Supreme Court of India
RAJENDRA @ RAJAPPA AND ORS.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA
- Citation
- 2021 INSC 219
- Decided
- 26 March 2021
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
Holding
The trial court's view was not a possible view and its findings were contrary to the evidence, so the High Court correctly convicted the appellants under s.302 read with s.149 IPC.
Summary
The deceased was attacked with weapons by his relatives while returning from work, resulting in his death. The trial court acquitted accused A‑2 to A‑6, but the High Court convicted A‑2 to A‑5 under s.302 read with s.149 IPC, finding the witnesses’ testimony credible despite minor inconsistencies. The appellants challenged the conviction, arguing that the trial court’s view was a possible one, that the witnesses were biased relatives, and that the offence should be reduced to s.304‑II. The Supreme Court held that the trial court’s view was not a possible view, that the minor contradictions did not defeat the reliability of the witnesses, and that the assault was intentional with a common object, justifying conviction under s.302/149. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the High Court’s conviction upheld.
Issues considered
- Whether an appellate court may set aside an acquittal under Section 378 CrPC when the trial court's view is not a possible view.
- Whether the testimony of relatives can be deemed trustworthy despite minor contradictions.
- Whether the facts constitute murder under Section 302 IPC with a common object under Section 149.
- Whether the conviction should be under Section 302 IPC or reduced to Section 304‑II IPC.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 378
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 143, s. 147, s. 148, s. 149, s. 302, s. 304-II, s. 307, s. 324, s. 326
Subjects
murdersection 302 IPCsection 149 IPCappeal against acquittalSection 378 CrPCwitness credibilityminor contradictionscommon objectconviction upheld
Judgment
[2021] 2 S.C.R. 293 293
RAJENDRA @ RAJAPPA AND ORS. A
v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
(Criminal Appeal No. 1438 of 2011)
MARCH 26, 2021 B
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – s. 302 r/w 149 – Murder pursuant to
armed assault – Deceased was assaulted with axe, stick, pickaxe
and stone when he was coming back from work alongwith his wife
C
(PW1) and elder brother (PW2) – Six accused – A-1 died – Trial
court acquitted A-2 to A-6 – High Court reversed acquittal of A-2
to A-5 and convicted them u/s.302 r/w s.149, however, confirmed
acquittal of A-6 – On appeal by A-2 to A-5 (appellants), held: Trial
court erred in disbelieving the evidence of PWs-1 to 3 only on the
ground that they were relatives of the deceased, forgetting that PW- D
1 was daughter of A-1 and PW-3 was A-1’s wife – No reason for
PW-3 to depose against her own husband making such serious
allegations – Depositions of PW-1 to PW-3 when considered
alongwith the documentary evidence on record and medical evidence
of PWs-10 and 14, made it clear that their evidence was natural,
E
trustworthy and acceptable – Injuries found in the post-mortem
report were attributable to overt acts of A-2 to 5, as stated in the
complaint – Contradictory portion of the statement of PW-14 not
significant to discard the total evidence on record – As the view
taken by the trial court was not at all a possible view and the findings
ran contrary to the evidence on record, the High Court rightly F
reversed the judgment of the trial court by convicting A-2 to A-5 –
From the evidence on record, it is clear that the assault was
intentional which resulted in the death of deceased, and A-2 to A-5
had a common object, as such the High Court rightly convicted
them u/s.302/149, IPC etc.
G
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.378 – Scope of –
Appeal against acquittal recorded by trial court – Held: Unless the
view taken by the trial court is not a possible view, normally the
High Court should not interfere with the acquittal recorded by the
trial court.
H
293
294 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 2 S.C.R.
A Evidence – Witness – Credibility of – Held: Only contradictions
in material particulars and not minor contradictions can be a ground
to discredit the testimony of the witnesses.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1. In various authoritative pronouncements, this
B Court has circumscribed the scope of appeal under Section 378
CrPC, in cases where appeal is preferred against acquittal
recorded by the trial court. Further, it is a settled proposition
that unless the view taken by the trial court is not a possible
view, normally the High Court should not interfere with the
C acquittal recorded by the trial court. There cannot be any straight-
jacket formula to apply readily for the cases in appeals arising
out of acquittal recorded by the trial court. Whether the view
taken by the trial court is a possible view or not; whether the
findings recorded by the trial court are in conformity with the
evidence or not; are the matters which depend upon facts and
D circumstances of each case and the evidence on record. By re-
appreciating evidence on record if appellate court comes to
conclusion that findings recorded by the trial court are erroneous
and contrary to law, it is always open for the appellate court, by
recording good and compelling reasons for interference and
E overturn the judgment of acquittal by converting the same to
that of conviction. [Para 10][303-G-H; 304-A-C]
2. In this case, the deceased; PWs-1 to 3; and accused were
closely related. The trial court disbelieved the evidence of PWs-
1 to 3 only on the ground that they are relatives of the deceased,
F forgetting the fact that PW-1 is the daughter of A-1 and PW-3 is
no other than the wife of A-1. In Ex.P-1 itself PW-1 has stated
that there was dispute between her deceased husband and his
elder brother (PW-2) on one side and her father (A-1) and his
brothers on other side in respect of sharing of tapping of toddy
trees. Further, PW-1 who was accompanying the deceased at the
G time of the incident, has stated in her evidence that at about 06:00
a.m. she, her deceased husband and also PW-2, together went to
attend coolie work and when they were returning to their house,
at about 11:30 a.m. assault was made near the hostel. It is quite
H
RAJENDRA @ RAJAPPA AND ORS. v. STATE OF 295
KARNATAKA
natural that in rural areas, going to work in early hours and coming A
back to their home around 11-11:30 a.m. to have their food. She
has also clearly stated in her deposition that A-1 (who is now
dead) hit with axe on the left cheek of the deceased, A-3 hit the
deceased with bedaga (a sharp-edged agricultural instrument)
on his head, A-4 assaulted with club on the head of the deceased,
B
and A-5 also assaulted the deceased with axe on his head. If one
examines the testimony of PW-1 closely, it is clear that it is
consistent with her allegations in her complaint – Ex.P-1.
[Para 11][304-D-H; 305-A-B]
3. Ex.P-6 is the post-mortem examination report in which
the external injuries on the dead body of the deceased were C
mentioned. If the complaint made by PW-1 and her testimony are
considered along with the injuries found in Ex.P-6 – post-mortem
report, it makes it clear that the said injuries referred in the post-
mortem report are attributable to overt acts of the accused
nos. 2 to 5, as stated in the complaint. PW-1 has not made any D
improvements, omission or contradiction, so far as it relates to
details of occurrence of the incident in the manner alleged in the
complaint – Ex.P-1 and as deposed by her in the examination-in-
chief. As PW-1 is a rustic villager, discrepancies in timelines, as
to the time when she was examined by PW-14 (doctor) for the
said injuries cannot go to the root of the prosecution case and E
further it is to be noted that she sustained injury on the said date
and she was examined by PW-14. The deposition of PW-1 appears
to be truthful and trustworthy. PW-2, the elder brother of the
deceased has also stated in his evidence narrating the incident
in the same lines as that of PW-1. PW-2 is also an injured witness F
in the incident and PW-10 (doctor) examined him for the said
injury and Ex.P-4 is the wound certificate pertaining to injuries
suffered by PW-2, issued by PW-10 – Senior Specialist in District
Hospital. The contents of the wound certificate and oral evidence
of PW-2 also establish that the injured PW-2 was brought to the
hospital by his wife with a history of assault on him on the same G
day by A-1 and others. PW-3 is none other than the wife of A-1
who died during the pendency of trial and mother of PW-1. There
is absolutely no reason for PW-3 to depose against her own
H
296 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 2 S.C.R.
A husband making such serious allegations. If the depositions of
PW-1 to PW-3 are considered along with the documentary
evidence on record and medical evidence of PWs-10 and 14, it is
crystal clear that their evidence is natural, trustworthy and
acceptable. [Para 11][305-A-G]
B 4. Though the evidence of PWs-1 to 3 is consistent,
reliable and trustworthy, the trial court, only by referring to minor
contradictions, disbelieved the whole of their testimony. The
findings, as recorded by the trial court in support of the acquittal,
are contrary to evidence on record and the testimony of PWs-1,
2 and 3. Thus such findings, being perverse and erroneous, it is
C always open for the appellate court to reverse such findings on
re-appreciation of evidence on record. [Para 11][306-D-F]
5. As regards the contradictory portion of the statement of
PW-14 with reference to entries under Ex.P-6 wherein it was
recorded that undigested food was found in the stomach, it is to
D be noticed that in Ex.P-6 itself reveals that the intestine of the
deceased was full of faecal matter, therefore, death must have
occurred between 3 to 12 hours prior to the postmortem
examination, which supports the prosecution case. In that view
of the matter, the contradictory portion of the statement of PW-
E 14 needs to be discarded and not significant to discard total
evidence on record. [Para 11][306-F-G]
6. Having regard to the evidence on record, as the view
taken by the trial court was not at all a possible view and the
findings run contrary to the evidence on record, the High Court
F has rightly reversed the judgment of the trial court by convicting
the appellants (A-2 to A-5). Further contention of the appellants
that in any case the conviction under Section 302, IPC be modified
to that of conviction under Section 304-II, IPC, has no merit.
From the evidence on record, it is clear that the assault was
intentional which resulted in the death of the deceased and all
G accused – A-2 to A-5 – had a common object, as such the High
Court has rightly convicted the accused for offence punishable
under Section 302/149, IPC etc. [Para 11][306-H; 307-A-C]
H
RAJENDRA @ RAJAPPA AND ORS. v. STATE OF 297
KARNATAKA
Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary & Anr. v. State of A
Maharashtra (2000) 8 SCC 457 : [2000] 3 Suppl.
SCR 104 – relied on
Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. v. State of
Maharashtra (1973) 2 SCC 793 : [1974] 1 SCR 489;
Kanhaiya Lal & Ors. etc. v. State of Rajasthan B
etc.(2013) 5 SCC 655 : [2013] 6 SCR 361; V.N.
Ratheesh v. State of Kerala (2006) 10 SCC 617 : [2006]
3 Suppl. SCR 314; and Moti & Ors. v. State of U.P.
(2003) 9 SCC 444– referred to
Case Law Reference C
[1974] 1 SCR 489 referred to Para 7
[2013] 6 SCR 361 referred to Para 7
[2006] 3 Suppl. SCR 314 referred to Para 7
(2003) 9 SCC 444 referred to Para 7 D
[2000] 3 Suppl. SCR 104 relied on Para 11
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 1438 Of 2011
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.02.2011 of the High Court E
of Karnataka Circuit Bench at Gulbarga in Criminal Appeal No. 1812 of
2005
Ms. Kiran Suri, Sr. Adv., S.J. Amith, Ms. Aishwarya Kumar,
Krishna Kumar, Dr. (Mrs. ) Vipin Gupta, Advs. for the Appellants.
Shubhranshu Padhi, Ashish Yadav, Rakshit Jain, Vishal Banshal, F
Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.
1. This criminal appeal is filed by the accused nos.2 to 5 in Sessions G
Case No.162 of 2003 on the file of Fast Track Court-IV, Gulbarga,
aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated
22.02.2011 in Criminal Appeal No.1812 of 2005 passed by the High
Court of Karnataka (Circuit Bench at Gulbarga).
H
298 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 2 S.C.R.
A 2. Sessions Case No.162 of 2003 is a case chargesheeted by
Shahbad Police Station in the State of Karnataka against the appellants-
accused under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 326, 307, 302 read with 149
of Indian Penal Code (IPC). For the aforesaid offences, they were tried
by the Fast Track Court-IV at Gulbarga and by judgment dated
20.06.2005, the appellants/accused nos.2 to 5 and accused no.6 were
B
acquitted for the charges framed against them. As the accused no.1
died during the pendency of the proceedings, case was abated against
him.
3. Aggrieved by the acquittal of the appellants, the respondent-
State has preferred Criminal Appeal No.1812 of 2005 before the High
C Court of Karnataka. The High Court, by the impugned judgment and
order dated 22.02.2011, has allowed the appeal partly and convicted the
appellants/accused nos.2 to 5 for various offences they were charged
with, and confirmed the acquittal of the accused no.6 (Smt. Shantabai).
All the appellants were sentenced for various offences as under :
D (i) R.I. for a period of three months and to pay fine of
Rs.3,000/- each. In default, to undergo S.I. for a period
of one month for the offence under Section 143 IPC.
(ii) R.I. for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.4,000/
- each. In default, to undergo S.I. for a period of three
E months for the offence under Section 148 r/w Sec.149
of IPC.
(iii) R.I. for a period of one year and also to pay fine of
Rs.5,000/- each. In default, to undergo S.I. for a period
of four months for the offence under Section 324 r/w
F Sec.149 IPC.
(iv) R.I. for a period of two years and to pay fine of
Rs.6,000/- each. In default, to undergo S.I. for a period
of five months for the offence under Section 326 r/w
Sec.149 of IPC.
G
(v) Life imprisonment and also to pay fine of Rs.8,000/-
each. In default, to undergo S.I. for a period of one
year for the offence under Section 302 IPC r/w Sec.149
of IPC.
4. Stated in brief, the necessary facts and the case of the
H prosecution for the disposal of this appeal are as under :
RAJENDRA @ RAJAPPA AND ORS. v. STATE OF 299
KARNATAKA [R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.]
• The complainant (PW-1) Sheshamma, is the wife of the A
deceased. That on 02.02.2003 the complainant and her
husband went to coolie work in the morning and when they
were returning along with firewood bundle and PW-2 was
following them, at about 11:30 a.m. when the complainant
and her husband came near the Government Hostel, all the
B
accused A-1 to A-6 armed with axe, stick, pickaxe and
stone, attacked the deceased and thereby inflicted fatal
wounds on his person by assaulting him with weapons which
they were carrying. It is further alleged that the complainant
rescued her husband, went behind the hostel, the accused
followed them and A-1 assaulted the deceased with axe on C
left cheek, A-2 assaulted with bedaga, A-3 assaulted with
stick, A-4 assaulted with club, A-5 assaulted with axe. A-1
is the father of the complainant; A-2 and A-4 are uncles of
the complainant; A-3 and A-5 are sons of A-1’s sister and
A-6 is one of the sisters of A-1. It is alleged in the complaint
D
that all the accused have attacked the deceased and started
abusing him saying that, inspite of telling not to pass from
the front of their houses and to show their faces, they have
come towards the side of the accused. Further, it is stated
in the complaint that when she and her husband tried to
escape and ran away from the back side of the hostel, all E
the accused followed them and attacked them. Further, it is
stated that as her husband sustained grievous injuries he
died on the spot and said incident was witnessed by her
mother Sayamma and her sister Rathnamma, Mahesh and
their villagers Haji, Hussain have also seen. In her complaint,
F
she prayed to take action against the accused.
• The police, after investigation of the case and after
completion thereof, filed chargesheet against the accused
under various sections, as stated already.
• After committal of the case to the Fast Track Court-IV, G
Gulbarga, as accused no.1 was reported dead, case against
him was abated. After hearing the accused, the charge was
framed against the appellants under Sections 143, 147, 148,
324, 326, 302, 307 read with 149, IPC. The accused pleaded
not guilty and claimed trial.
H
300 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 2 S.C.R.
A • The prosecution, to prove its case examined 22 witnesses,
i.e., PW-1 to PW-22 and got marked 15 documents as
exhibits, i.e. P-1 to P-15 and material objects - MO-1 to
MO-13 were marked. No witness was examined in defence,
but 10 documents – Ex.D-1 to D-10 were marked.
B 5. After appreciating the ocular and documentary evidence on
record, the trial court has acquitted all the accused from the charges
with the following observations :
• The deceased died due to brain hemorrhage on account of
multiple head injuries suffered by him;
C • As per the evidence, deceased died 6 to 8 hours earlier to
the postmortem examination;
• PW-1 to PW-5 being close relatives of the deceased, they
were inimical with each other before the incident, therefore,
their evidence has to be considered with great care and
D caution;
• The name of PW-6, the only independent witness, is not
mentioned in the complaint;
• It is not clear, at what time injuries were sustained or the
incident took place;
E
• The nature of injuries and details of the same are not
consistent;
• There are different versions in the oral and documentary
evidence and they do not tally with each other;
F • Key witnesses to the incident were not examined;
• The weapons used for the offence do not find a mention in
the complaint itself;
• Discrepancies in the statement of PW-1 and as she has not
G disclosed about the earlier Sessions case which was going
on against her husband, PW-2 and their father.
6. On appeal by the State, the High Court, while confirming the
conviction of the accused no.6, has convicted accused nos.2 to 5 by the
impugned judgment and order. The High Court, in the impugned judgment,
has mainly held that PW-1 is a truthful witness and her testimony is quite
H
RAJENDRA @ RAJAPPA AND ORS. v. STATE OF 301
KARNATAKA [R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.]
consistent and supports the case of the prosecution. The High Court A
believed the oral evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 who are injured witnesses.
High Court noted that PW-1 is no other than the daughter of accused
no.1 and PW-3 – Smt. Sayamma – is none other than the wife of accused
no.1 – Devendrappa. They have deposed in clear terms about the
occurrence on the day of incident. Having regard to the consistent
B
evidence of PWs-1 to 3 as to the occurrence of the incident, which is in
the manner alleged in the complaint – Ex.P1, High Court found that the
trial court has committed serious error in disbelieving their evidence, for
the charges levelled against the accused. The High Court also considered
the testimony of Medical Officer PW-14 and held that the occurrence
of incident of assault on the deceased by the accused resulting in spot C
death of the deceased, is proved beyond reasonable doubt. Further, by
observing that in view of such evidence, motive for the commission of
murder of the deceased by accused assumes little importance. However,
referring to the evidence of PWs-1 to 3 it is held that even the motive is
established as much as there was a dispute between the parties in respect
D
of tapping of toddy trees, therefore, accused developed ill-will against
the deceased. By recording a finding that the evidence on record was
not properly appreciated by the trial court, the High Court has found that
the prosecution has proved the case against the accused nos.2 to 5 and
they are guilty of committing murder of the deceased and causing injuries
to PWs-1 and 2. It is further held that all the accused – A-2 to A-5 – E
have had shared common object of causing the death of the deceased,
as such all are liable to be convicted for the offences alleged against
them.
7. In this appeal, Ms. Kiran Suri, learned senior counsel appearing
for the appellants-accused has submitted that the trial court, by F
considering the entire evidence on record and by noticing the material
discrepancies in the evidence on record, has rightly held that the
prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt. It is submitted by learned counsel that the view taken by the trial
court was a possible view. In that view of the matter, the High Court
committed error in reversing the well reasoned judgment of the trial G
court. The learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of this
Court in the case of Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr.v. State of
Maharashtra1 wherein this Court has considered the scope of appeal
1
(1973) 2 SCC 793 H
302 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 2 S.C.R.
A against acquittal under Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Reference is
also made to the judgment of this Court in the case of Kanhaiya Lal &
Ors. etc. v. State of Rajasthan etc.2 wherein this Court has considered
scope of appeal under Section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
and has held that unless there are substantial and compelling reasons,
judgment of acquittal cannot be overturned. Further, reference is also
B
made to a judgment of this Court in the case of V. N. Ratheesh v. State
of Kerala3 wherein this Court has held that the order of acquittal shall
not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the
accused is further strengthened by acquittal. By further referring to the
medical evidence and ocular evidence on record, it is submitted by learned
C counsel that evidence of PW-14 (Medical Officer) and the contents of
Ex.P-6, i.e., postmortem report run contrary to the deposition of PW-1
and that in view of such material contradictions, the High Court ought
not have interfered with the judgment of the trial court. Further, it is
submitted, having regard to the evidence of PW-14 who conducted the
autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and the Ex.P-6 – postmortem
D
examination report which revealed that stomach contained undigested
rice like food particles, as such it was held that deceased might have
died about 18 hours prior to his postmortem examination, clearly falsifies
the case of the prosecution that the deceased was assaulted by the
accused at about 11:30 a.m. on 02.02.2003. To buttress the said
E submission, the learned counsel has relied on a judgment of this Court in
the case of Moti & Ors. v. State of U.P.4. Lastly, it is submitted that in
any event it is not a case for conviction under Section 302 IPC as there
was no intention to kill the deceased, and if her submissions are not
accepted on merits of the matter, she made a request to modify the
conviction to one under Section 304-II, IPC.
F
8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State of
Karnataka, by taking us to the various findings recorded by the trial
court as well as the High Court, has submitted that the findings in support
of acquittal recorded by the trial court are perverse and erroneous. It is
always open for the appellate court to reappreciate the evidence and
G reverse such findings. It is contended by learned counsel, though PWs-
1 to 3 are rustic villagers and when deposing after a long lapse of time
from the date of incident, the minor discrepancies will occur and same is
2
(2013) 5 SCC 655
3
(2006) 10 SCC 617
4
H (2003) 9 SCC 444
RAJENDRA @ RAJAPPA AND ORS. v. STATE OF 303
KARNATAKA [R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.]
no ground to discard their evidence. It is submitted that the evidence of A
PWs-1 to 3 is trustworthy and natural. Inspite of the same, by
misconstruing the evidence, the trial court discarded their testimony only
on the ground that all are interested witnesses as they are related. It is
submitted that even the accused was related to PWs-1 to 3 and merely
because they are related, same is no ground to discard their evidence.
B
By referring to the various findings recorded by the High Court, learned
counsel has submitted that the findings recorded in support of conviction
by the High Court are in conformity with the evidence on record, as
such there are no grounds to interfere with the same. Lastly, it is submitted
that if the view taken by the trial court is a possible view, having regard
to the evidence on record, it is not open for the appellate court, unless C
there are compelling and strong grounds made out for interference but
at the same time when the findings recorded by the trial court are not in
conformity with the evidence on record, perverse and erroneous, it is
always open for the High Court to reverse the same. It is submitted that
in view of the common object shared by the accused to commit murder
D
of the deceased there are no grounds to interfere with the conviction
recorded under Section 302 read with 149 IPC etc., as recorded by the
High Court.
9. The learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on
judgments of this Court in the case of Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade 1
wherein the scope of the appeal preferred against acquittal is considered E
by this Court. In the said case this Court has considered the scope of
appeal against acquittal, as a matter of practice. Incidentally, in the said
case, this Court has also held that while appreciating evidence in criminal
trials, as far as the nature of depositions by rural witnesses is concerned,
courts not to judge their evidence by same standard of exactitude and F
consistency as that of urban witnesses. In the judgment in the case of
V. N. Ratheesh3 power of the appellate court in appeals against acquittal
is considered by this Court. Similarly in the judgment in the case of
Kanhaiya Lal2 this Court has held that while dealing with appeals against
acquittals unless there are substantial and compelling reasons and good
and sufficient grounds and very strong circumstances, interference is G
not called for.
10. It is true that in various authoritative pronouncements, this
Court has circumscribed the scope of appeal under Section 378 of the
Cr.PC, in cases where appeal is preferred against acquittal recorded by
H
304 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 2 S.C.R.
A the trial court. Further, it is also settled proposition that unless the view
taken by the trial court is not a possible view, normally the High Court
should not interfere with the acquittal recorded by the trial court. There
cannot be any straight-jacket formula to apply readily for the cases in
appeals arising out of acquittal recorded by the trial court. Whether the
view taken by the trial court is a possible view or not; whether the findings
B
recorded by the trial court are in conformity with the evidence or not;
are the matters which depend upon facts and circumstances of each
case and the evidence on record. By reappreciating evidence on record
if appellate court comes to conclusion that findings recorded by the trial
court are erroneous and contrary to law, it is always open for the appellate
C court, by recording good and compelling reasons for interference and
overturn the judgment of acquittal by converting the same to that of
conviction.
11. In this case, it is to be noted that the deceased; PWs-1 to 3;
and accused were closely related. The trial court has disbelieved the
D evidence of PWs-1 to 3 only on the ground that they are relatives of the
deceased, forgetting the fact that PW-1 Smt. Sheshamma is the daughter
of accused no.1 and PW-3 is no other than the wife of accused no.1. It
is clear from the evidence on record that they are rustic villagers and
incident happened when they were returning to their house after attending
the coolie work. In Ex.P-1 it self PW-1 has stated that there was dispute
E between her deceased husband and his elder brother Husanayya (PW-
2) on one side and her father (accused no.1 – Devendrappa) and his
brothers on other side in respect of sharing of tapping of toddy trees. As
a result of such dispute, her senior and junior uncles were telling her that
she should not come towards the side of their house. Further, PW-1
F Smt. Sheshamma, who was accompanying the deceased at the time of
the incident, has stated in her evidence that at about 06:00 a.m. she, her
deceased husband and also PW-2 – Husanayya, together went to attend
coolie work and when they were returning to their house, at about 11:30
a.m. assault was made near the hostel. It is quite natural that in rural
areas, going to work in early hours and coming back to their home around
G 11-11:30 a.m. to have their food. She has also clearly stated in her
deposition that A-1 – Devendrappa (who is now dead) hit with axe on
the left cheek of the deceased, A-3 – Dattayya hit the deceased with
bedaga (a sharp-edged agricultural instrument) on his head, A-4 – Manik
assaulted with club on the head of the deceased, and A-5 – Basayya
H also assaulted the deceased with axe on his head. If we examine the
RAJENDRA @ RAJAPPA AND ORS. v. STATE OF 305
KARNATAKA [R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.]
testimony of PW-1 closely, it is clear that it is consistent with her A
allegations in her complaint – Ex.P-1. Ex.P-6 is the postmortem
examination report in which the external injuries on the dead body of the
deceased were mentioned. If the complaint made by PW-1 and her
testimony are considered along with the injuries found in Ex.P-6 –
postmortem report, it makes it clear that the said injuries referred in the
B
postmortem report are attributable to overt acts of the accused nos.2 to
5, as stated in the complaint. PW-1 has not made any improvements,
omission or contradiction, so far as it relates to details of occurrence of
the incident in the manner alleged in the complaint – Ex.P-1 and as
deposed by her in the examination-in-chief. As PW-1 is a rustic villager,
discrepancies in timelines, as to the time when she was examined by C
PW-14 (doctor) for the said injuries cannot go to the root of the prosecution
case and further it is to be noted that she sustained injury on the said
date and she was examined by PW-14. The deposition of PW-1 appears
to be truthful and trustworthy. PW-2 – Husanayya, the elder brother of
the deceased has also stated in his evidence narrating the incident in the
D
same lines as that of PW-1. PW-2 is also an injured witness in the incident
and PW-10 (doctor) examined him for the said injury and Ex.P-4 is the
wound certificate pertaining to injuries suffered by PW-2, issued by PW-
10 – Dr. M.S. Dhadave, Senior Specialist in District Hospital, Gulbarga.
The contents of the wound certificate and oral evidence of PW-2 also
establish that the injured PW-2 – Husanayya was brought to the hospital E
by his wife with a history of assault on him on the same day by
Devendrappa (A-1) and others. PW-3 – Smt. Sayamma is none other
than the wife of accused no.1 – Devendrappa who died during the
pendency of trial and mother of PW-1. There is absolutely no reason for
PW-3 to depose against her own husband making such serious allegations.
F
If the depositions of PW-1 to PW-3 are considered along with the
documentary evidence on record and medical evidence of PWs-10 and
14, it is crystal clear that their evidence is natural, trustworthy and
acceptable. The trial court has disbelieved their testimony by referring
to some minor contradictions. This Court, in the case of Narayan
Chetanram Chaudhary & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra 5, has G
considered the minor contradictions in the testimony, while appreciating
the evidence in criminal trial. It is held in the said judgment that only
contradictions in material particulars and not minor contradictions can
5
(2000) 8 SCC 457
H
306 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 2 S.C.R.
A be a ground to discredit the testimony of the witnesses. Relevant portion
of Para 42 of the judgment reads as under:
“42. Only such omissions which amount to contradiction in material
particulars can be used to discredit the testimony of the witness.
The omission in the police statement by itself would not necessarily
B render the testimony of witness unreliable. When the version given
by the witness in the court is different in material particulars from
that disclosed in his earlier statements, the case of the prosecution
becomes doubtful and not otherwise. Minor contradictions are
bound to appear in the statements of truthful witnesses as memory
sometimes plays false and the sense of observation differ from
C person to person. The omissions in the earlier statement if found
to be of trivial details, as in the present case, the same would not
cause any dent in the testimony of PW 2. Even if there is
contradiction of statement of a witness on any material point, that
is no ground to reject the whole of the testimony of such witness.
D … … …”
Though the evidence of PWs-1 to 3 is consistent, reliable and
trustworthy, the trial court, only by referring to minor contradictions,
disbelieved the whole of their testimony. Thus, we are of the view that
the findings, as recorded by the trial court in support of the acquittal, are
E contrary to evidence on record and the testimony of PWs-1, 2 and 3.
Thus such findings, being perverse and erroneous, it is always open for
the appellate court to reverse such findings on reappreciation of evidence
on record. As regards the contradictory portion of the statement of PW-
14 pointed out by learned counsel with reference to entries under Ex.P-
F 6 wherein it was recorded that undigested food was found in the stomach,
it is to be noticed that in Ex.P-6 itself reveals that the intestine of the
deceased was full of faecal matter, therefore, death must have occurred
between 3 to 12 hours prior to the postmortem examination, which
supports the prosecution case. In that view of the matter, the contradictory
portion of the statement of PW-14 needs to be discarded and not
G significant to discard total evidence on record. In view of the foregoing,
we are of the view that the judgments relied on by the learned counsel
for the appellants would not render any assistance in support of her case
that the High Court has committed error in reversing the acquittal recorded
by the trial court. Having regard to evidence on record, as we are of the
H view that the view taken by the trial court was not at all a possible view
RAJENDRA @ RAJAPPA AND ORS. v. STATE OF 307
KARNATAKA [R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.]
and the findings run contrary to the evidence on record, the High Court A
has rightly reversed the judgment of the trial court by convicting the
appellants (A-2 to A-5). Further we also do not find any merit in the
contention of the appellants that in any case it is not a case for conviction
under Section 302, IPC and same be modified to that of conviction under
Section 304-II, IPC. From the evidence on record, it is clear that the
B
assault was intentional which resulted in the death of the deceased and
all accused – A-2 to A-5 – had a common object, as such the High Court
has rightly convicted the accused for offence punishable under Section
302/149, IPC etc. Thus, we endorse the view of the High Court.
12. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in this
appeal, same is accordingly dismissed. C
Bibhuti Bhushan Bose Appeal dismissed.
D
E
F
G
H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "murder"Sign in to search