Holding

The Supreme Court upheld the convictions of A‑1 and A‑2, finding the prosecution proved its case against them beyond reasonable doubt, but set aside the convictions of A‑3 and A‑4 due to lack of evidence.

Summary

The case involved four accused (A‑1 to A‑4) charged with murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, along with offences under Sections 201/34 and 506 IPC. The prosecution relied on a motive stemming from a land dispute, the testimony of two eye‑witnesses (PW‑1 and PW‑2) who were relatives of the deceased, and the recovery of the weapon and forensic evidence. The trial court acquitted all accused, dismissing the eye‑witnesses as interested, but the High Court convicted them. On appeal, the Supreme Court re‑examined the evidence, held that the eye‑witnesses were credible and that the prosecution proved the guilt of A‑1 and A‑2 beyond reasonable doubt, but found no evidence linking A‑3 and A‑4 to the murder or the offence under Section 201. Consequently, the Court upheld the convictions of A‑1 and A‑2 and set aside those of A‑3 and A‑4, cancelling the bail bonds of the former and directing their surrender.

Issues considered

The trial court's rejection of the eye‑witnesses PW‑1 and PW‑2 as interested witnesses
Whether the prosecution established the guilt of A‑1 and A‑2 beyond reasonable doubt under Sections 302/34 and 506 IPC
Whether the prosecution proved the participation of A‑3 and A‑4 in the murder and the offence under Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC
Whether the High Court was justified in overturning the trial court's acquittal of all four accused

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 313, s. 378
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 201, s. 302, s. 34, s. 506

Subjects

murderIPC 302common intentioneye‑witness testimonyinterested witnessconvictionacquittalappellate jurisdictionforensic evidencemotiveSection 34Section 201Section 506

Judgment

~
[2009] S S.C.R. 422

A RAZAK JINNESAB KARAJAGI & ORS.
v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA

B
(Criminal Appeal No. 223 of 2002)
APRIL 1, 2009
[LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA AND B. SUDERSHAN
-
REDDY, JJ.]

Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302134, 201134 and 506 -
c Prosecution under - Of four accused - Prosecution case
based on motive, evidence of eye-witnesses and recovery of
weapon of offence at the instance of one of the accused -
Acquittal by trial court discarding evidence of eye-witnesses
as interested - Conviction by High Court - On appeal, held:
t-
D Prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against
accused Nos. 1 and 2 - Trial court was not right in rejecting
the evidence of eye-witnesses as interested - They were
truthful and natural witnesses - However, prosecution has
failed to prove the case against accused Nos. 3 and 4.
-
E Appellants-accused Nos. 1 to 4 were prosecuted ul
s. 302/34 IPC and accused No. 2 was further prosecuted
uls. 506 IPC. Prosecution case was based on motive for
killing the deceased, two eye-witnesses to the incident
and recovery of weapon of offence and blood-stained
F clothes at the instance of accused No. 1. Trial court
acquitted the accused disbelieving the evidence of the
eye-witnesses on the ground that they were interested
witnesses. High Court convicted the accused, of the
offences charged under. Hence the present appeal.
G
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court .,....- ~

HELD:1.1. The prosecution has proved its case
beyond all reasonable doubt against A-1 and A-2 and the
H 422
-. RAZAK JINNESAB KARAJAGI & ORS. v. STATE OF
KARNATAKA

High Court committed no error or perversity in interfering
423

A
with the trial court's order of acquittal of A-1 and A-2. The
High Court has properly and rightly re-assessed and re-
appraised the entire evidence on record. [Paras 13 and
:. 16] [435-G, A-B]
B
1.2. The High Court relying upon the evidence of
PWs 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8 has concluded that though the
prosecution has proved that there was no strong motive
attributed to A-1 to A-4, yet A-1 to A-4 had some motive
to do away with the life of the deceased who was not
residing at the place of the incident and had been C
cultivating his land from a far of place in the State of
Maharashtra where he was living with his family
members. [Para 13] [431-H; 432-A-B]

1.3. The High Court found PW-1 and PW-2 most D
natural and truthful witnesses, whose testimony was not
rebutted and shattered by the defence on material aspect
of the matter. The trial court rejected the evidence of the
eye-witnesses merely on the ground that they are the
interested witnesses and their presence on the day and E
at the place of the incident was held to be doubtful. The
evidence of the eye-witnesses is quite natural,
satisfactory and believable to prove that after the
incident due to repeated threats given by A-2 to do away
with their life if they dare to make noise, PW-1 and PW-2 F
for about one hour remained seated by the side of the
dead body of the deceased at the place of occurrence
and thereafter went to the house of the deceased at
Maharashtra. The eye-witnesses, under the
circumstances of the case could not be expected to rush G
to the Police Station immediately after the occurrence of
the crime or could have first gone to the village of the
accused for seeking help from the villagers. The evidence
of PW-1 and PW-2 cannot be rejected on the ground that
they are relations of the deceased. It is well-settled that
H
424 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R.

A if the eyewitness is related to the deceased, his evidence
-
has to be accepted if found to be believable and reliable
because he would inter alia be interested in ensuring that
the real culprits are punished. Both the eyewitnesses
have been subjected to search in cross-examination by
B the defence, but nothing tangible has been extracted
from their evidence to create any shadow of doubt that
they are not reliable and truthful witnesses. Therefore, the
finding of the trial court disbelieving and discarding the
evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 - eyewitnesses on the sole
C ground of stamping them as interested, partisan and
parrot-like witnesses, is wholly unjustified and not
tangible. [Para 13] (433-F-H; 434-A-F]

1.4. It is the evidence of PW-14 that disclosure
statement [Ex.-P-13] was voluntarily made by A-1 and in
D pursuant thereto, weapon of offence M0-7 was recovered
at the instance of A-1. Gunny bag seized from the spot
and the blood-stained clothes of the deceased were sent
to Forensic Science Laboratory. The report of the FSL
reveals that the presence of petrol was detected from
E partly burnt clothes of the deceased and there is no
infirmity or perversity in the reasoning recorded by the
High Court to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment
to the extent of holding A-1 and A-2 guilty of the charged
offences. [Para 13] (434-G-H; 435-A-B]
F
2.1. The judgment and order of the High Court
holding A-3 and A-4 guilty of the charged offences cannot
be sustained. There is not an iota of evidence placed on
record by the prosecution to prove that A-3 and A-4 had •
G participated in the commission of the crime alongwith A-
1 and A-2. PW-1 and PW-2 only stated A-3 and A-4 on the
asking of A-2 caught hold of the legs of the deceased and
dragged him to a short distance. The allegation levelled
by the prosecution against A-3 and A-4 do not attribute

H
RAZAK JINNESAB KARAJAGI & ORS. v. STATE OF 425
KARNATAKA

any overt act or part played by them in the commission A
of the crime. The evidence of the prosecution is wholly
lacking to hold that A-3 and A-4 had shared a common
intention with A-1 and A-2 to cause the murder of
.... deceased. [Para 14] [435-C-E]
1
B
2.2. For the lack of any tangible, satisfactory or
credible evidence, A-3 and A-4 cannot be held liable for
causing disappearance of the evidence with intention of
screening A-1 and A-2 from legal punishment u/s. 201 r/
w s. IPC. [Para 14] [435-E]
c
CRIMINAL AP PELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 223 of 2002.

-+- From the Judgment and Order dated 3.9.2001 of the High
Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No. 359 D
of 1996.

Rajesh Mahale, Shivender Dwivedi and Harish Hebbar for
the Appellant.

Sanjay R. Hedge, A. Rohen Singh, Vikrant Yadav, Amit Kr. E
Chawla and Nishant Mishra for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

- '
~ LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J. 1. Razak Jinnesab
Karajagi [A-1], Jinnesab Rajesab Karajagi [A-2], Babula!
Jinnesab Karajagi [A-3], Nabilal Jinnesab Karajagi [A-4] -
appellants herein, have preferred this appeal under Section 2
F

...., [1] [a] of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate
Jurisdiction] Act, 1970 against the final judgment and order

. ._...,,
dated 03.09.2001 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at
Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No. 359 of 1996. By the
impugned judgment, the High Court has set aside the order of
G

acquittal dated 03.01.1996 of the appellants' passed by the
learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bijapur, in Sessions

1 H
426 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R.

A Case No. 109 of 1994 under Section 302 read with Section
34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the "IPC") under Sections
201 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 506 of the
IPC of A-2 and as a result thereof, A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4 have
been convicted for the aforesaid offences and sentenced to
..,.._
B imprisonment for life under Section 302 read with Section 34
•
of the IPC and Section 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
However, no separate sentence has been awarded so far, the
offences under Section 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC
are concerned and under Section 506 of the IPC, for which A-
c 2 was separately convicted.
2. The prosecution case as unfolded before the trial court ~
was that Allisab Rajesab Karajagi was a resident of
Bairawadagi and A-2 is his first cousin. A-1, A-3 and A-4 are
the sons of A-2. The daughter of Kashimabi - complainant +-
D [PW-1) was married to Allisab Karajagi and out of the wedlock
they have got five daughters and two sons. Allisab Karajagi's
parents had died. His only sister was married and living in the
State of Maharashtra. Allisab Karajagi was the owner of 4
acres of dry land and one small hut at village Bairawadagi.
E Allisab Karajagi alongwith his wife and children had gone to
Maharashtra with wishful hope of earning more income for the
maintenance of the family. He had frequently been going to
village Bairawadagi for looking after the agricultural pursuits
and harvesting the crops. ~
F
3. Bismilla [PW-2] is the daughter of Allisab Karajagi. It "',
was the case of the prosecution that Allisab Karajagi and A-1
to A-4 had some litigation over the pathway leading to their
respective lands. It was alleged that in and around 1992,
Allisab Karajagi had assaulted A-2 and on account of that
G
incident, the accused persons had entertained enmity with
r •
Allisab. During harvesting season of February, 1994, Allisab
alongwith his daughter Bismilla [PW-2] went to attend their
lands. Kashimabi [PW-1] mother-in-law of Allisab, and her
relatives are the residents of village Devarahipparagi, which is ·
H
.I'-
RAZAK JINNESAB KARAJAGI & ORS. v. STATE OF 427
KARNATAKA [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]
situated at a distance of about 10 kms. from the land of Allisab. A
The land of Allisab is situated near to village Satyal within the
limits of village Bairawadagi. Allisab, has constructed a small
hut on the land where he used to stay during his visits.

1 4. It was the prosecution case that on 24.02.1994 at about
B
4.00 p.m., both PW-1 and PW-2 brought cooked-food for
Allisab from the house of PW-1. It was at about 8.00 p.m. when
Allisab, PW Kashimabi and PW Bismilla all had taken their
food in the field and thereafter went to sleep. PW Kashimabi
and PW Bismilla slept near the heap of the crop, whereas
Allisab slept near the hut at a distance of about 2 or 3 yards
c
away from PW Kashimabi and PW Bismilla. In the intervening
night of 24/25.02.1994 at about 0015 hours, PW-1 and PW-2
on hearing loud cries of Allisab, woke up and heard him uttering
-t "Allah Mara re". PW-1 and PW-2 saw and identified A-1 to A-4
in the moonlit night present near the place where Allisab was D
sleeping and they witnessed A-1 striking an axe blow on the
head of Allisab. It was further alleged that A-2 asked A-3 and
A-4 to drag the body of Allisab. A-1 thereafter alleged to have
poured petrol on the person of Allisab and A-2 lit a match stick
and set Allisab on fire. Having seen the incident, PW-1 and PW- E
2 rushed to the place of incident and tried to save the life of
Allisab, but A-1 and A-2 held threat to their life. Because of fear
to their life, PW-1 and PW-2 could not dare to save the life of
Allisab from the clutches of the accused persons and they
witnessed the incident as mute spectators. No sooner, the F
accused persons left the place of occurrence, PW-1 and PW-
2 tried to extinguish the fire by throwing mud and water on the
body of Allisab. Allisab was still alive and uttered "Kya ghat
karare Razaak". He later on succumbed to the injuries in the
presence of PW-1 and PW-2 at the spot. PW-1 and PW-2 G
waited for one hour near the dead body of deceased - Allisab
'-. ....,,
~
and thereafter they proceeded to village Satyal which is nearer
to the land of the deceased and from there they boarded a
truck and reached village Devarahipparagi where they narrated
the entire incident to lbrahimsab Modinsab MA lkhed [PW-5] H
428 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R.

A son of PW-1 and other family members. PW-1 alongwith her
son PW-5 and some more persons went to Police Station,
Basavanabagewadi, where PW-1 lodged a complaint (Ex. P-
1] to Station House Officer - Siddappa Shankrapa Kumbar
[PW-13], on the basis of which a Criminal Case No. 34of1994
B came to be registered on 24.02.1994 at about 10.00 hours
against the accused persons under Sections 302 read with
Section 34 IPC and Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC.

5. Ramappa [PW-14], at the relevant time was working as
CPI, Basavana Bageradi, received information about the crime
C from PW-13. PW-14 visited the Police Station at 11.00 a.m.
on the same day and inspected the documents prepared by
Head Constable No. 1427. He took up the investigation in his
hands and visited the place of occurrence. He saw the dead
body of Allisab lying in the field. The dead body of Allisab was
D sent to Dr. S.S. Sadar [PW-4] - Medical Officer for post- t-
mortem through constable PC No. 704 Y.R. Bhosale [PW-11].
PW-14 conducted spot panchnama marked as Ex. P-8. He
seized gunny bags M0-1 to M0-4 found lying on the spot. He
recorded the statements of Bismilla [PW-2], lbrahimsab
E Modinsab MA lkhed [PW-5], Kashipati Basappa Devanaganv
[PW-6], Basappa Mallappa Talikoti [PW-7] and Rasulsab
Lalesab Karajagi [PW-8]. The accused persons absconded
from the scene of occurrence and they could not be arrested
by the police. PW-14 instructed his personnel to make search
F for the accused persons. The Investigating Officer received the
post-mortem report (Ext.- P-3] from the doctor. On 13.03.1994, .
HC-1427, PC-702 produced A-1 and A-2 before him at 7.00
a.m. The Investigating Officer arrested them. On interrogation,
A-1 voluntarily made a disclosure statement [Ex.-P-13] in the
G presence of Mahammadsab lnamsab Chapparbandi [PW-3]
and lbrahimsab Modinsab MA lkhed [PW-5] and pursuant
thereto, A-1 led the police party and the witnesses to the place r -
of recovery wherefrom one axe, one baniyan (underwear), one
dhoti were recovered, which were concealed at a hollow place
H in the cow shed. All the blood-stained articles were taken into
RAZAK JINNESAB KARAJAGI & ORS. v. STATE OF 429
KARNATAKA [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]

possession vide panchnama (Ext.-P-2). The weapon of offence A
and the blood stained clothes were marked as M0-7-9. A-3 and
A-4 could not be arrested because they got pre-arrest bail. On
06.04.1994, Investigating Officer recorded statement of
Namdev Shanker Kadam [PW-9). On 13.05.1994, he sent
,~

1 seized articles to Chemical Examiner, Bangalore for chemical B
analysis through HC 1342 - G.A. Sangond [PW-12). On receipt
of the C. E.'s reports Exts. P-15 and P-16 and on completion
of the investigation of the case, PW-14 on 16.05.1994 prepared
chargesheet against the accused and filed it in the court of
JMFC, Basavan Bagewadi under Section 302 read with c
Section 34 IPC and Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC as
well as under Section 506 IPC against A-2. The learned
Judicial Magistrate, Basavan Bagewadi, committed the case
to the Sessions Judge for trial.
-<
-"t
6. Before the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, the D
accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be
,,. tried. The prosecution, in order to substantiate its case,
....
examined as many as 14 witnesses, out of whom PW-1-
Kashimabi, PW-2 - Kum. Bismilla are the eyewitnesses of the
incident. In addition to oral evidence, the prosecution produced E
on record Exts. P-1 to P-16 and MO 1 to MO - 9.

7. The accused in the statements recorded under Section
313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P .C')
pleaded denial simpliciter. However, in defence they have not F
' -..J
led any evidence. On examination of the oral and documentary
evidence produced on record, the learned 1st Additional
Sessions Judge by his order dated 03.01.1996 found the
accused not guilty for the above-said charged offences,
therefore, they were acquitted mainly on the ground of not
G
accepting the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 eyewitnesses
branding them as interested witnesses.
> --<
8. Being aggrieved against the order of acquittal, the State
of Karnataka preferred appeal before the High Court. The High
Court allowed the appeal by the impugned judgment, holding H
430 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R.

~

A A-1 to A-4 guilty of the charged offences and sentenced them
for life under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. No
separate sentence was imposed upon them for committing the
offences under Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC and
against A-2 for an offence under Section 506 IPC.
B
9. Feeling aggrieved thereby and dissatisfied with the
judgment of the High Court, A-1 to A-4 have filed this appeal.

10. Mr. Rajesh Mahale, Advocate appearing on behalf of
A-1 to A-4, vehemently contended that the judgment of the High '
c Court reversing the order of acquittal passed by the trial court
is erroneous in law being against the well-established
principles with regard to interference in appeal under Section
378 of the Cr.P.C. He then contended that the trial court on
appraisal of the evidence and consideration of circumstances .....
D has recorded well-reasoned order which cannot be regarded -r-
as preferably wrong or perverse; therefore, the interference by
the High Court in the order of acquittal of A-1 to A-4 is wholly
unwarranted and unjustified. He then contended that as the ~
evidence of the prosecution is not satisfactory and consistent,
E therefore, the benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused,
but in the present case the High Court has failed to appreciate
this basic principle and convicted A-1 to A-4 on surmises and
conjectures.

11. Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, Advocate appearing on behalf
F of the State, has canvassed correctness of the views taken by
~ '
the High Court in the impugned judgment. He submitted that
the approach of the High Court in re-appreciating the evidence
led by the prosecution cannot be found faulty. He then
contended that the evidence of the eye-witnesses PW -
G Kashimabi and PW - Kum. Bismilla is concise, cogent and
satisfactory on the point that it was A-1 who assaulted the
deceased with a fatal blow of axe on his head and thereafter . ,. ,. - <
A-2 poured petrol and set Allisab on fire, as a result thereof,
Allisab later on succumbed to the injuries sustained by him.
H
RAZAK JINNESAB KARAJAGI & ORS. v. STATE OF 431
KARNATAKA [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]
)
12. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the A
-...:
learned counsel for the parties, we have made independent
•• scrutiny of the evidence led by the prosecution to find out
whether the High Court's order of conviction of A-1 to A~4 can
be sustained or not.
B
i 13. On reappraisal of the entire evidence on record, the
High Court has formulated three points for its consideration: [1]
Motive, [2] Evidence of the eyewitnesses and [3] Recovery of
M0-7.

[1] MOTIVE c
In support of motive, the prosecution has relied upon the
evidence of PWs-1 to 5 and PWs 6, 7 and 8. Out of these
witnesses, PWs - 7 and 8 have not supported the prosecution
~.
case to prove that one day before the day of incident, the D
' ----..; witnesses noticed PW-1 and PW-2 carrying food to the field
' of the deceased. So far as the motive is concerned, however,
they have supported PW-1 and PW-2. Admittedly, the
appellants and the deceased are close relatives. It has come
on the record that there was some civil litigation pending
E
between A-1 to A-4 and the deceased over a pathway leading
to their respective lands. It was also proved on record that A-1
to A-4 on one hand and the deceased on the other hand used
to quarrel over this issue. It is the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and
PW-5 the family members of the deceased which was
corroborated by PW-6, PW-7 and PW-8 the independent
F
---"l ~
witnesses that about two years before the day of incident, A-2
and deceased had a quarrel over the pathway leading to their
respective fields. The defence has failed to impeach the
evidence of the independent witnesses on this count. The
evidence of the witnesses would go to show that the panchayat G
of the elders of the village was held, but dispute of the pathway
could not be settled and solved by them which finally led the
"""' "1' death of the deceased. The High Court relying upon the
evidence of PWs - 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8 has concluded that though
the prosecution has proved that there was no strong motive H
432 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 5 S.C.R.

~
A attributed to A-1 to A-4, yet A-1 to A-4 had some motive to do
away with the life of the deceased who was not residing at the
,...
I ;'
place of the incident and had been cultivating his land from a ~

far of place in the State of Maharashtra where he was living
with his family members.
B
[2] EVIDENCE OF THE EYEWITNESSES f

The case of the prosecution entirely rests upon the
evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 - the witnesses of the occurrence.
It is the evidence of PW-1 that on the day of the incident at about
c 4.30 p.m., she alongwith PW-2 - daughter of the deceased
carried cooked-food for the accused from village
Devarahipparagi to the fields where he had gone for harvesting
the seasonal crop. They at about 8.00 or 8.30 p.m. jointly took
their dinner and went to sleep. She and PW-2 had slept in front .,
D of heap of the crop stacked on the land of the deceased, ,
whereas the deceased slept at a short distance near a hut. In
..---
mid-night hours, PW-1 and PW-2 heard loud cries raised by
Allisab uttering "Allah Marare". It is the evidence of PW-1 that
on hearing cries, she and PW-2 both woke up and rushed to
E the nearby place where Allisab was sleeping. They saw A-1
assaulting the deceased with a blow of axe on the head. It is
her evidence that when she and PW-2 tried to save the life of
the deceased, A-2 threatened them if they would dare to
interfere or shout for help, they would meet the same fate. A-2
F openly shouted and commanded A-3 and A-4 to drag Allisab.
A-3 and A-4 caught hold of the legs of Allisab and dragged him 'Y I"

to a short distance. A-1 poured petrol from a can on injured-
Allisab, whereas A-2 lit a match stick and threw the burning
stick on Allisab with an intention to screen of the crime. She
stated that A-1 to A-4 left the place of occurrence holding
G
threats to them not to make any noise lest they would be
finished.

PW-2 corroborated the evidence of PW-1 in its entirety.
She deposed that she saw A-1 striking axe blow on her father's
H head. She noticed A-3 and A-4 standing by the side of A-1 and
RAZAK JINNESAB KARAJAGI & ORS. v. STATE OF 433
KARNATAKA [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]
)

A-2, who held her father's legs and dragged him to a short A
distance. It is her categorical statement that A-1 poured petrol
on her father, whereas A-2 lit a match stick and threw the
burning stick on her father's body. She corroborated the
testimony of PW-1 thatA-2 threatened both of them that if tney
dared to raise any noise they would meet the same fate. After B
the accused had left the place of occurrence, they went near
the deceased and tried to extinguish fire by pouring water and
mud on the body of her father. According to her version, Allisab
was still alive at that time and before his death he uttered "Tu
kya karare Razaak", and "Tu kya karare Jinne". Razaak is no c
other person than A-1 and A-2 is called Jinnesab. She stated
that she and PW-1 put some water into the mouth of her father
but he could not swallow it because by that time he died. PW-
1 and PW-2 deposed that they had seen and recognized the
accused in moonlit night as they were not strangers to the D
--+ witnesses. The prosecution has proved on record that during
harvesting season the deceased had been going to village
Bairawadagi. It was quite natural for PW-1 - the mother-in-law
of the deceased, who belongs to the nearby village, to take food
to her son-in-law and grand-daughter who were attending to
E
their agricultural pursuits on the date of incident. It is the
evidence of PW-5 son of PW-1 that his mother had been taking
food to th~ deceased for the past about twenty days before the
day of incident. The distance between village of PW-1 and the
land of the deceased is about 10 kms and on the night of
incident after taking food at about 8.00 or 8.30 p.m.; it was not F
possible and practicable for PW-1 to go back to her home. The
High Court found PW-1 and PW-2 most natural and truthful
witnesses, whose testimony was not rebutted and shattered by
- the defence on material aspect of the matter. The trial court
rejected the evidence of the eyewitnes_ses merely on the ground G
that they are the interested witnesses and their presence on
the day and at the place of the incident was held to be doubtful.
The evidence of the eye-witnesses as referred to above is quite
natural, satisfactory and believable to prove that after the
·incident due to repeated threats given by A-2 to do away with H
434 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R.

A their life if they dare to make noise, PW-1 and PW-2 for about ..
one hour remained seated by the side of the dead body of the '
deceased at the place of occurrence and thereafter went to the
house of the deceased at Maharashtra. They disclosed the
entire incident to the family members of the deceased and other
B village people. It was but natural that they too have first gone
to the village of the deceased and apprised the incident to his
family members and the relatives. After narrating the incident
to the family members and village people, PW-1 along with
PW-5 and other village people immediately went to the Police
c Station for lodging report of the incident. The eye-witnesses
under these circumstances, could not be expected to rush to
the Police Station immediately after the occurrence of the crime
or could have first gone to the village of the accused for seeking
help from the villagers. It may be noted that the evidence of PW-
1 and PW-2 cannot be rejected on the ground that they are
D
relations of the deceased. It is well-settled that if the eyewitness
is related to the deceased, his evidence has to be accepted if
found to be believable and reliable because he would inter alia
be interested in ensuring that the real culprits are punished.
Both the eyewitnesses have been subjected to search in cross-
E examination by the defence, but nothing tangible has been
extracted from their evidence to create any shadow of doubt
that they are not reliable and truthful witnesses. Therefore, the
finding of the trial court disbelieving and discarding the evidence
of PW-1 and PW-2 - eyewitnesses on the sole ground of
F stamping them as interested, partisan and parrot-like witnesses,
in our view, is wholly unjustified and not tangible. ,.
[3) RECOVERY OF MO - 7

It is the evidence of PW-14 that disclosure statement [Ex.-
G
P-13] was voluntarily made by A-1 and in pursuant thereto,
weapon of offence MO-7 was recovered at the instance of A-
1. Gunny bag seized from the spot and the blood-stained
clothes of the deceased were sent to Forensic Science
Laboratory, Bangalore. The report of the FSL, Bangalore,
H
RAZAK JINNESAB KARAJAGI & ORS. v. STATE OF 435
KARNATAKA [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]
j
reveals that the presence of petrol was detected from partly A
burnt clothes of the deceased. On our examination of the
judgment of the High Court, we find that the High Court has
properly and rightly re-assessed and re-appraised the entire
evidence on record and there is no infirmity.or perversity in the
,, reasoning record by the learned Judges of the High Court to B
interfere with the well-reasoned judgment to th~ extent of holding
A-1 and A-2 guilty of the charged offences.

14. There is not an iota of evidence placed on record by
the prosecution to prove that A-3 and A-4 had participated in
the commission of the crime alongwith A-1 and A-2. PW-1 and
c
PW-2 only stated A-3 and A-4 on the asking of A-2 caught hold
of the legs of the deceased and dragged him to a short
distance. The allegation levelled by the prosecution against A-
3 and A-4 do not attribute any overt act or part played by them
-t in the commission of the crime. The evidence of the D
prosecution is wholly lacking to hold that A-3 ano A-4 had
shared a common intention with A-1 and A-2 to cause the
murder of Allisab. Similarly for the lack of any tangible,
satisfactory or credible evidence, A-3 and A-4 cannot be held
liable for causing disappearance of the evidence with intention E
of screening A-1 and A-2 from legal punishment under Section
201 read with Section 34, IPC. Therefore, the judgment and
order of the High Court holding A-3 and A-4 guilty of the
charged offences cannot be sustained.
F
15. No other point has been raised by the parties. We,
thus, find no merit and substanc9 in any of the submissions
made on behalf of A-1 and A-2 .
..... 16. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are
satisfied and convinced that the prosecution has proved its case G
beyond all reasonable doubt against A-1 and A-2 and the High
Court committed no error or perversity in interfering with the trial
court's order of acquittal of A-1 and A-2. However, the judgment
of the High Court cannot be sustained against A-3 and A-4.
H
436 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R.

A 17. For the reasons above-stated, this appeal is allowed
in part to the extent of upholding the conviction and sentence
of A-1 and A-2. The conviction of A-3 and A-4 is set aside. A-
1 and A-2 are on bail and their bail bonds and surety bonds
are cancelled. A-1 and A-2 are directed to surrender within four
B weeks from the date of this judgment and serve out the
remainder of the sentence imposed upon them by the High
Court. If A-1 and A-2 fail to surrender as directed, the trial court
will take coercive steps against them in order to comply with
this order. Bonds furnished by A-3 and A-4 shall stand
c cancelled.
K.K.T. Appeal partly allowed.