Supreme Court of India

VENKATEGOWDA AND ORS.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation: 2006 INSC 788
Decided: 6 November 2006
Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Bench: A K MATHUR

Holding

Delay in filing the FIR is not fatal if the eyewitness version is trustworthy, minor discrepancies do not defeat the prosecution, and only the first five accused are liable for conviction with reduced sentences.

Summary

The incident occurred on 4 November 1986 when five accused assaulted two injured witnesses and the deceased, who later died. The FIR was lodged the next day, and the key witnesses gave their testimony ten years later, leading to minor discrepancies in their accounts. The trial court acquitted all accused, citing the FIR delay and contradictions, but the Karnataka High Court convicted all eighteen accused under sections of the IPC relating to unlawful assembly and grievous hurt. The Supreme Court held that a delay in lodging an FIR is not fatal if the ocular testimony is reliable and that minor inconsistencies after a long gap do not vitiate the evidence. Consequently, the Court upheld the convictions of the first five accused, reduced their sentences, and set aside the convictions of the remaining thirteen accused for lack of sufficient evidence. The appeal was therefore partly allowed.

Issues considered

Whether a delay in lodging the FIR defeats the prosecution when eyewitness testimony is reliable.
Whether discrepancies in witness statements after a long interval render the evidence unreliable.
Whether convictions of all accused can be sustained on the basis of common intention without direct evidence against each.
Whether the sentence imposed on the convicted accused is excessive.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedures. 313
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 143, s. 147, s. 148, s. 149, s. 302, s. 324, s. 326

Subjects

FIR delayeyewitness testimonywitness discrepancyunlawful assemblycommon intentionconvictionsentence reductionIndian Penal Code

Judgment

VENKATEGOWDA AND ORS. A
v.
STATE OF KARNA TAKA

NOVEMBER 6, 2006

[A.K. MATHUR AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] B

Criminal Trial

FIR-Delay in lodging FIR-Effect-Held, delay in lodging FIR not
fatal in every case of ocular version of eye witnessES is reliable and C
trustworthy-Prosecution explaining reason for delay and testimony of injured
witnesses found credible-In the facts, held, delay in lodging FIR not fatal to
prosecution case-Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 143, 148 and 326 read
with Section 149.

Appreciation of evidence-Discrepancies in the testimony of witness- D
Witnesses examined in Court after gap of ten years from date of occurrence-
Cross-examination taking place after long gap after recording ofexaminations-
in-chief-Witnesses subjected to searching lengthy cross.-:..examination-Held,
some improvements, contradictions and omissions bound to occur in such type
of cross-examination-Discrepancies minor, insignificant and not of serious E
nature and cannot be treated as vital and significant contradictions-In the
facts, held, evidence of witnesses natural, convincing and trust-worthy and
fully establishing prosecution case against some accused persons.

Prosecution alleged that on 4.11.1986 when PWl, PW3, PWtO and
V were returning to their village accused person A-1 who was standing in F
front of his house armed with a chopper picked up a quarrel with them
and accused persons A-1 to A-5 assaulted them with spear, club and
chopper and caused injuries to V, PWl and PW3. PWl, PW3 and PWlO
escaped leaving behind V in an injured condition. PWl got the FIR
registered on the next day at 10 a.m. Police visited scene of occurrence at G
12:00 noon and found V lying injured. V was taken to hospital and he
died in hospital on 4.2.1987. Accused persons A-1 to A-18 were tried for
offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324 and 302 read with Section 149
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 on the allegations that all of them formed
themselves into an unlawful assembly to cause death of V and in
373 II
374 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 8 S.C.R.

A prosecution of the same, they murdered V and caused injuries to PWl
and PW3. Trial Court acquitted all accused persons on the ground that
there was delay in lodging FIR and that there were contradictions and
improvements between the ocular evidence of PWl, PW2, PW3 and PWlO.
High Court in appeal found accused persons A-1 to A-18 guilty of offences
under Sections 143, 148 and 326 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and \
B sentenced each one of them to undergo five years imprisonment and to
pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo
further rigorous imprisonment for one year. Hence this appeal by the
accused persons.

C Appellants contended that they had been falsely implicated in the
case after due deliberation because of prior enmity with complainant
party; that there was delay in lodging FIR with police; that FIR had come
into existence after due deliberations; that there were discrepancies and
improvements in the evidence of PWl, PW2 and PW3 which were
sufficient to doubt correctness of prosecution case; and that PWl, PW2
D and PW3 were interested witnesses.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court.
HELD: 1. On reprisal of the evidence of the injured witnesses P.W.l
and P.W.3 as also the evidence of eyewitness P.W.2, it is clear that the
E evidence on record fully establishes the case of the prosecution against A-
l, A-2, A-3, A-4 and A-5 although, there were certain discrepancies in the
testimony of the injured witnesses and eyewitness in regard to the weapons
of offence individually used by A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4 and A-5 for inflicting
injuries on the person of each of the injured witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.3
as also on the person of the deceased V. The discrepancies are minor and
F insignificant. The witnesses were examined in the court after a gap of
almost ten years. The injured witnesses were cross-examined not on the
very same day when their examinations-in-chief was conducted, but their
evidence was recorded after a long gap of time. Further evidence on record
would show that the inured witnesses had beeh,. subjected to searching
G lengthy cross-examination and questions numbering more than hundred
were being put to each witness. In such type o~f cross-examination by the
defence, some improvements, contradictions, and omissions are bound to
occur in their evidence, but they are not of serious nature and they cannot
be treated as vital and significant contradictions so as to disbelieve and
discard the substratum of the prosecution case. There was no basis for
H
.... VENKATEGOWDAv. STATEOFKARNATAKA 375
.. P.W.l, P.W.2 and P.W.3 to falsely implicate the appellants A-1, A-2, A-3, A
A-4 and A-5 in the present case. On the other hand, the evidence of the
injured and eyewitnesses is quite natural, convincing and trust-worthy.
(380-F, G; 381-A-E]
2. The incident took place on 04.11.1986 at about 6.30 p.m. in front
of the house of A-1 and the manner in which A-1, A-2, A-3. A-4 and A-5 B
had assaulted the injured witnesses and the deceased, the witnesses were
frightened and they fled away from the scene of occurrence to save their
lives, therefore, they did not lodge the complaint with the police on the
same day. The injured witnesses have explained the delay in lodging the
FIR and it was on the following day of the occurrence that P.W. 1. along
with P.W. 7 went to the Kudur Police Station, which is about 15 kms. from C
the place of occurrence and made the complaint to the police official.
Having regard to the injuries inflicted on the body of the deceased as also
on the person of the injured witnesses, it was but natural for P.W.l and
other witnesses not to venture to go straight to the Police Station and lodge
the complaint with the police on the day of the occurrence and the fact
that the witnesses left the deceased V on the scene of occurrence itself D
would indicate the gravity of the situation. It is settled law that the delay
in lodging the FIR will not be fatal in every case if the ocular version of
the eyewitnesses is reliable and trustworthy. The prosecution has explained
the reason for the delay and as the testimony of the injured witnesses was
found credible by the High Court, the delay in lodging of the complaint E
and FIR will not be fatal to the prosecution case. The sequence of the
events and the manner in which FIR has been lodged have been rightly
taken into consideration by the High Court and there is no infirmity and
perversity in the findings of the High Court accepting the explanation of
the prosecution for lodging of F.I.R on the next day of the incident.
[382-C-G] F
Peddireddy Subbareddi and Ors. v. State ofAndhra Pradesh, AIR (1991)
SC 1356 and Amar Singh v. Ba/winder Singh and Ors., [2003) 2 SCC 518,
referred to.
3. There is no material on record from which an inference can be G
drawn that the material witnesses have implicated appellants A-1, A-2,
A-3, A-4 and A-5 in a false case. However, the evidence proved does not
permit any inference to be drawn regarding participation of other
appellants in the commission of the offences, therefore, the conviction of
A-6, A-7, A-8, A-9, A-10, A-11, A-12, A-13, A-14, A-15, A-16, A-17 and
A-18, as recorded by the High Court, is simply based on the inference H
376 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 8 S.C.R.

" -A drawn regarding their participation and existence of common intention
on the basis of conjectures and surmises cannot be sustained. The
established facts, however, conclusively prove the complicity of A-1, A-2,
A-3, A-4 and A-5 in commission of the aforesaid offences. [383-A, B, C)

4. The judgment and order of the High Court suffers from no
B perversity and illegality to warrant interference to the extent of convicting
A-1, A~2, A-3, A-4 and A-5 for offences under Section 326 read with
Section 149 IPC and Sections 143 and 148 of the PIC. However, the
conviction and sentences imposed upon A-6, A-7, A-8, A-9, A-10, A-11,
A-12, A-13, A-14, A-15, A-16, A-17 and A-18 are set aside and they are
C acquitted of the charges levelled against them. [383-D, E, F)

_ 5. Considering the background facts, namely, the incident took place
on 4.11.1986, the nature of the injuries sustained by the deceased and
..,sustained by the deceased he witnesses, the fact that A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4
and A-5 have suffered physically, mentally and financially in prosecuting
D the legal battle in different courts for the past about 20 years, while
maintaining their conviction under Section 326, IPC, read with Section
149, IPC, it might be appropriate to reduce the sentence of A-1, A-2, A-3,
A-4 and A-5 from five years rigorous imprisonment to one year rigorous
imprisonment each and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each instead of
E Rs. 10,000/- each as imposed by the High Court. In default of payment of
fine, A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4 and A-5 each shall further undergo 3 months
rigorous imprisonment. [383-G, H; 384-A, B)

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 851
of 2006.
F From the Judgment and Final Order dated 7.3.2006 of the High Court
of Kamataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No. 161 of 2000.

Dinesh Dwivedi, Shantha Kr. Maha_le, Girish Y.L. and Rajesh Mahale
for the Appellants.
G Sanjay R. Hegde, Anil Kr. Mishra, Vikrant Yadav and Shashi Dhar for
the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A, J. This appeal is preferred by
H
VENKATEGOWDA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.J. 377
Venkategowda (A-1), Muddegowda (A-2), Shivanna (A-3), Govindappa (A- A
4), Govindaiah (A-5), Venkataramanaiah (A-6), Rajashekaraiah (A-7),
Lakkegowda (A-8), Rama (A-9), Shivanna (A-10), Mahadeva (A-11 ),
Ganghahanumaiah (A-12), Singraiah (A-13), Annaiah (A-14), Bettegowda
(A-15), Chikkanna (A-16), Govindaiah (A-17), Rama (A-18), appellants herein,
questioning the correctness of the final judgment and order dated 7.3.2006 B
made in Criminal Appeal No. 16112000 on the file of the High Court of
Kamataka at Bangalore. The appellants took their trial before the Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, in S.C. No.
97 of 1989 for offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 302 read with
Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "the IPC") on the allegations
that all of them formed themselves into an unlawful assembly to cause the C
death of Venkatesh, the deceased herein, and in prosecution of the same, they
murdered the deceased and caused injuries to Rajanna (P.W. l) and Kenchaiah
(P.W.3).

The trial court, after examining the prosecution evidence, observed that
there was delay in lodging the FIR and noticing the contradictions and D
improvements between the ocular evidence of Rajanna (P.W. l ), Moodalagiri
(P.W.2), Kenchaiah (P.W.-3) and Lakshmana (P.W. 10) came to the conclusion
that the prosecution had not established its case against the accused and
consequently acquitted all the accused persons vide judgment and order dated
15.04.1999.
E
In an appeal filed against the said judgment of acquittal by the State
before the High Court of Kamataka, the High Court, accepting the evidence
of one injured witness and two eye-witnesses coupled with the medical
evidence of the doctors, found all the appellants guilty of the offences under
Sections 143, 148 and 326 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced p
each one of the appellants to undergo imprisonment for a period of five y~ars
and to pay a fine of Rs. I 0,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to
undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. Out of the amount of
fine, if realized, a sum of Rs.20,000/- each was ordered to be paid to the
injured witnesses P.W.l and P.W.3 and the balance amount of fine to
Venkatappa (P.W.7), the father or the legal heirs of the deceased Venkatesh G
as compensation. No separate sentence, however, was awarded for the offences
under Sections 143 and 148 of IPC.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied against the judgment and order of
the High Court, the appellants have filed the present appeal by way of special H
378 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R .

.:_ A leave challenging their conviction and sentence imposed on them by the High
Court.

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants are residents
of Village Gangonahalli. The deceased Venkatesh, Rajanna (P.W.l), Kenchaiah
(P.W. 3), Venkatappa (P.W.7) and Lakshmana (P.W.10) are residents of
B Village Basvanapalya. The distance between the said two villages is about
1.5 to 2 kilometres. Venketagowda (A-1) is the father-in-law of complainant
Rajanna (P.W.l) and Venkatappa (P.W.7) is the father of the deceased.

The occurrence, in question, took place on 04.11.1986 at about 6.30
p.m. when Rajanna (P.W.l), Kenchaiah (P.W.3), Lakshmana (P.W. 10) and
C the deceased Venkatesh went to the Co-operative Society at Chowdanapalya
and collected food grains from the ration shop. When they were returning to
their village, they found Venkategowda (A-1) standing in front of his house
armed with a chopper. A-1 had picked up a quarrel with the deceased
Venkatesh, Rajanna (P.W.l), Kenchaiah (P.W. 3) and Lakshmana (P.W. 10)
D on the pretext as to why they had worked in the garden of Thimmappa
Gowda inspite of they being asked not to do any job of Thimmappa Gowda:
Govindappa (A-4) assaulted Rajanna (P. W.1) on his right hand with a spear
whereas Govindaiah (A-5) assaulted him with a club on his back. Shivanna
(A-3) assaulted the deceased Venkatesh with a club on his shoulder and
Venkategowda (A-1) assaulted the deceased with a chopp~r on the left thigh
E whereas Muddegowda (A-2) assaulted the deceased with a chopper on the
left arm and left ear. As a result of injuries, the deceased Venkatesh fell down
on the ground. After commission of the offences, the appellants tried to
assault Lakshmana (P.W.10) who escaped from their clutches and took shelter
in the house of P.W. 12 and P.W. 14. Rajanna (P.W.l) and Kenchaiah (P.W.
F 3) were persuaded by Moodalagiri (P. W. 2) to go to their village leaving the
deceased Venkatesh at the scene of occurrence in an injured condition.

On the following day, i.e. 5.11.1986, at about 10.00 a.m. Rajanna (P. W. l)
went to Kudur Police Station and got the complaint (Exhibit P-1) written by
a scribe near the Kudur Police Station. K.B. Jayaramappa (P.W. 20) who, at
G the relevant time, was the Station House Officer of the Police Station, registered
a case Crime No. 177/1986 vide FIR (Exhibit P-30) against the appellants
under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149 and 324 of the IPC. P.W.20 K.B.
Jayaramappa went to the scene of occurrence at about 12.00 noon. He found
Venkatesh lying with injuries on the footpath between the houses of
H Venkategowda (A-1) and Ganghahanumaiah (A-12). The Investigating Officer
VENKATEGOWDA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA[LOKESHWARSINGH PANTA, J.] 379

prepared the spot mahazar and searched the houses of the appellants to A
recover the weapons of offences but no recovery was effected therefrom.
I

Rajanna (P.W.l) and Kenchaiah (P.W.3) were medically examined by
Dr. D. Rajanna (P.W.9) on 05.11.1986 at about 11.00 a.m. and he found
simple injuries on their persons. On the same day, injured Venkatesh was
examined by the Medical Officer-of Nagavalli, who referred him to Tumkar B
Hospital where Dr. C.R. Rangaraju (P.W. 4), the Assistant Surgeon, medically
examined him. Dr. C.R. Rangaraju (P.W. 4) found three injuries on the person.
of Venkatesh out of which compound fracture of the left femur lower end !
was grievous in nature while other injuries were simple in nature. The victim
was shifted after two days to Victoria Hospital, Bangalore. Dr. Rangarajan C
(P.W.18) medically examined the victim at Victoria Hospital. Venkatesh died
at Victoria Hospital on 04.02.1987 at 6.00 a.m. Dr. S.B. Patil (P.W.13)
conducted post-mortem on the dead-body of the deceased Venkatesh on
05.02.1987. According to the opinion of Dr. S.B. Patil (P.W.13), the cause
of death ofVenkatesh was due to respiratory failure as a result of consolidation
of lungs secondary to fracture of thigh bone. The factum of death was intimated D
to the Police Station. On 04.02.1987, K.N. Mariyappa, who at the relevant
time was working as Head Constable in Kudur Police Station, prepared a
supplementary F.l.R. at 9.00 p.m. and converted the offence from Section'
324, IPC, to Section 302, IPC, and thereafter FIR was sent to the Judicial!
I
Magistrate and other higher officials. On completion of the investigation, E
charge sheet was laid by the Police against the appellants.

The prosecution, in support of its case, examined as many as 20 witnesses
and marked 32 exhibits. The appellants in their statements recorded under
Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure pleaded not guilty to the
• charges and claimed that they have been falsely implicated in the case because' F
of political rivalry and animosity between the complainant party and the
accused party.

The trial court acquitted the accused of all the charges. On appeal by
the State of Karnataka, the appellants were convicted and sentenced as
aforesaid. Hence, this appeal. G
On behalf of the appellants, Shri Dinesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel,
contended that the trial court, on a proper appreciation of the evidence of
injured witnesses, namely, Rajanna (P.W.l), Kenchaiah (P.W. 3) and the
eyewitness Moodalagiri (P.W.2) has rightly come to the conclusion that
H
380 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.

A because of prior enemity the appellants were falsely implicated in the case
after due deliberation. Learned counsel contended that the FIR in this case
had come into existence after due deliberation and there were discrepancies
and improvements in the versions o_fRajanna (P.W.l), Moodalagiri (P.W.2),
and Kenchaiah (P.W.3), which were noticed by the trial court and these were
B found to be sufficient to doubt the correctness of the prosecution case.
Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the trial court was justified in
acquitting the appellants. He also contended that the High Court, on the same
set of facts and on re-appreciation of the evidence without properly noticing
the contradictions in the ocular evidence of the injured witnesses and one
eyewitness, has erroneously convicted the appellants on flimsy grounds.
c Shri Sanjay R. Hegde, the learned counsel for the respondent-State,
however, supported the judgment of the High Court concerning the conviction
of Venkategowda (A-1), Muddegowda (A-2), Shivanna (A-3), Govindappa
(A-4) and Govindaiah (A-5) by contending that there was no reason why the
evidence of the injured witnesses and the eyewitness corroborated by the
D medical evidence should be rejected. It was his argument that the High Court,
as a first Court of Appeal, has a duty to reconsider the evidence and correct
the error committed by the trial court. He, however, fairly and in our view,
rightly stated that the conviction ofVenkataramanaiah (A-6), Rajashekaraiah
(A-7), Lakkegowda (A-8), Rama (A-9), Shivanna (A-10), Mahadeva (A-11),
E Ganghahanumaiah (A-12), Singraiah (A-13), Annaiah (A-14), Bettegowda
(A-15), Chikkanna (A-16), Govindaiah (A-17) and Rama (A-18) by the High
Court cannot be justified for the lack of satisfactory and cogent evidence
connecting them with the commission of the offences.

We have independently scrutinized the evidence of the material witnesses
F in the teeth of the rival contentions of the parties. On reprisal of the evidence
of the injured witnesses Rajanna (P.W.l) and Kenchaiah (P.W.3) as also the
evidence of eyewitness Moodalagiri (P.W.2), it is clear that the evidence on
record fully establishes the case of the prosecution against Venkategowda
(A-1), M11ddegowda (A-2), Shivanna (A-3), Govindappa (A-4) and Govindaiah
(A-5) although, there were certain discrepancies in the testimony of the injured
G witnesses and eyewitness in regard to the weapons of offence individually
used by (A-1), (A-2), (A-3), (A-4) and (A-5) for inflicting injuries on the
person of each of the injured witnesses (P.W. I) and (P.W.3) as also on the .
person of the deceased Venkatesh. The discrepancies, as pointed out by the
learned counsel for the appellants, are minor and insignificant. The witnesses
H were examined in the court after a gap of almost ten years. The injured
VENKATEGOWDA v. STATEOFKARNATAKA [LOKESHWARSINGHPANTA, J.] 381
witnesses were cross-examined not on the very same day when their A
examinations-in-chief was conducted, but their evidence was recorded after
a long gap of time. On examination of the evidence ofRajanna (P.W.l), we
find that he was examined-in-chief on 26.11.1996, but his cross-examination
continued and he was cross-examined again on 27 .11.1997. Likewise, 1

Kenchaiah (P.W.3) was examined-in-chief on 28.11.1996, but his cross- B
examination took place on 28.4.1997. Further evidence on record would
show that the injured witnesses had been subjected to searching lengthy
cross-examination and questions numbering more than hundred were being
put to each witness. In such type of cross-examination by the defence, some
improvements, contradictions, and omissions are bound to occur in their
evidence, but they are not of serious nature and they cannot be treated as C
vital and significant contradictions so as to disbelieve and discard the
substratum of the prosecution case. The evidence of the injured witnesses
Rajanna (P.W.1), Kenchaiah (P.W.3) and eyewitness Moodalagiri (P.W.2)
has been rightly appreciated a_nd accepted by the High Court and we find no
cogent and .sound reason to differ from the reasoning and finding recorded D
by the High Court against Venkategowda (A-1), Muddegowda (A-2), Shivanna
(A-3), Govindappa (A-4) and Govindaiah (A-5) holding them guilty of the
offences. There is no substance in the argument of the learned senior counsel
for the appellants that the evidence of Rajanna (P. W. l ), Moodalagiri (P. W.2)
and Kenchaiah (P.W.3) should be levelled as the evidence of the interested
witnesses. There was no basis for Rajanna (P.W.l), Moodalagiri (P.W.2) and E
Kenchaiah (P.W.3) to falsely implicate the appellants Venkategowda (A-1),
Muddegowda (A-2), Shivanna (A-3), Govindappa (A-4) and Govindaiah (A-
5) in the present case. On the other hand, we find that the evidence of the
injured and eyewitnesses is quite natural, convincing and trust-worthy. The
learned senior counsel for the appellants then contended that there is an
inordinate delay in lodging the complaint by Rajanna (P.W. 1) and registering F
the FIRin the Police Station. In support of this submission, reliance is placed
on Peddireddy Subbareddi and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR (1991)
SC 1356 and Amar Singh v. Ba/winder Singh and Ors., [2003] 2 SCC 518.
We have examined the ratio of the said decisions.

In Peddireddy's case (Supra), this Court, on the scrutiny of the evidence, G
found that the testimony of sole witness was clouded with strong suspicion
and as the FIR was lodged by a delay of 15 hours, and in such circumstances,
the false implication of the accused in the said case could not be completely
ruled out.
H
382 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.

A In Amar Singh 's case (supra), it is held that there is no hard and fast
rule that any delay in lodging the FIR would automatically render the
prosecution case doubtful. Further, it is observed that it necessarily depends
upon facts and circumstances of each case whether there has been any such
delay in lodging the FIR which may cast doubt about the veracity of the
prosecution case and for this, a host of circumstances like the condition of
B the first informant, the nature of injuries sustained, the number of victims, the
efforts made to provide medical aid to them, the distance of the hospital and
the police station etc. have to be taken into consideration and that there is no
mathematical formula by which an inference may be drawn either way merely
on account of delay in lodging of the FIR.
c After perusing the entire evidence on record in the present case, as
noticed above, the incident took place on 04.11.1986 at about 6.30 p.m. in
front of the house of Venkategowda (A-1) and. the manner in which
Venkategowda (A-1), Muddegowda (A-2), Shivanna (A-3), Govindappa (A-
4) and Go~indaiah (A-5) had assaulted the injured witnesses and the deceased,
D the witnesses were frightened and they fled away from the scene of occurrence
to save their lives, therefore, they did not lodge the complaint with the police
on the same day. The injured witnesses have explained the delay in lodging
the FIR and it was on the following day of the occurrence that Rajanna
(P.W. l) along with Venkatappa (P. W.7) went to the Kudur Police Station,
E which is about 15 kms. from the place of occurrence and made the complaint
to the police official. Having regard to the injuries inflicted on the body .of
the deceased as also on the person of the injured witnesses, it was but natural
for Rajanna (P.W. l) and other witnesses not to venture to go straight to the
Police Station and lodge the complaint with the police on the day of the
occurrence and the fact that the witnesses left the deceased Venkatesh on the
F scene of occurrence itself would indicate the gravity of the situation. It is
settled law that the delay in lodging the FIR will not be fatal in every case
if the ocular version of the eyewitnesses is reliable and trustworthy. The
prosecution has explained the reason of the delay and as the testimony of the
injured witnesses was found credible by the High Court, the delay in lodging
G of the complaint and FIR will not be fatal to the prosecution case. The
sequence of the events and the manner in which FIR has been lodged have
been rightly taken into consideration by the High Court and we do not find
any infirmity and perversity in the findings of the High Court accepting the
explanation of the prosecution for lodging of F.l.R. on the next day of the
incident. The submission of the learned senior counsel for the appellants that
H
VENKATEGOWDA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LOKESHWARSINGHPANTA, J.) 383
the prosecution case should be discarded and disbelieved on the ground of A
delay in lodging the FIR, does not merit acceptance. There is no material on
record from which an inference can be drawn that the material witnesses
have implicated appellants Venkategowda (A-1), Muddegowda (A-2),
Shivanna (A-3), Govindappa (A-4) and Govindaiah (A-5) in a false case.
However, the evidence proved does not permit any inference to be drawn B
regarding participation of other appellants in the commission of the offences,
therefore, the conviction of Venkataramanaiah (A-6), Rajashekaraiah (A-7),
Lakkegowda (A-8), Rama (A-9), Shivanna (A-10), Mahadeva (A-11),
Ganghahanumaiah (A-12), Singraiah (A-13), Annaiah \A-14), Bettegowda
(A-15), Chikkanna (A-16), Govindaiah (A-17) and Rama (A-18), as recorded
by the High Court, is simply based on the inference drawn regarding their C
participation and existence of common intention on the basis of conjectures
and surmises cannot be sustained. The established facts, however, conclusively
prove the complicity of Venkategowda (A-1), Muddegowda (A-2),
Shivanna(A-3), Govindappa (A-4) and Govindaiah (A-5) in commission of
the aforesaid offences.
D
Having given our careful consideration to the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the judgment and
order of the High Court suffers from no perversity and illegality to warrant
our interference to the extent of convicting Venkategowda (A-1 ), Muddegowda
(A-2), Shivanna(A-3), Govindappa (A-4) and Govindaiah (A-5) for offences E
under Section 326 read with Section 149 IPC and Sections 143 and 148 of
the IPC. However, the conviction and sentences imposed upon
Venkataramanaiah (A-6), Rajashekaraiah (A-7), Lakkegowda (A-8), Rama
(A-9), Shivanna (A-10), Mahadeva (A-11), Ganghahanumaiah (A-12),
Singraiah (A-13), Annaiah (A-14), Bettegowda (A-15), Chikkanna (A-16), F
Govindaiah (A-17), Rama (A-18) are set aside and they are acquitted of the
charges levelled against them.

The residuary question is whether the sentence as imposed by the High
Court upon Venkategowda (A-1), Muddegowda (A-2), Shivanna (A-3),
Govindappa (A-4) and Govindaiah (A-5) is harsh. Considering the background G
facts, namely, the incident took place on 4.11.1986, the nature of the injuries
sustained by the deceased and the witnesses, the fact that Venkategowda (A-
l), Muddegowda (A-2), Shivanna(A-3), Govindappa (A-4) and Govindaiah
(A-5) have suffered physically, mentally and financially in prosecuting the .
legal battle in different courts for the past about 20 years, while maintaining
their conviction under Section 326, IPC, read with Section 149, IPC, it might H
384 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.

A be appropriate to reduce the sentence of Venkategowda (A-1), Muddegowda
(A-2), Shivanna (A-3), Govindappa (A-4) and Govindaiah (A-5) from five
years rigorous imprisonment to one year rigorous imprisonment each and
also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each instead of Rs.· l 0,000/- each as imposed
by the High Court. In default of payment of fine, Venkategowda (A-1),
B Muddegowda (A-2), Shivanna(A-3), Govindappa (A-4) and Govindaiah (A-
5) each shall further undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment. Out of the
amount of fine, if realized, a sum of Rs. 5,000/- each shall be paid to Rajanna
(P.W.l) and Kenchaiah (P.W.3) injured witnesses and a sum of Rs.10,000/
- shall be paid as compensation to Venkatappa (P.W.7) - the father or the
legal heirs of the deceased Venkatesh.
c
The appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above.
Venkataramanaiah (A-6), Rajashekaraiah (A-7), Lakkegowda (A-8), Rama
(A-9), Shivanna (A-10), Mahadeva (A-11), Ganghahanumaiah (A-12),
Singraiah (A-13), Annaiah (A-14), Bettegowda (A-15), Chikkanna (A-16),
Govindaiah (A-17), Rama (A-18) are stated to be in jail undergoing .
D imprisonment in this case. They shall be released forthwith by the jail
authorities, if not required in any other case.

A.K.T. Appeal partly allowed.

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "FIR delay"Sign in to search