.

 E          (c) Though the evidence with regard to injuries on the chest of
                the deceased allegedly inflicted by All & 12 is contrary to
                medical evidence, still the reliable testimony of the
                eyewitnesses cannot be disregarded and these contradictions
                will not go to the root of the matter.

 F          (d) The medical evidence of PW 10 fully corroborates with the
                evidence of eyewitnesses with regard to the injuries sustained
                by the deceased at the hands of A 2 & 5.
            (e) The motive for the commission of offence is successfully
                established.
 G          (f) The investigation by the police is fair and genesis of the incident
                 is not suppressed as everything is in black and white.
            (g) The presence of PSI (PW 19) at the place of occurrence
              · before recording the complaint (Ex-Pl) is not a serious infirmity
                in the prosecution case when the evidence of eyewitnesses is
 H
  KRISHNEGOWDA & ORS. v. STATE OF KA qNATAKA BY                                943
        ARKALGUD POLICE [N. V. RAMANA, J.]

          straightforward and there is nothing to show that Ex-Pl was          A
          concocted.
      (h) The other aspects such as initially arresting Sannegowda and
          Mogannagowda, sons of deceased and later on transposing
          them as PWs 1 & 2, medical examination of PW 2 taking
          place on 08-03-1991 when h<: was injured on 27-02-1991, the B
          MOs 1, 2 and 4 stained with blood and the blood group of
          deceased and AS being same 'O' group, inconsistency in the
          evidence of PWl relating to non mentioning of the names of
          A2 and AS are not at all 'fatal' to the case of the prosecution.
      (i) The seizure of weapons from the place of occurrence and              c
          later at police station, are not serious defects.
      (j) The High Court found only A2 & AS had common intention in
           taking away the life of the deceased and others did not have
           common intention.
      (k) Al to AS, A9 and AlO have common object of assaulting D
          PWl. The High Court felt that Trial Court's view was perverse,
          erroneous and contrary to the evidence available on record,
          hence it is a fit case where the appellate Court has to interfere
          with the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court.
       12. The High Court found A2 and AS guilty of committing the             E
offence under Section 302/34, IPC and sentenced them to life
imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. l 0,000/- each, in default, to suffer
further imprisonment ofone year. Al to AS, A9andA10 were convicted
under Section 324/149, IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for a
period of one year and to pay fine ofRs.SOO/-, in default, to suffer further   F
imprisonment of two months. Whereas A6, A7,A9,Al0 andA13 were
convicted under Section 323, IPC and they were directed to pay a fine
of Rs.SOO/-, in default, to suffer two months imprisonment. The
substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.
       13. That is how A 1, 3, 4 and 9 are before this Court by way of G
special leave petition. On 11th May, 2006 this Court granted leave to
accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 making them appellants .in Criminal Appeal No.
63S of2006. The Court however dismissed the S.L.P. of accused No. 9,
Ramesha, as he has not surrendered. Accused Nos. 2 and S have
preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1067 of2006 challenging the order of the
                                                                       H
944             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2017] 4 S.C.R.


A High Court.
            14. We have heard the learned counsels appearing on either side
      and perused the material available on record.
           lS. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted
  that the Court below has failed to appreciate the case and counter case.
B There are several contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses
  on several material aspects and the same goes to the root of the matter.
  It is urged that the medical evidence is not in consonance with the ocular
  evidence. The prosecution witness has concealed the genesis of the
  incident and did not place the true facts before the Court. Because the
c prosecution party was politically influential, the complaint lodged by the
  father ofAS was not investigated properly by the police. Even the injuries
  on AS were not properly explained and these are !aches on the part of
  investigation and fatal to the case of prosecution. In support of the same
  senior counsel relied on the judgment of Taklzaji Hiraji . V. Tltakore
  Kuhersing Cltamansing & ors, (200 I) 6 SCC 4S and also placed reliance
D on State ofMP V. Mislzrilal (dead) & Ors., (2003) 9 SCC 426. Non-
  mentioningofthe names ofA2 &AS at the earliest point of time is lapse
  on the part of investigation and the High Court committed a serious
  error of law in not taking these factors into consideration. The learned
  senior counsel finally submitted that the High Court based its conclusion
E by ignoring several material factors and hence the impugned judgment
  needs to be set aside.
           16. Learned counsel appearing for the State supported the
      impugned judgment.
             17. Now the issue that falls for consideration before us is whether
F     the High Court was justified in reversing the order of acquittal passed by
      the Trial Court.
         18. In view of the voluminous evidence placed on record and the
  divergent views taken by the Courts below, it has become imperative for
  us to evaluate the material on record in detail to come to a just conclusion.
G First and foremost we would like to analyze the oral evidence adduced
  by the prosecution in support of its case.
             Oral Evidence: (i) PWs 1 to 3 are sons of the deceased. As
      rightly observed by the High Court their evidence is consistent about
      one aspect that is with regard to the injuries sustained by the deceased
H
  KRlSHNEGOWDA & ORS. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY                              94S
        ARKALGUD POLICE [N. V. RAMANA, J.]

at the haads of accused, but the evidence on record makes it clear that A
there are several contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses which
creates doubt in the mind of the Court as rightly observed by the Trial
Court.
        (ii) According to PW! on 27-02-1991 he took milk to the milk
collectio11 centre at Parikongalale Village along with PWS & PV!6 at      B
07:30 a.m. At that timeAl,A3,A5, A6 held him and assaulted him with
clubs and stones and fisted him. Then he has narrated how A 1, A2, A3
and A4 assaulted him. Then the deceased, PW2 & PW3 came to the
place of occurrence and asked him why they are assaulting PW 1. AS &
A2 with chopper and club again assaulted their father and he fell down
and became unconscious. Then PW6 carried his father to the veranda C
of the school and laid him down. After that againA2,A3, AlO assa11lted
his brother. At that time police came to the scene of offence at 10 a.m.
and shifted the deceased and PW 1 to the hospital and then he wrote a
complaint and gave it to the police. Police recorded the statement and it
is attested by him.                                                       D
       (iii) Again at the time of inquest his statement was recorded by
the police. Then in the cross examination PW 1 has deposed altogether a
different version with regard to the injuries inflicted by the accused on
him and PWs 2 & 3 and added AS & Al 0 for the first time. It is stated
by him that his statement was recorded by police at 12 pm and he has        E
not given any complaint in writing. He further states that he has not
given the names of accused to the police. He denied the fact that father
ofAS gave a complaint to the police against their family at 10 a.m on 27-
02-1991 and police seized the gun. Then for the first time he stated the
names of the accused who assaulted at the time of inquest.
                                                                             F
       (iv) A close look at the evidence of PW2 reveals that according
to him they reached the scene of offence along with deceased at 9 a.m.
Al-7 ant1.A 9-13 were present there by the time they reached the place.
His evidence was consistent with regard to injuries inflicted by A2 and
AS but s~ated that All andA12 inflicted injuries on the deceased with
stones which is contrary to the medical evidence. He stated that the G
weapons were recovered from the drain. According to PWI he left the
place at 07:30. As per PW2's version, PW! left the place at 06:30 and
 PW3 gave a different version with regard to reaching the place. According
 to him they reached the place at 07:30 or 08:00 a.m and very interestingly
 he deposed that his father fell into the drain and later he was lifted from H
946            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2017] 4 S.C.R.


A there and laid him in the school veranda.
         (v) Later police reached the place of occurrence at 09:00 a.m.
  and Police have_arrested PWs 2 & 3 and released them at 05·00 p.m.
  He has specifically stated that police have not seized and sealed the
  chopper marked as MO 4. According to PW3, when they reached the
B place of occurrence, only 4-5 persons were there. According to PW2 all
  accused persons were present and even with regard to injuries also he
  took a contra stand. As per his version the whole incident has taken
  place for 15 minutes i.e. between 08:30-08:45 a.m. PW4 was not cited
  as a witness but was examined as a witness. Whereas PW5 gave
  altogether a different version. According to him, incident took place at
C 07:00 a.m. and A6 & A2 were standing near the culvert. He released
  PW 1 from clutches of the accused. According to him, police came at
  09:00 a.m. This aspect was also not deposed by PW!. PW6 states that
  A6 holding PWI 's collar which was also not deposed by PW!. According
  to him, he has attended the seizure mahazar but the MOs were not
D shown to him nor, any seal was affixed on them at the time of seizure.
             (vi) The next important evidence is that of Doctor i.e. PWIO.
      Accotding to PW I0 the weapons were not sent to him for opinion. PW I0
      in his cross examination has categorically deposed that the injuries I &
      4 are possible if a person were to fall on the curve stone of a drain.
E        (vii) PWs 13 and 15 are the Head Constables and PW 19 is the
  Inspector of Police (I.0.). According to PW13, SI has registered the
  complaint at 11 :30 a.m. and 2"d FIR was registered altering the Sections
  on 06-03-1991. PW15 deposed that 'galata' was informed to them at
  09: 15 am and they reached the scene of offence at 10 a.m. PWI had
F not sustained any visible injuries. PW I took the SI near to the drain. In
  the cross examination he said that at 08:00 a.m. 'galata' took place and
  he does not know how they came to know about the informatior_. When
  they reached the scene of offence 50-60 persons were present there. SI
  (PW19) reached the place ofoccurrence at 10:15 am and enquired PW!
  and others. The evidence of PW! 9 in the chief is that at 08:00 a.m. he
G came 'to know about the incident, went to the scene of occurrence along
  with PWs 15 & 18. Chopper, stones, club were lying near the place. By
  the time they reached the place at 08:15 a.m., 10 to 15 persons were
  present. He has not made a.gy enquiry and, he has recorded Ex. PI in
  police station at 10:30 a.ill. on the same day. He returned to the police
H
   KRISHNEGOWDA & ORS. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY                                 947
         ARKALGUD POLICE [N. V. RAMANA, J.]

·station at 09:45 a.m. It is specifically stated that he has not arrested A
 PWs 1, 2 & 3 and has not produced sample seal.
         19. Having gone through the evidence of the prosecution witm~sses
 and the findings recorded by the High Court we feel that the High Court
 has failed to understand the fact that the guilt of the accused has :o be
 proved beyond reasonable doubt and this is a classic case where at each B
 and every stage of the trial, there were lapses on the part of investigating
 agency and the evidence of the witnesses is not trustworthy which can
 never be a basis for conviction. The basic principle of criminal
 jurisprudence is that the accused is presumed to be innocent until his
 guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
                                                                                c
        20. Generally in the criminal cases, discrepancies in the evidence
 of witness is bound to happen because there would be considerable gap
 between the date of incident and the time of deposing evidence before
 the Court, but if these contradictions create such serious doubt in the
 mind of the Court about the truthfulness of the witnesses and it appears
 to the Court that there is clear improvement, then it is not safe to rely on   D
 such evidence.
        21. In the case on hand, the evidence of eyewitnesses is only
 consistent on the aspect of injuries inflicted on the deceased but on all
 other factors there are lot of contradictions which go to the root of the
 matter.                                                                         E

        22. Even with regard to seizure of weapons it was observed by
 the Trial Court that at one breath it was stated that the MOs were seized
 from the scene of offence and another version was they were seized in
 the police station and consistently it was stated that the MOs were not
 sealed and the Doctor observed that those were not sent to he~ for F
 opinion. Then the immediate question which comes to the mind of a
 prudent person is whether the MOs which are before the Court were
 the ones seized from the scene of offence. Hence an adverse inference
 has to be drawn on the prosecution case. The witnesses gave different
 versions on how the weapons were seized. Some of them indicated that G
 they were in the drain and some other witnesses said that they were
 lying on the ground at the place of occurrence. The High Court was
 correct so far as not attributing importance to the injuries inflicted by A
  11 and 12 as it did not go to the root of the matter.

                                                                                 H
948             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2017] 4 S.C.R.


A             23. In the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in re~pect of
      exact time when the incident had happened, who were the people present
      at the scene of offence, the time of police reaching the scene of offence,
      place ofregistering the complaint, there were lot of variations. According
      to PWl the complaint was recorded at hospital at 12 p.m. whereas the
      Investigating Officer deposed that he registered the complaint at 10:30
B
      a.m. at the police station. PWs 1-3 say that they were arrested by
      lnves~igating Officer but the LO. gave a contradictory statement that he
      has not arrested them. PWl initially gave a statement before the police
      saying A I ,A5, A3, A4 had not assaulted him. Later he gave a contradictory
      statement which is marked as Exhibit D 1.
c            24. The eyewitnesses have not mentioned the names of accused
      7 to 13 in any of the FIR and subsequent addition of their names after
      06-03-91 clearly demonstrates that it was an afterthought, only to implicate
      them.-
         25. It is to be noted that all the eyewitnesses were relatives and
D the prosecution failed to adduce reliable evidence of independent
  witnesses for the incident which took place on a public road in tJ,e broad
  day light. Although there is no absolute rule that the evidence of related
  witnesses has to be corroborated by the evidence of independent
  witne_sses, it would be trite in law to have independent witness~s when
E the evidence of related eyewitnesses is found to be incredible and not
  trustworthy. The minor variations and contradictions in the evidence of
  eyewitnesses will not tilt the benefit of doubt in favor of the accused but
  when the contradictions in the evidence of prost::cution witnesses proves
  to be fatal to the prosecution case then those contradictions go to the
  root of the matter and in such cases accused gets the benefit of doubt.
F
         26. It is the duty of the Court to consider the trustworthiness of
  evidence on record. As said by Benthem, "witnesses are the eyes and
  ears of justice". In the facts on hand, we feel that the evidence of
  these witnesses is filled with discrepancies, contradictions and improbable
  versions which draws us to the irresistible conclusion that the evidence
G of these witnesses cannot be a basis to convict the accused.
             27. Laches in Investigation: (i) One of the major lacuna in the
      case is non-mentioning of the names of A2 & AS by PW l to the police
      at the earliest point of time. The High Court went wrong in observing
      that this will not amount to latches and it will not go to the root of the
H
    KRISHNEGOWDA & ORS. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY                                 949
          ARKALGUD POLICE [N. V. RAMANA, J.]

  matter. These are the glaring defects which will virtually collapse the A
  case of the prosecution. It is no doubt true that the FIR need not be an
  encyclopedia and also it need not contain all the details but when the
  names of A2 & AS were not figured in the FIR it casts a doubt on the
· whole episode. According to the eyewitnesses, accused had infli.cted
  major injuries and that was the reason for the death of the deceased. It B
  is expected from a prudent man to disclose the names of accused. If the
  accused cannot be identified or not known to the PWs then it is not a
  serious thing to dwell upon but these people are very much known to
  PWl 's family. It therefore creates a serious doubt in the mind of the
  Court.
          (ii) The other glaring defect in the investigation is when A 1 has
                                                                                 c
  sustained injuries and admittedly a complaint was given by his father, a
  dut)' is cast upon the prosecution to explain the injuries. The doctor has
  also categorically deposed about the injuries sustained by Al. These
  lapses ori the pf!ft of Investigating Officer assume greater importance
. and prove to be fatal to the case of the prosecution. When the Investigating   D
  Officer deposed before the Court that the complaint given by AS 's father
  was investigated and he filed 'B- form' and the case was closed, not
  marking the document is fatal to the case of prosecution. Investigating
  Officer further suppressed the fact that there was a direct evidence to
  seize the gun used by the deceased and.register a complaint against the
  deceased under the relevant provisions Of the Arms Act which is evident        E
  from the endorsement made on Exhibit P22.
        (iv) The Investigating 'Officer himself deposed that he had not
 seen the MOs and as per the pun~h witnesses also they were not seized.
 The Doctor (PWlO) deposed that those articles were not placed before
 her and no opinion was sought.                                                  F

       (y} PW2 was also an injured witness. According to the prosec-.1tion
 he was injured on 27-02-1991. But he went to the hospital on 08-03-91
 and the reasons for delay were left unexplained.
        28. It is settled law that mere !aches on the part of Investigating G
 Officer itself cannot be a ground for acquitting the accused. If that is the
 basis, then every criminal case will depend upon the will and design of
 the Investigating Officer. The Courts have to independently deal with
 the case and should arrive at a just conclusion beyond reasonable doubt
 basing on the evidence on record.
                                                                                 H
950            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2017] 4 S.C.R.


A         29. Medical Evidence: When we look at the medical evidence,
  the Doctor (PW 10) has categorically stated that the weapons were not
  sent to her. In the chief examination, it was stated that the injuries l & 4
  on the body of the deceased are possible with chopper and club. But in
  the cross examination it was deposed that even if a person falls on a
B sharp object these injuries could happen. According to PW3, the deceased
  fell into the drain.
          (i) As per the evidence of prosecution witnesses, accused by using
   the sharp edge of the weapon assaulted on the right side of the forehead
   but the Doctor's evidence in this regard is that the deceased has not
   sustained incised wound on the forehead. PWlO further stated that ifa
 C person is assaulted with an object like M04 it would result in fracture of
   frontal bone.
            (ii) The other ground is, when the father of AS gave a complaint
  against the deceased's family as the police filed' B form' the same was
  closed and not filed before the Court. Apart from that, the direction of
D the Court to seize the gun of the deceased and file a case under the
  relevant provisions of the Arms Act was not brought to the notir.e of the
  Court. Non explanation of injuries on AS is another major defect.
          30. Once there is a clear contradiction between the medical and
   the ocular evidence coupled with severe contradictions in the oral
 E evidence, clear !aches in investigation, then the benefit of doubt has to
   go to the accused.
             31. Going by the material on record, we disagree with the finding
      of the High Court that the ocular evidence and the medical evidence are
      in conformity with the case of prosecution to convict the accused. The
 F    High Court has brushed aside the vital defects involved in the prosecution
      case and in a very unconventional way convicted the accused.
         32. The Court should always make an endeavor to find the truth.
   A criminal offence is not only an offence against an individual but also
   against the society. There would be failure of justice if innocent man is
 G punished. The Court should be able to perceive both sides i.e. the
   prosecution as well as the defence and in our considered opinion the
   judgment of the High Court suffers from several defects as discussed in
   the preceding paragraphs.

 H
   KRISHNEGOWDA & ORS. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY                           951
         ARKALGUD POLICE [N. V. RAMANA, J.]

      33. Hence we deem it appropriate to set aside the judgment of A
the High Court and re-affirm the order of acquittal passed by the Trial
Court. The accused shall be set at liberty provided they are not required
in any other case. Accordingly the appeals are allowed.


Divya Pandey                                           Appeals allowed.