Holding

The Supreme Court held that the High Court was correct in overturning the acquittal and that the evidence against the accused was sufficient to sustain conviction under the relevant IPC provisions.

Summary

The case arose from a land dispute in which the deceased Ratnavva and her sons were attacked by several accused who tied the deceased to an electric pole, stripped her, and repeatedly assaulted her until she died. The trial court acquitted all accused, relying mainly on the testimony of the first informant and dismissing the evidence of the deceased's relatives and an injured witness as unreliable. The Karnataka High Court reversed the acquittal, finding the relatives' and injured witness's testimonies credible and convicting the accused under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 342 and 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the credibility of the witnesses, the inconsistencies in the medical evidence, and the applicability of Section 149, concluding that the High Court had not erred and that the evidence supported conviction. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the convictions.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court erred in reversing the trial court's acquittal of the accused.
Whether the testimonies of the deceased's relatives and the injured witness can be deemed reliable despite being hostile or interested.
Whether the prosecution established the requisite common object and participation under Section 149 IPC.
Whether inconsistencies in medical and transport evidence create reasonable doubt sufficient to sustain an acquittal.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 143, s. 147, s. 148, s. 149, s. 302, s. 341, s. 342

Subjects

murderunlawful assemblySection 149 IPCwitness credibilityhostile witnessesappeal against acquittalevidence appraisalcriminal law

Judgment

A RAMAPPA HALAPA PUJARAND ORS. ••
v.
STATEOFKARNATAKA

APRIL 27, 2007

B [S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.]

Penal Code, I860; Ss. 143, I47, I48, 34I, 342 and 302 rlw S.149:

Assault and murder-Accused persons assaulted deceased, her two
C sons and another (PW 25) with deadly weapons-Injury also caused to
accused No. I accidentally-In he injured condition the deceased was forcibly
taken away and tied to an electric pole and her garments were taken off and
accused continuously assaulted her till she breathed her last-Lodging of
FIR by PW25-Charge-sheet-Trial Court acquitted all the accused persons-
D Reversed by High Court holding that there was no reason to disbelieve the
evidence of relative witnesses and injured witnesses and convicted all the
accused except A6 to A9 for committing offences under Sections 143, 147, +
I 48, 34 I, 342 and 302 rlw Section I 49 !PC and sentenced them accordingly--
On appeal, Held: Accused persons bearing ill-will against the deceased and
her family in a land dispute matter-Deceased suffered a number of ante-
E mortem injuries almost on all part of her body-Trial Court appears to have
totally relied upon the evidence of the Medical Officer that accused No. I was
brought to hospital with a history of assaults but there were inconsistencies
in the evidence of drivers of the tractor and the tempo in which accused no.
I was taken from a Hospital and then shifted to another hospital-Prosecution
F has explained about suffering of injuries by accused no. I, however, accused
no. I could not offer any explanation as to how he sustained such injuries-
The manner in which the deceased met her death would show that she had
been brutally assaulted by a large number of persons-Turning of some of
the witnesses hostile by itself would not negate the case of prosecution-
However, turning of the villagers hostile in a case of this nature would
G show that there was ring oj truth in the prosecution case-Since injuries
sustained by PW25 was not in dispute, trial Court was not justified in
disbelieving his evidence-Testimony of prosecution witnesses cannot be
said to be wholly unreliable-Accused no. 1 did not tell any thing about the
injury sustained by him to Investigating Officer, which clearly show

H 832
RAMAPPA llALAPA PUJAR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 833
;
JI--
that accused no. 1 made all the attempts to conceal the circumstances under A
which he had sustained injuries--Contradiction found in the deposition of
the prosecution witnesses, minor in nature-Under such circumstances, High
Court has believed the prosecution story-Hence, no infirmity is found in the
impugnedjudgment-Testimony of relative and injured witnesses-Evidentiary
value.
B
According to the prosecution, on the fateful day, the deceased and her
two sons went to the field/property in dispute for plucking groundnuts. The
accused persons in furtherance of their common object of assaulting them
came to the field with deadly weapons. They also chased one 'D'-PW 25 and
assaulted him. They assaulted the deceased with sticks causing bleeding
injuries. Allegedly in the scuffle that followed, accused no. 1 instigated
c
accused no.4 to stab PW25 and when an attempt was made in this behalf,
accidentally bleeding injuries were caused to accused no. 1. PW25 ran away,
he was, however, caught in a nearby place. His hands were tied and was
wrongfully confined in a house. It is also alleged that the accused persons
also threw stones at the deceased and her companions PWs.26 to 28. One of D
them had hit the deceased. PWs.25 to 28 being frightened, moved a little away
from the scene leaving the deceased on the spot. She was forcibly taken near
a Bus sand by t~e accused persons, they tied her to an electric pole and her
garments were taken off. She was tied around her neck with her own saree.
She was assaulted with sticks. She begged for water but the same was denied
E
to her. The accused continued to assault her with sticks till she breathed her
last. The first informant, PW-25 who was allegedly kept confined in his house,
after regaining consciousness when, he came to know of the murder, he
lodged the First Information Report. The post-mortem examination of the
deceased was conducted and charge sheet was filed by the police. Trial Court
acquitted the accused persons on the ground that the prosecution case has F
been supported only by the first informant, PW25, sister of the deceased and
sons of the deceased PW. 27 and PW.28 on whose evidence no reliance can
be placed.

On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court, however, opined that
there was no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PWs.25 to 28, particularly G
J
when PW.25 was an injured witness, differed with the findings of trial Court
holding that though they are the close relatives of the deceased, they cannot
be termed as the interested witnesses; Moreover the testimony given by them
in Court stands corroborated form the medical evidence on record The High
Court found all the accused persons except A6 and A9 guilty of committing H
834 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 5 S.C.R.

A offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 342, and 302 read with Section ' 4
149 ofl.P.C., convicted them and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life
and also to pay fine for commission of the offence ucder section 302 read
with Section 149 of the IPC etc. However, benefit of doubt was given to accused
A6 to AS and case against accused A9 abated as he died during trial.

B Accused-appellants contended that sufficient and cogent reasons having
been assigned in support of the judgment of acquittal recorded by the Trial
Judge which was based on probability and the view taken by it being a possible
one, the High Court committed a manifest error in reversing the said
judgment of acquittal

c Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1. Appellants and other persons supporting them were bearing
ill will against the deceased and her family. Existence of the land dispute
between the decreased and the accused stands admitted. Homicidal nature of
the death of the deceased is also not in dispute. The fact that she suffered a
D number of ante-mortem injuries is also not in dispute. From the post-mortem
report it is evident that she had suffered injuries almost on all parts of her
body. She suffered even a fracture on left thigh bone.
[Para 14) (842-G-H; 843-A]

1.2. Trial Court appears to have totally relied upon the evidence of
E PW.22, the Medical Officer. According to him accused no. 1 was brought to
the Hospital with a history of assault He examined him and found stab-wound
1 cm. above umbilicus transversally measuring 2-1/2 cm. x Y. cm. x 1 cm on
his body. [Para 15) [843-B)

1.3. The inconsistencies between evidence of PW.18 the driver of the
F tractor and PW.12 the driver of the tempo in which accused no. 1 was taken
to hospital and shifted there from to another hospital is evident. If PW.12 is
to be believed, apart from the mistake in the year in which the accident took
place, appellant no. 1 reached the Government Hospital at 10.45 A.M. They
were there only for 5 to 10 minutes. They reached the Hospital at about 12
G O'Clock which was situated at a distance of25 k.m. Why it took more than
ninety mintues to cover a distance of25 k.m., is not known. How accused
\
no.I was being taken to the Government Hospital when he had a bandage on
his stomach has not been explained. (Para 15) (843-G-H; 844-A)

1.4. Although according to PW.18 the vehicle in which accused no. 1
H was transported was a matador van, according to PW 1 he was merely driving
RAMAPPA HALAPA PUJAR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 835
a tempo. Appellant no. 1 was unconscious who made a statement in regard to A
the time or manner of occurrence and the name of the assailants is not know.
Why such a statement had to be recorded has also not been disclosed. PW.22
must have examined the accused no.I only for a few minutes. He might have
given only the first aid. [Para 15) (844-8)

1.5. The manner in which the occurrence took place at three different B
places goes to show that it must have taken some time. Possibility of the
accused appellant no.I sustaining a stab injury at the instance of the
prosecution witnesses or others is not clear. Prosecution, at least, has come
out with some explanation as to how he suffered a stab injury. On the other
hand, the appellants had not offered any explanation whatsoever. It is C
unbelievable that in a situation of this nature, particularly when an accused
had suffered a grievous injury for which he was allegedly required to remain
in hospital for more than 2 months, would not be reported to the police. PW.22,
the medical officer although stated that he had reported the matter to the
police, no attempt was made to obtain production of the said document. The
copy of the said report had also not been produced by PW.22. D
(Para 17) [844-D-F)

1.!i. Accused no.I had not been arrested. If he wu undergoing treatment
at the hospital for such a long time, he himself could have lodged a first
information report. The other villagers also could have done the same. E
Sustenance of the injury at the hands of the prosecution witnesses in ordinary
course should have been disclosed by the Panch witnesses. Investigating
Officer in his deposition stated that he came to learn about the said injury in
the course of his investigation only on 16.12.1994. He had not carried out
any investigation in relation thereto. Presumably he did not feel any necessity
therefore. The Sessions Judge made a caustic remark thereabout. F
Performance of statutory duties of the Investigating Officer making
investigation properly or not may be a subject matter of comment but the High
Court cannot be said to have committed any mistake in not getting swayed by
the said fact alone. [Para 18) (844-G-H; 845-A)

1.7. If the defence story in regard to sufferance of injury by accused
G
no. 1 at 9.30 A.M. ls not believed, much of the reasonings adopted by the
Sessions Judge to record a judgment of acquittal in favour of all the accused
persons become unsustainable. The manner in which the deceased met her
death would show that she had been brutally assaulted by a large number of
persons. She was tied with a wooden pole and not only she had been assaulted H
836 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 5 S.C.R.

A all over her body, an attempt was made even to hang her by using her saree.
;...
•
[Para 19] (845-B]

2.1. A large number of witnesses turned hostile. The same by itself would
not negate the prosecution case. The very fact that the villagers in a case of
this nature had turned hostile would, on the other hand, show that there was
B a ring of truth in the prosecution case. [Para 20] (845-D) ·

2.2. The High Court has rightly noticed that although the prosecution
witnesses turned hostile, they made no whisper about the incident having
occurred in the manner as alleged by the-accused-appellants. It is of some
significance that the injuries sustained by PW.25 is not in dispute. Why the
c evidence of the injured witnesses was not believed by the Trial Court is beyond
any comprehension. He was the brother of accused I and 2. He was also a
party to the deed of sale. The High Court had assigned cogent and sufficient
reasons in relying upon the evidence of PW.25, particularly, when there are
evidences on record to show that he had been assaulted with material objects.
D [Para 22] (845-H; 846-A-B)

2.3. Even if, the version of the respondent that accused no. I suffered
injury at the hands of PW.27 while he was firmly held by the deceased and
PW.26 is believed, the presence of PWs. 26 and 27 stands accepted.

E (Para 23) (846-C]

2.4. The fact that PW.26 is the sister of the deceased and PWs.27 and
28 were her sons, their testimonies before the Court cannot be said to be
wholly unreliable. [Para 24] (846-D]

F 2.5. In regard to the depositions of PWs.25 to 28, this Court agrees
with the inference arrived at by the High Court as regards credibility of their
evidences before the court. There may be some contradictions in the
depositions of the said witnesses but they are minor in nature. [Para 26]

Mano v. State of Tamil Nadu, JT (2007) 5 SC 143, relied on.
G
2.6. As per evidence of the Investigating Officer, accused no.I when
\
questioned, declined to tell him anything. If he was not at the place of
occurrence at the time when the incident had taken place, it was expected
that he would tell his side of the story including the manner in which he had
suffered injuries to the Investigating officer. There was absolutely no reason
H why he would suppress the fact from the Investigating Officer. This clearly
RAMAPPA HALAPA PUJAR v. STATE OF MRNATAKA [S.B. SINHA, J.) 837
• J,
goes to show that accused no.l made all attempts to conceal the circumstances A
under which he had sustained injuries on his person. If in the aforementioned
situation the High Court has believed the prosecution story, no infirmity is
found therein, particularly, when no complaint was made in that behalf by
accused no.l or by anybody else in their behalf to the police.
(Para 24] [846-D-FJ B
2.7. Accused no.l has also not raised any plea of self-defence.
Suggestions given to the prosecution witnesss are self-inconsistent and wholly
contradictory to each other. They cannot go together. (Para 25] (846-F]

2.8. The High Court, thus, in a case of this nature cannot be said to C
have committed any error in reversing the judgment of acquittal by the Trial
Court. The jurisdiction of the High Court albeit is limited in this behalf, as
wou.ld appear from some of the decisions of this Court but the High Court did
not exceed its jurisdiction. (Para 27) [847-A)

Munivel v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2006) 9 SCC 394; Mohinder Singh & D
Ors. v. State of Punjab, (2006) 10 SCC 418; Kallu alias Masiah & Ors. v.
State of MP., (2006) 10 SCC 313 and Chandrappa & Ors. v. State ofKarnataka
(2007) 3 SCALE 90, referred to •
....
CRIMINAL APPEALLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1344 E
of2005.

From the Final Judgment and Order dated 09.06.2005 of the High Court
of Kamataka at Banglore in Criminal Appeal No. 252 of 1999 (A).

Girish Ananthamurthy and Vaijyanthi Girish (for P.P. Singh) for the F
Appellants.

Rana Mukherjee, Siddharth Gautam and Sanjay R. Hedge for the
Appellants.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G
S.B. SINHA, J. I. Appellants herein have filed this statutory appeal
under the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
Act, 1970 being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment dated 9.6.2005
passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in
Criminal Appeal No.252 of 1999(A) whereby and whereunder, a judgment of H
838 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007) 5 S.C.R.

A acquittal passed by a III Additional Sessions Judge, Dharwad acquitting the
appellants herein for offence punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 341,
324, 342, 504 and 302 read with Section 149 of I.P.C., was reversed.

2. The alleged occurrence took place at about 10.30 A.M. on 13.12.1994
near the Bus stand at Village Ichangi situated in the District of Dharwad. A
B First Information Report was lodged by one Devendrappa (PW-25). He is the
brother of appellants I and 2 herein being original accused nos. I and 2.
Appellant no. 4 is married to the sister of the appellants I and 2. Appellants
I and 2 and the first informant allegedly sold 5 acres 20 gunthas of land
situated in the said Village lchangi to deceased Ratnavva. The contention of
C the accused no. I, however, was that his signature on the alleged deed of sale
was a forged one. The property, however was in possession of the deceased
Ratnavva. On 13.12.1994 at about 7.30 A.M. Ratnavva and her sons Shivananda
Basavaraj and Veeresh went to the land in question for plucking groundnuts.
The accused persons in furtherance of their common object of assaulting
them came to the land in question with deadly weapons. They chased
D Devendrappa and assaulted him. They assaulted the deceased with sticks
causing bleeding injuries. 'They were also abused. Allegedly in the scuffie
that followed, accused no. I instigated accused no.4 to stab Devendrappa and
when an attempt was made in this behalf, bleeding injuries accidentally were
caused to accused no. I. Devendrappa ran away from the said place. He was,
E however, caught near a place known Udachammana Gudi at lchangi. His
hands were tied. He was wrongfully confined to the house. It is stated that
the accused persons also threw stones at the deceased and her companions
PWs.26 to 28. One of them had hit the deceased. PWs.25 to 28 being frightened,
moved a little away from the scene leaving the deceased on the spot. She was
forcibly taken near the Bus stand of their village, tied to an electric pole and
F her garments were taken off. She was tied around her neck with her own saree.
She was assaulted with sticks. She begged for water but the same was denied
to her. The accused continued to assault her with sticks. She breathed her
last at that spot. The first informant Devendrappa (PW-25) who was kept
confined in his house allegedly had become unconscious. After regaining
G consciousness he came to know of the said. murder and lodged the First
Information Report.

3. The post-mortem examination of the deceased was conducted by Dr.
Mohantappa (PW-13). The dead body was received at the hospital for post
mortem examination on or about 11.30 P.M. in the night. The post-mortem
H examination was condu-:ted in the morning of 14.12.1994. PW 13 found the
~ RAMAPPA HALAPA PUJAR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA [S.B. SINHA, J.] 839
~
.,
following external injuries on the dead body :- A
"I. Oblique ligature mark on the upper part of the neck, mark is
interrupted, stating from right angle of the jaw and along the
border of the mandible and to the left angle of the jaw, traversing
to the nape of the neck, measuring about 14"2 x in length.
Interrupted ligature mark along the lower border of jaw from right B
to left side of the jaw 4 in No. measuring I" x Y:z" x Y:z x W x W
x Y:z" x Y:z" respectively. Ligature mark on the middle of the nape
J of measuring Y:z" x 'h''. Ligature marks were reddish, dry, parchment
like, ecchymosed margins. Both the hands were clinched.
2. There are 3 ligature marks on the right forearm about 3" away c
from the wrist, measuring 6" x V.", 8" x V., 8 Y:z" x 1/4" respectively.
3. Ligature marks on the left fore arm two in No. measuring 5 Y:z"
x V.", 5" x V." respectively.
4. There was fracture of left thigh bone lower I/3rd about 2" away
from the knee joint. D
5. Contusion on left knee joint medial aspect measuring 3" x 2"
Multiple contusions were found on the body.
6. Contusion on left infracbuicular region measuring 2" x 3".
7. Contusion abrasion on the right elbow posterior aspect measuring E
2"x l". F\
8. Contusion on left knee front aspect measuring 5" x Y:z". ,,,, I

'·
9. Two contusion on lateral and front of left thigh measuring 3 Y,"
x 3", 3" x 3" respectively.
F
10. Contusion on left buttick and posterior aspect of thigh measuring
6 Y," x 3", 3 V." x 3" respectively, 2" x I".
11. Abrasion on left side of the ankle measuring Yz" x Y:z".
12. Contused abrasion of left lateral aspect of ankle measuring 2 Y:z"
x I". G
)

13. Contusion on lateral aspect of left leg upper part measuring 3 Y,"
x2".
14. Two contusions on right thigh measuring 2" x 2", 4 Yi" x l"
respectively. H
840 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 5 S.C.R. -:

A 15. Abrasion on the right thigh lateral aspect measuring 1 W' x W'. • ..
16. Contusion on the right buttock measuring I .Y," x W'.
17. There was no fracture of Hyoid bone, Thyroid cartilages or
tracheal rings.

B 18. Multiples small abrasion on right side of buttock measuring Y,"
to 1" in length W' to Yi" in width."

4. In the opinion of the autopsy surgeon, the injury No.I ligature mark
can also be caused if saree piece is rolled and tied around the neck. It can
also be caused by a rope. Injuries Nos. 2 and 3 can be caused if rope is tied
c to that part of the body. Injury 4 on the body of the deceased it was opined,
could be caused by a hit with hard and blunt substance like stick. The other
injuries namely contusion and abrasions can be caused by stick, and also
with the fists and with kicks. The injuries around the neck were sufficient to
cause the death.

D 5. Devendrappa was also examined by one Dr. Achut Kumar Vasant. He
found the following injuries on his person :

Sm x 3mm abrasion with 2 cm x 2 cm swelling on the back of the head
in the occipital region. The said injuries according to him could not be self-
inflicted ones.
E
6. Before the learned Trial Judge, a large number of witnesses were
examined on behalf of the prosecution. PWs. I to 8, 10, 11, 19, 20, 21 and 29
who were either eye witnesses or Panch witnesses turned hostile. PW.9
Karveerapa Chenbasapa, however, proved the Panchnama which was marked
Ext.p-14. The panchnama was drawn in respect of the spot where Ratnavva
F <
was found dead. He, however, refused to prove the contents of the other
panchnamas. He was also declared hostile.

7. Before the learned Trial Judge, an auto driver Huchappa Basappa
Parasannavar was examined as PW.2 to prove that accused no. I was carried
G in his tempo to the Handignur Government Hospital. Almost for the said
purpose, one Rafiq Abdulsab Havaldar was examined as PW.18. He, however,
did not support the prosecution case. '
8. Learned Trial Judge recorded a judgment of acquittal opining that the
prosecution case has been supported only by the first informant Devendrappa,
H sister of the deceased Chembavva and sons of the deceased Shivananda,
RAMAPPA HALAPA PUJAR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA [S.B. SINHA, J.] 841
Basavaraj, PW.27 and Veeresh, PW.28 on whose evidence no reliance can be A
placed. The learned Trial Judge took into consideration the defence of the
accused that the deceased and her sister were of loose moral character arid
although married, had left their respective husbands. It was noticed that the
deceased had been living with the first informant and in view of their immoral
conduct the villagers were against them. It was held that Accused no. l
allegedly had suffered a stab injury at the hands of the prosecution witnesses B
and was taken to the hospital at about 9.30 A.M. on that day whereafter only
the villagers killed the deceased. The learned Trial Judge further held that
PWs.25, 26, 27 and 28 being interested witnesses were not reliable.

9. The Division Bench of the High Court, however, opining that there C
was no reason to disbelieve the said PWs.25 to 28, particularly when PW.25

- was an injured witness, differed with the said findings holding :

"39. It might be that PWs 26 to 28 are the close relatives of the
deceased. The central evidence against the accused consists of their
evidence who have given a complete narration of the prosecution D
case. Though they are the close relatives of the deceased, they
cannot be termed as the interested witnesses. The witness is normally
to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources
which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the
witness has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to
implicate him falsely. Ordinarily a close relative would be the last to E
screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. It is
true, when feelings run high and there is personal cause for enmity,
that there is a tendency to drag in an innocent person against whom
a witness has a grudge along with the guilty, but foundation must be
laid for such a criticism and the mere fact of relationship far from being F
a foundation is often a sure guarantee of truth. There cannot be any
mechanical rejection of their evidence on the sole ground that it is the
evidence of partisan or interested witnesses. Therefore the mere fact
that PWs.26 to 28 are the close relatives of the deceased is not
sufficient to discard their testimony given in Court, more so, when
their evidence does not suffer from any such infirmity. G
40. For these reasons, we are of the view that we are unable to reject
the evidence of PWs.26 to 28 on the grmmd that they are the relatives
of the deceased. We have ourselves carefully gone through the entire
evidence of PWs.26 to 28 and we find that shorn of a few
H
842 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 5 S.C.R. ...
~

A embellishments here and there, their evidence read as a whole in its
entirety is acceptable. Moreover the testimony given by them in Court
stands corroborated from the medical evidence on record. They have
given a true and correct description of what they had seen, observed
and comprehended at the spot."

B I0. The High Court, however, gave benefit of doubt to A6 to AS. The
case against A9 abated as he died during trial. Appellants before us were
convicted by the High Court under sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 342, and 302
read with Section 149 ofl.P.C. They were sentenced to undergo imprisonment
for life and a fine of Rs.1,000/- for commission of the offence under section
302 read with Section 149 of the !PC, but no separate sentence was passed
c
-
in respect of the other offences found to have been committed by the appellants.

11. Mr. Girish Ananthamurthy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the appellants, took us through the judgment of the learned Trial Judge to
contend that sufficient and cogent reasons having been assigned in support
D of the judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Judge which was
based on probability and the view taken by it being a possible one, the High
Court committed a manifest error in reversing the said judgment of acquittal.

12. Mr. Rana Mukherjee, learned counsel for the respondent, however,
supported the judgment.
E
13. Before we embark upon the rival contentions of the parties, we may
notice that although the learned Trial Judge noticed the motive of the appellants
in committing the offence, did not deal therewith in his judgment. The High
Court, however, considered the question of motive on the part of the accused
to commit the said offence at some length. Execution of the deed of sale in
F favour of the deceased by the three brothers is not in dispute. What was,
however, in dispute was that as to whether appellant no.I had executed the
said deed of sale or not. Possession of the parties in or over the said land
was also in dispute.

14. Appellants herein and other persons supporting them were bearing
G ill will against the deceased and her family. Existence of the land in dispute
between the deceased and the accused stands admitted. Homicidal nature of '
the death of the deceased is also not in dispute. The fact that she suffered
a number of ante-mortem injuries is also not in dispute. From the post-mortem
report it is evident that she had suffered injuries almost on all parts of her
H
RAMAPPA HALAPA PUJAR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA [S.B. SINHA, J.] 843

• ... body. She suffered even a fracture on left thigh bone. A
15. Learned Trial Judge appears to have totally relied upon the evidence
of PW.22 Veerbhadrappa Sadeppa Gundagavi who was the Medical Officer at
General Hospital, Haveri. According to him accused no. I was brought to the
Hospital by one Mallangouda Hanman Thagounda Patil with a history of
assault. He examined him and found stab-wound 1 cm. above umbilicus B.
transversally measuring 2-1/2 cm. x Yi cm. x I cm. which waSTed in colol!r and
since there was no sufficient facility in that hospital and since the injury was

- grievous, he was referred to Chigateri Hospital wherein he was admitted and
discharged on 13.2.1995 only. He proved a purported entry made in the
Medical Legal Register maintained at the General Hospital, Haveri which was
marked as Ext.P-25 wherein it was allegedly mentioned that one Ramappa
c
Halappa Pujar (accused no.I) was brought by one Mallangouda and another
Nellappa Hullur to that doctor with the history of assault on that day at about
9.30 A.M. with knife by one Shivanand Chennashetty. Allegedly he intimated
the concerned Police Station. No document, however, has been produced to
prove the said fact. We have perused the original register. We have found D
certain interpolations therein. A certificate was purported to have been granted
only in February 1995. The said certificate has not been legally proved. The
Doctor at Chigateri General Hospital at Davangere had not been examined by
the accused is shrouded by mystery. According to PW.12, Appellant no. I was
being transported in a tractor. He was, however, transferred to the auto
E
belonging to PW.12. PW.18 was the driver of the tractor. Although he was
examined on 13 .11.1997, according to him the incident took place a year prior
thereto. He stated the time to be around 10 A.M .. He did not say that he
found accused no. I to be in an injured condition. He was merely told that he
had not been feeling well. He took him to a distance of one kilometer from
the Bus stand, whereafter he was transferred to a matador van. He could not F
identify the accused no. I. PW.12 Huchappa Basappa, however, describes
himself to be a driver of a tempo. He was examined on 24.10.1997. According
to him his tempo was booked two years ago by accused nos.7 and 8 for a
trip to Haveri from Hosaritti Bus stand. When accused no. I was being brought
in a tractor he saw a bandage on his stomach. He was taken to Handignur
~
Government Hospital and from there to Haveri Government Hospital. The
G
)
inconsistencies between evidence of PW.18 and PW.12 is evident. If PW.12
is to be believed, apart from the mistake in the year in which the accident took
place, the appellant no. I reached Handignur Government Hospital at I 0.45
A.M. They were there only for 5 to JO minutes. They reached Haveri Hospital
at about 12 O'Clock which was situated at a distance of25 k.m. Why it took H
844 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 5 S.C.R.
... <
A more than ninety minutes to cover a distance of 25 k.m., is not known. How
accused no.I was being taken to the Handignur Government Hospital when
he had a bandage on his stomach has not been explained. We also notice that
although according to PW.18 the vehicle in which accused no. I was transported
was a matador van, according to PW. I he was merely driving a tempo.
Appellant no. I was unconscious who made a statement in regard to the time
B of manner of occurrence and the name of the assailants is not known. Why
such a statement had to be recorded has also not been disclosed. PW.22 must
have examined the accused no: I only for a few minutes. He might have given
only the first aid.

c been disclosed.
16. How he could prove the entries made in the general register has not

17. The time factor taking into consideration the findings of the learned
Trial Judge would be a relevant piece of evidence. According to the prosecution
the occurrence took place at about l 0.30 A.M. It must have started round
D about 9.30 A.M. The manner in which the occurrence took place at three
different places goes to show that it must have taken some time. Possibility
of the appellant no.I sustaining a stab injury at the instance of the prosecution
witnesses or others is not clear. Prosecution, at least, has come out with some
explanation as to how he suffered a stab injury. On the other hand, the
appellants had not offered any explanation whatsoever. It is unbelievable that
E in a situation of this nature, particularly when an accused had suffered a
grievous injury for which he was allegedly required to remain in hospital for
more than 2 months, would not be reported to the police. PW.22 although
stated that he had reported the matter to the police; no attempt was made to
obtain production of the said document. The copy of the said report had also
F not been produced by PW.22.
18. Accused no.I had not been arrested. If he was undergoing treatment
at the hospital for such a long time, he himself could have lodged a first
information report. The other villagers also could have done the same.
Sustenance of the injury at the hands of the prosecution witnesses in ordinary
G course should have been disclosed by the Panch witnesses. Investigating :-
Officer in his deposition stated that he came to learn about the said injury
in the course of his investigation only on 16.12.1994. He had not carried out
'
any investigation in relation thereto. Presumably he did not feel any necessity
therefor. The learned Sessions Judge made a caustic remark thereabout.
Performance of statutory duties of the Investigating Officer making
H
I< RAMAPPA HALAPA PUJAR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA [S.B. SINHA, J.] 845
;. ....
investigation properly or not may be a subject matter of comment but, in our A
opinion, the High Court cannot be said to have committed any mistake in not
getting swayed by the said fact alone.

19. If the defence story in regard to sufferance of injury by accused no.I
at 9.30 A.M. is not believed, much of the reasonings adopted by the learned
Sessions Judge to record a judgment of acquittal in favour of all the accused B
persons become unsustainable. The manner in which the deceased met her
death would show that she had been brutally assaulted by a large number
=- of persons. She was tied with a wooden pole and not only she had been
assaulted all over her body, an attempt was made even to hang her by using

- c
her saree.

........ 20. The investigation started without any delay. Statements of a large
number of witnesses were recorded on 13.12.1994 itself. Witnesses turned
hostile. The same by itself would not negate the prosecution case. The very
fact that the villagers in a case of this nature had turned hostile would, on
the other hand, show that there was a ring of truth in the prosecution case. D

> 21. It is in the aforementioned backdrop, the High Court opined :-

"38. It is no doubt true that except PWs.25 to 28, all other eyewitnesses
have turned hostile. But that by itself is no reason to discard the
evidence of PWs.25 to 28. On the other hand, it would show that no E
independent witness from the village is prepared to come forward to
depose against the accused persons. If the other witnesses were not
eyewitnesses to the incident, why should the Investigating Officer
record their statement falsely if they have not stated so. Be that as
)
it may be. Merely because the other eyewitnesses examined by the
prosecution have turned hostile and did not support the prosecution F
version for the reason best known to them, that by itself does not
corrode vitality of the prosecution version particularly when the
witnesses who have supported the prosecution version viz. PWs. 25
to 28 have withstood the incisive cross-examination and pointed out
..;:_ the accused as the perpetrators of the crime. There is nothing unusual G
in a criminal trial that many a times independent witnesses who do not
want to incur the wrath of the accused will tum hostile at the trial. _It
is the tendency on the part of the persons to play safe by remaining
neutral."

22. The High Court has noticed and in our opinion rightly that although H

_{
846 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 5 S.C.R. ll

A the prosecution witnesses turned hostile, they made no whisper ab.out the
incident having occurred in the manner as alleged by the appellants. It is of
some significance that the injuries sustained by PW.25 is not in dispute. Why
the evidence of the injured witnesses was not believed by the learned Trial
Judge is beyond any comprehension. He was the brother of accused I and
2. He was also a party to the deed of sale. The High Court had assigned
B cogent and sufficient reasons in relying upon the evidence of PW.25,
particularly, when there are evidences on record to show that he had been
assaulted with material objects.

23. Even if, the version of the respondent that accused no. I suffered
C injury at the hands of PW.27 while he was firmly held by the deceased and
PW.26 is believed, the presence of PWs. 26 and 27 stands accepted.

24. We, therefore, are of the opinion that keeping in view the fact that
..
PW.26 is the sister of the deceased and PWs.27 and 28 were her sons, their
testimonies before the Court cannot be said to be wholly unreliable. [See
D Mano v. State of Tamil Nadu, JT (2007) 5 SC 143] We may also notice that
as per evidence of the Investigating Officer, the accused no.I when questioned,
declined to tell him anything. If he was not at the place of occurrence at the
time when the incident had taken place, it was expected that he would tell his
side of the story including the manner in which he had suffered injuries to
the Investigating Officer. There was absolutely no reason why he would
E suppress the fact from the Investigating Officer. This clearly goes to show
that accused no. I made all attempts to conceal the circumstances under which
he had sustained injuries on his person. If in the aforementioned situation the
High Court has believed the prosecution story, we do not see any infirmity
therein, particularly, when no complaint was made ir. that behalf by the
p accused no. I or by anybody else in their behalf to the police.

25. Accused no. I has also not raised any plea of self-defence.
Suggestions given to the prosecution witnesses are ·self-inconsistent and
wholly contradictory to each other. They cannot go together.

G 26. We have been taken through the depositions of PWs. 25 to 28. We
agree with the inference arrived at by the High Court as regards credibility
of their evidences before the court. There may be some contradictions in the
depositions of the said witnesses but they are minor in nature. We cannot
loose sight of the fact that they deposed in court about 3 Y:z years after the
date of occurrence and, thus, minor variations from their earlier statements are
H but natural.
RAMAPPA HALAPA PUJAR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA [S.B. SINHA, l) 847
... --. 27. The High Court, thus, in our opinion, in a case of this nature cannot A
be said to have committed any error in reversing the judgment of acquittal
by the learned Trial Judge. The jurisdiction of the High Court albeit is limited
in this behalf, as would appear from some of the decisions of this Court but
the High Court in our considered view did not exceed its jurisdiction.

28. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it was not necessary for B
the witnesses to prove the actual role played by each of the appellants.

29. The High Court had given benefit of doubt to four of them. That
by itseif is not decisive. Allegation of overt acts on the part of the appellant
is evident.
c
.
30. Jn Munivel v. State of Tamil Nadu, [2006] 9 SCC 394, this Court
opined:

"36. Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code provides for vicarious
Iiabilicy. If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful
assembly in prosecution of a common object thereof or such as the D
members of that assembly knew that the offence to be likely to be
committed in prosecution of that object, every person who at the time
of committing that offence was member would be guilty of the offence
committed. The common object may be commission of one offence
while there may be likelihood of commission of yet another offence, E
the knowledge whereof is capable of being safely attributable to the
members of the unlawful assembly. Whether a member of such.unlawful
assembly was aware as regard likelihood of commission of another
offence or not would depend upon the facts and circumstances of
each case. Background of the incident, the motive, the nature of the
assembly, the nature of the arms carried by the members of the F
assembly, their common object and the behaviour of the members
soon before, at or after the actual commission of the crime would be
relevant factors for drawing an inference in that behalf. [See Rajendra
Shantaram Todankar v. State of Maharashtra].

)
31. In Mohinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab, [2006] 10 SCC 418, G
this Court opined :-

"21. The members of the unlawful assembly can be held liable under
Section 149 IPC, if it is shown that they knew beforehand that the
offence· actually committed was likely to be committed in prosecution
H
848 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 5 S.C.R.

A of the common object. It is true that the common object does not
require prior concert and a common meeting of mind before the attack.
It can develop even on spot but the sharing of such an object by all
the accused must be shown to be in existence at any time before the
actual occurrence."

B In Kallu alias Masih & Ors. v. State of MP., [2006] 10 SCC 313, this
Court held :-

"8. While deciding an appeal against acquittal, the power of the
Appellate Court is no less than the power exercised while hearing
appeals against conviction. In both types of appeals, the power exists
c to review the entire evidence. However, one significant difference is
that an order of acquittal will not be interfered with, by an appellate
court, where the judgment of the trial court is based on evidence and
the view taken is reasonable and plausible. It will not reverse the
decision of the trial court merely because a different view is possible.
D The appellate court will also bear in mind that there is a presumption
of innocence in favour of the accused and the accused is entitled to
get the benefit of any doubt. Further if it decides to interfere, it should
assign reasons for differing with the decision of the trial court."

32. Reliance has been placed by Mr. Girish Ananthamurthy on a recent
E decision of this Court in Chandrappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, (2007)
3 SCALE 90. Therein also it was held :

"42. From th~ above decisions, in our considered view, the following
general principles regarding powers of appellate Court while dealing
with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge;
F
(1) An appellate Court has full power to review, reappreciate and
reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded;
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction
or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate Court on the
G evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions
of fact and of law; I.

(3) Various expressions, such as, 'substantial and compelling reasons',
'good and sufficient grounds', 'very strong circumstances'., 'distorted
conclusions', 'glaring mistakes', etc. are not intended to curtail extensive
H powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such
RAMAPPA HALAPA PUJAR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA [S.B. SINHA, J] 849
phraseologies are more in the nature of 'flourishes of language' to A
emphasize the reluctance of an appellate C.ourt to interfere with acquittal
than to curtail the power of the Court to review the evidence and to
come to its own conclusion.

(4) An appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in case of
acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused, Firstly, B
the presumption of innocence available to him under the fundamental
principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed
to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law.
Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption
of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by C
the trial court.

(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the
evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding
of acquittal recorded by the trial court."
D
33. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any infirmity in the
judgment of the High Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

S.K.S. Appeal dismissed.