Narayana Reddy @ Babu vs State Of Karnataka on 16 June, 2011

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Narayana Reddy @ Babu vs State Of Karnataka on 16 June, 2011

Bench: N.Ananda

' £2}; *

{N THE HIGH CGURT (BF E<L%RNA'1'A§iA AT 

DATED THIS THE if-3?" DAY GE' JUNE, 2Cf:i§": ' ;;~{:   _

PRESENT

"ma HONBLE MREJUSTILZTEZ   4'   A  I

A;\H3__
THE HONBLE MR.aUs*fi»:§:: \/is. ABEAT 
 R x

1. Narayana Reddyv@ Babb; ' 
S/0 Govinda Eikadkiy _ 
Aged aboui 25 Years. ' 2 . --  .
R/at Na.348,,."E{Q'fémaﬁ'g'aEa"   '
Village, Bangaknjc.  ~

}'¢Iun'?;swa   % ' « 

S/0 Govinda Rédﬂy  _

Aged aLs;_3uiA35 Years _ _

Rg' at N93-4§8,v.E{o1*amanga1a

Village; Bahgaicrt; V  Appeilanis
(By $::_.:\z;;':: RajeziCir.23;,___P;j'asad, Sr, Adv. for Sri.K.S.Nandish

[:0

. °Bab£:~, A€§i»'A0céife for A1; )

Stategjf Kaﬁizaiaké, by
K0ra.:r:ar1g§ai9; j{%:21ic€ Station

-- 88LI1g;';:i},G}'€E§ Ci'é;y
.  ' '§Rep1*es"e::§E:*ci by Eearﬁed
* " Pubiic Prasecutar}.
" «€33; 8:? N, S Sampar1g;£:a::1aiah, HCGF}

... Résponéent



gaééka

2. This eeuri by jzldgrilenii  

aequitiing aeeuseé N02 f<:1£*  an offence pu[:ziSi§§iE;--Ee. imdei'-V

section BS2 1'/'JV 34 {PC   aemzsed
Nan}. However, the  aequiiial <35
accused No.2 1:; tern1e,...e% 25.03.2010.
Thus, acquiﬁtegi   8 attained finality.
bVefe:§§eVV'the Supreme Court in

Crimiﬁal   The Supreme Ceurt by

judgme'n:V dated £b.2'Q__I i3,""sei aside eorzvieiien of accused

No.1' .f::>r affofferzeee p un§7s..habIe under section 302 IPC ané

 V'  _reiefﬁtegieVAtheA.mattef"iéfVfresh Consideration by this Court.

 matie by the Supreme ileum in Criminai

Apﬁeal :sf5g2:£35/20:0 reads thus»

H "This appeal ie directed against {he

jf,'judgn1ent and erder dated 25"? March, 2310
passeé by the High Court of Karnaéaka at
Bangaiore in Criminai Appeal No.5?8 af 20076

The appeiiané is ztersvieted fer the effenee
pvgznishabie under Seetiesr; 302 LRC. and
eemiegieecé ﬁe sz:fie:* ﬁfe impnsexamenie ﬁiere are

aiiieegeiher saix ae<:::,:se& ehargeci Eb? She €:eff€§1C:€
/'Z

 



<11

punishable under Seciien 3&2 reaei with Seetiop

34 LPG. The tried Ceuri, an appyeeiaiien of

evicience avaiiabie on reeerci, acquitted .A§5:'~;. 

and A6. Awi» dieﬁ during the penden<3j§5c;f 

trial. The High Coum upon eensider2i:i'o:i:'_ef 'Vt}:.1e'-- _

evidence. acquitted A~2{ <:af  «the * e1<;a1<ge: '

Uiizimateiy, the apspeﬁant {g-'--'g_~f} xaierie_._.:2;iande--, '

cenvieieci for the effegiee under Seeiie:: _"8Qt2--':
LRC.  " ' ' ' '

The erxfjre "p§0see1ii'io'rv: e3;eIe. jfests  the
evidence of P.\aV.1i'  be an eye»
witness tQ,_'ihf3 inAci:?e_r;1:. The é§§pe'Ii.aie Ceurt did
not eensiéiief the egvie}eriee e.f' in proper
pe:~s:pe¢e.:,;é1§V. ~   ﬁe _ tie fiisvcuesion and any
a;1M;;1ys:ie':"e§:_;§hVe v,I€".'€'J.1. Needless to
:Vetate"['   _{.--"/ouirig being the Qrsi
ei;pp'el_Iate_ {Q have Considered and

asseesedv the exrideﬁgze cf Pfﬁ/'.1, In such View of

'ihe rr1e&ie;9;"We find it difficult is sustain the

 5,;-dggnent e§"""'Efie High Couri cenvieting ihe

   herein fer the offence punéshabie

 V. t1';:€ie1' ;?3Tee'i.:0n 302 E133.

~  aeceréingly, remit the fE,&§§L€§" {er fresh

~.ee:fs_s§,dere3/iierz by ihe High Court, We requesi {he

   Ceurt "£0 dispeee ef {he mazéer as

expedﬁgieuségg as gessibie, preferabiy xeieihirg six

izzisraéize §I"{}f}1 ieday.

 

 



6

bearing survey NOJIB/6, which beienged {Q 

was acquired by BSA and there was a mad iz3w.g{z'd:3=::éj;'i1'r:~eifn V'

side of acquired land. Accused Ne;i¥"}':ad efeegeei'~S:0f1e.:s;i3::3g

arouncé hie land, including the §"«<3a<i?._.T"The:*efe1<e., 

Goviziﬂa Reddy and Qt.herS._ P1'a§i nieide vs: TVpeti;i§<§r:VVV {Q the'

revenue Assistant CQn1miss_i_o1{1fe.:i_, 'xyvho  e;f€qui:*y got
removed stone siabs efeeted"Fi;y?.,é1g:ei1Sf;r;1'No.4. In addition £0
this dispute, severai e:.vi'i"d.i§;putes;_wei'e ¢;j'e.h§:iing between the

accused  deeeased L§e»\»'in..da V  Accused N04 «~
Govinda Re--dd§: 'égas  {ﬁe deceased and his family

members i_GA i.Q«f'3V€.',Vi:h§j 2*Qéid__\iae:_ated in from of the heuse of

deceased. ThereeVW3j$V.aV'dfé:i13"between mad and the houee sf
deeeasedye " ' = *

 'On  between 8.30 pm. and 9 p.m., the

 ﬁeCe.aéed ":fequesvfeee1A PW1-Srinivasa to go ever :9 his

  }V1Ve:_>z§v;s7ev::i.e.%.v§a;3i.e*a£.:$tene slab an drain 80 that he eeuld take

i*1A::;_ SC€>a??,_<§§Ti' ever the drain :0 his heuse. z3;eeerding1j;,

 PW}:  the deceased iogeiher Eaid 3 siege siab er: the
 existing iseéween mac? and {he heuee ef deeeasezi.

2%: me ﬁzeaziwhiiei aéiétueezii E 1:/0  zirmeé with

     



8

body Came there. Inxmeeiiateiy, PW} e:;m':e fee the heusse ef

deceased and informed the IIIEULICEI" to {he wife 0f,_dee_eeased

nameiy PW8»Ningamma. Thereafter, P\K='}:"""{:é:_:32e': 

Korzmlangala Police Stzaiieqz and ieeiged firssia 3,ri:;':..

set {he Eaw inie fI1(}'i.iO}"i. On C{}fI1p:_C1'i€:.~1"1 ._OfV Aiizwesiigairiori,

charge sheet was ﬂied agains:§_aeeuSed  tee 8.53.2: fafere£;té1'ted"g

effenees.

6, As already siateé 9;Cet:'seé5§f?J0'I'4{"eciiee? _during pendeney

of preeeedings and Case"e:'g:{ir.=st' ageeu$edeVN'e.4 abated.

7. 0n   PW1 to ewe were
exarnjnecie;  to EX.P.7' were marked
and    to M.O.1C} were marked,
On beha1E'--:i1_f éhe  the eemradietezy portions in the

firs€'.,infe:'r11atieAﬁ" ar_1_ﬁ¢.*:he stafceiirlents of witnesses reeerded

'fgmfier.._se:::"iie'i: ___16i Cr.P.C., were marked as E2<;.E3,1 £0

  eeriiéfied eepy ef wrii{;en eézztegneni, in

O.$§;Ne';'*V3;?§§2:/ 1998 was n1a:"ked as Ex.D,£8, The eeriified

  {,{}'§':.f{ 05%/x»*ri:;:;en eiaéemeni, in O:S;N0.58§3/ £996 wae maﬁaieei

';z.e'E€§:,E}. E9. The {tag}; :3? Sf£}§€'?£}1{":}?i, 9%" C153; 'W218 markesi 3:2;

   



Ex.D.2{}. The phetographs ef scene of occurrence and the

houses situate near the scene of eeeunenee were 

El>:.D.21 to }?32:.D.24. The eertified C0133? 

O.S.No.E3863/ 1996 was marked as ex,::>.2.e;'*i"T2151'gig::g:~;.;;~a.e_ A 

Gepaiareddy was marked as   ViiriI"i}V€§~..___diiE3,1}g'

repert; was marked as Ex'D'.2.6. TEi'e.V_eer:iﬁ:.:d '  0:? 

information in Crime N0.6O5/ 

89 The learned triei  accused I & 2 for
an offence  'r/w 34 IPC and
acquitted    GE  :'Vi$'e'VVVeffenees with which
they j,Ve§e_   net prefer an appeai
agaiﬁiiﬁi €315".e.ie'vv---acquittal of aeeuseei 3, E3 & En
Aeeuseei    appeal against the judgment

of e;3:"iVi.etion.  ., _ x V

   paragraphs ef this judgment we have

é*e.fe'?re§«E:e§e:'jfiieieVjudg:nen: made by this eeur: en 25.83.2816

ané ,.aiV'S:';> hiiréminael Appeei N0.2235/ROM} fileé by aeeused

  "Ne,-._:¢ bvefore the Supreme Court and the eréer made by ihe

'f§::pren1e Cezurt, Er: vieea ef the abeve preeeedingjs and

5,
E

-o.«~'vbV'
\
9'!
W

 



IO

juzjgmenis, we are requirézd to CGf1Sid€I" afresh the im.;:;_1g:3e€1

juﬁgment as it reiates to ctanvicéiaza of aCCL;'S.€"C3.."§""}'3'<3'.}

iappcsﬂant N01} £23? an of'i'€n<:€ punishaE:21e urldif   

29¢.   ._

9. Before adverting to appreciatien 'of €vide3,:.cé:', 'we°'.€:iéem'a

it proper to state certain  whi£:.?_1_"'Ah.:%;ve ' not bean
Contraverted by the d"ef7e:r1ce." ar::i -.aEs<")",:3\?§denéé in proof of

facts, which has 110': best} £:C13t'm°xrértV_gd;--  

10.  u:::i'c':'éeaseci and accused.
The diSp1}.€U§V   §~<§a':%i V ﬁ"oI:1t of the house if
d€Cea,§§ﬁi:  thr: road as part sf their
land   by erecting stoné slabs. On

a r§:p_:eser:i'aii0n.V.m2ide '°by the deceased to ihe ravenué:

'V V'  _ Asé__iét2;nA:; Clemmissiuriérﬁ stane siabs were removed, however,

 V i"§'i";E{EI1 15-}.9':zi_é6_ betwewsn house cef deceased anti road had :10':

'ibséfi CQ'¢"€fZv~;€::'{71A.'5Vif§,E'l Siam: slabs. En ibis ='30I1f'1€€§;iQI1, 1h€1'€ were
.§€xs'é;*a1s"£j3'.viVi Iitigaiiens p€3"}dif1g béiwcsﬁn parties.

'  he homiéidaai dsath of C1€C€3EI.S€{i Giwinda R€§i.dy 33; 3

"€:T%§' §}3{} 33:1/2% er': §2.{}z:§~. i§}§%§ 2:"; :':~<;::: 9%" £315? %:$s.2.s:~s»:% :7}? {>133 s,§3ET3{"iS

 

 





Nirgrnaia Raj Cannot be disputed and hag not b€€n._.v:€Vi:$;p;é£§d.

Thﬁf firssii ir1f0rmatie:an regissiered by E{0;'amang3jia"p'éE§€.é

the basis sf first mfermaiiion regigtersd "1 --"S:'£:1iv3§s'"'

reached jurisdicimnal E\f£agi$£r9;?.;¢ ii'   "*:ﬁ<f3fi:1
22.043999, A  ' " ~  '~

11. The medical svidenczi gixrérz;b:;iuPW7¥'Df?.B.R.$.Kashyap
and the Cenients of m0'_fte;:3VL'.€;"&:;;ziAf1i:?:La.ti0n report. weuid
reveal on 13.04. wag, }?W?'~D_r. §§>.1§..SI}{2is}5y«:ip {the {hen Head
of Dcipartmerif'{:{§.§P'or«§:f1siir; ";:?:f;..:V11c':Oria Hospitai at
Bangalorei _c:::2:1 41"<'i_.1i{.:'t:i'--;:*}»  éxamination 0:1 the dead
body   'Réti»dy and found following
i:1ju1"ieVV$.i~ ' 4.
.(i}* V 'I_I1£3A§.S;{?V(1'~~"1\V«'»7{31lf1(i prcesent ever left sicle
 ,,4__¢Av1lI1ﬁ'Z%f:rneai11 the Jaw measuring 4
ems X 1 arms X bone d€€p§
'A ~   Stabbed wound presétnt aver fmnt of
abdomen epigasiric region in the
midéié ﬁne, Veruitailjg gjlased
maasuring :3 ems X 1 ems X
abdeaminal Cavity §§:€§%, iswar eﬁé is

shat'? 3:353 upper ensii E5 biunti

K2,
E

1'

,

:;'?%.;:¢ g<V;£;;;>»~»;.A»;';7'**sx~-«g;Vi%:;:.W,»



% M%k

{Vi}

Obhqueiy placed stab  'V
present GVSI' the left side: £"rc:.::i7  
chest '9' arms bgﬁgw the;'iEff-- :::ib§é}ﬁ}e'-A
and 9 ems 16131: t»i'f1:Aé3'  
Iuwer Quiet end};   'up;3é:%: '~

inner end' _iS~._pQinied nieasuxiiivig.

ems X 1 cm  Caviiydeép. 
Two  mcisecl w{:éu:i<":~s presérif over
rightésidve ii':>r1;i Esf ifhést 'measuring 3

CHIS  .. .5'»<:mS, V.,sii:Li':1té*d;_  cm apart

"««._ }<1nd¢=2 0:1".-3; ab0i%e:_;an§i_Hihedia1 to right
=1:i1ip.}V:>}€A:.-..._ V.  ' '

51:; * f;1a;§€d stab wound

 g:~.:e:36; frt'_voar§:1*-- 1OW'€1' part of right side
V > "e::::". situaieci 10 cms beiow
   nippha, and 6 ems frsm the
 fnidiine, measuring 4 ems X 1.5 ems

«vxﬁhuscie deep. Quter Ieweyy end is

blunt, upper inner end is pointed,
direcisci baakwarcis and upwards for
2: depth of 2 ems.

ifarticaﬁjg piacaﬁ stazb wourzd
preseni ova? 16?: side front of
9:§Z}C§€}IH€fi Si?;%;§8ff3C§ 8 C1135 abzwe {E26

36%} its? zimésiiigézig and 2 9:123 {mm

 



 

{Vii}

(Viﬁ }' . A

 pd';n:ed§f ;  -~'dii:*'ecV*ie<:1

13

the midline measurirtxg 5% ems  
ems :=: abdeminai Cavity dee_§3"'fifa5.:;:.__: " ;. '
which portion 0f 0mer:'te2.;s':VA_e'is'

pretending out  Ejpper efzd is"   

and lewer end isi~,p0i:n'§es:I.  

Obﬁiqueiy  placed. "stab .

present am;  xefroni x. Qf *   éiae S

abdgmen,  .._Vbe1::s?¢*' --.i_lf:e_ ii left
e0s{a,1_..V:V'*M83"gi§:V V:é1'£1§§~   ems frcam

middle 'line,'V"fneas1_1vf"'iI1jg'V  ems X 2

' -a':_ms;_'X i:1use41e«..bVLdeep.  Upper inner

§E"e.;1d.   E",QW€:1"W 'Quf€1' end is

upward S ,

 :fE>é:eRWéi;r:is éi:'1e:': 'inwards for 3. depth

V  '
' V "-Qb1iq--uAe'ijg placed stab incised wound

-pre.sei1i:7 ever left side from of

 ~.._ abdemen situated 2 ems lateral to

 midiirze and 16 ems below the
iefi Costa} margins measuring § ems;
 1.5 ems X abdgminal cagviiy deep.
Upper inner end is biuui, Eewer
euier end is painteé. C0113 of 311131}

intestine pro¥:ruéing' out 

  

' %"/'/ '"»  W. . £1!» .



Ve_beer've€i Vé.'1-at 'qeapen after euetine' {me

....

'J1 {xii} Herizoetaﬁy pieced incised \xse':§f::1 "--_ ' present ever let": ferearm sii_::€:C:eei"--'3"--- '7' ems below the eibew j0i17.§..,e;gﬁ:.;:¥u.1ﬁer._ aspect measurigig »*':'>'":%';'«z*;s'-gg 15.53. e'::¥:s:~V>%:'W' bone deep, Gr: disseeuen of'inj--1;ry n"o~._(1"i} ii isv ebAs§e:fx_fed_.'§ that, the weapon after' ' §'3ie'1*eing {he/_ ef the abdesmina} well enfg-:'r'ec'i _i§"1'e"-vperiteeeal eezvityr and has p3'.erc:teci""'a§':*1«'e..f:90n§. {>fu'"i'ii%ef»«'s5.g1_bsta11ce on which it m_easuree._2?_emeV._Vx in deep. B1{)()d3~v€§:'tfé'\é'8.Sé1t€§i injury is direg:te?:'3..b:§:>E{f>vé:reis_Qdowdivéarcis and to the right for a 'd,e§:-tiﬁief 'IF' e':né;.' ~--

of injury :1e,(iii) it is mziseies (Sf e}1:e'§=t4xxra11 has entered the Chest e;1\z'i:3§ a:f;d"has'V'pierced the dome of diaphragm set: which ft"':11eé.eures 3 ems X 1 cm X 0.5 cm.

--.'i'E:~e".ih.jv:;r3r is directed backwards. dewmvards 1 fer a éepth of 4 ems.

~ f..--{'}:1 dissection ef injury ne.{vi}§ ii is ~. efzgserved {hat the Weapon has piereeﬁ {he ihuseies sf ihe abdeminai wail entered the periieneai eaviéy age has pieyeeﬁ ihe mesemery er? emaii i:2E;ee'£§:ee 3.21:3 ihe mesezzteyii: veeseie X2 2 I6 sevsrsd. bleed sxtravasated all over. TheV"h*;jus:3{L' 5 . ' is directed backwards for a depth of 4 ctrizsx. Q11 dissection sf' iI1j:L1I'§?"'f1f}7('Jii:$ i;hé"'v§o:1f:d_'_'VV is in muscie plane direcéed;ba}:ki2%21':*ds'- a"nV:ci___. inwards for a dspth 05:2 _r::ms.«=.A ' Cm ciisssction @:f "i:1juryV' .1:19'.{y'ii'§},Vx:ii""'iss ObS€I"\£'€d that the xves;§§i:=n_ after hpisrgingvfi the musclss sf af:s:;;§4§5';11ir12£AE entsfesi the peritozleai cavity has'V:"p:ie1f(sé:=dAA_'*;h €Lmesentery of small_'in§esti:1é"';aﬁV§i mesenteric \Iesse_1si_;: .fé§;%<trE;\?ss3{'{ed ';EL:1"VV{V)"C;"fid. The injury direiftsci-"'dsii?3E:wa4f&ﬁs.sAéi:1d:_~bé1*:kwards for a dspih £3-E4» _ci:~;s. :5. V O1}. _&dissc<:utron of injury r::o.{x], it is §2bse.rVéd. &:1iaz:V :'Ef§1 €§"'-,'f\"K/fC:3§\3OI1 after piercing the n11i's§ié*:SV 5:' a1s§.0mf:if:a1 Wail has pierced the front ' "wall sf ::ﬁ_Vsria'ry bladder on which it measures 25 éjmsx 1 crgiféiéivity deep. Tbs injury is directed V' " j for a depth of 3 CHIS, <:2i:;"' disseciiien sf injury :*:<:z.(;i:~<:}9 it is e:;.E;seL:f'1fsd that ihrs weapen aftcsr piercing musclss ~sb::is3r:1::12zi wall has erziereﬁ thzs peritcmsai ésviéfg and gnerced fhs sn1a}E intestine measuring 3 ems SS5 cm fairs? maﬁsz" is visibie in {$36 ;::s:':§:s:'1s~aE ctaizéty mixecé wiéh bk}s§L 'éhé: izzgfury is V ._.{viéi<:h was Eaégezi by PWIV, wt': Ei:";¢:i 2;/ha: ii': 2.316 firsi; directed downwards and backwards fer of 5 ems."

12. PEN? has opined Ezhai dsaté vééié . d L1_€ "Zia _.S'}1.g>.{;I€:' §ri{i haémorrhage due is muhiiplc iI1~§L1I"§.€?S' SL1S?;E1iI1'§3£"1'.Elfid '<;1é'«:2th--.. was instantaneeus.

13. There is whether multiple stab / incised inju_rieS iV"r3A.t.:.1/Q d'5é;C?%féi»sV§§§Vc':"V"'c0u1<:1 have been Causged by xxriiliijbﬁ;disgfussed in tht? latter part 0f éjg/dér'1ce adduced by the pr0se;:i$é€;ii' decsased Gevinda Raddy was h€)'m;i:r::idé.I due to shock and hemorrhage as 8.'1"<3SuI{"")f 1I3i,1.§i;ip':€ Siab and iI1CiS€d weunds caused {a Etfld iha '<Vie'at§1V was instantanﬁous has not b<3€I) » éergtr _ 1¥§__.' V'if::'ls"c:iV:~'E'rs:+n1 fh€ <=:Vi::i€nce adduced by prosecution thai PW} 'zSz E'W2 are stated ta have witnessed 816 OC€uETE::F1C€. ~ was an imzneciiate post; O{:C'E,2f'E'€E1C€ wiinﬁsg. Aftsr gaéng ihE"C'r{§gh 113:5 <::ani;e::i,s :3? ﬁrs': izzfernzazian, ............H4xxx\\\\\\\$vvw \u.\§\\§ .u.w.$ \.umm xx \\\\ xxx» \\\\\\\\\\\«xvv<§R\\«i.......

7"?

i€S{ifIiO1'iy cf :1 singlc wimcss, if it is found iocvbé-aibove reprcach Qr susgician of inicr€$icdiics$, or Subcrriaiicn. in the sccond C8.iZ,€igO'iT§':;i L' H cquaiiy has no difficuiiy in ccimiflg is V' is in the iiiird category of ctégses,.i;i'ié1i"€;iic._c:>ii:=if be circumspect and has to i'c>_Qi{__ioi* C¢:)'i"'§"£3K[)0I'8.'i£i)i'i~.'ifi'.VV iiiaieriai particulars by i€iiai:>1c" §€S~iLiffi{)i1:'y'i ""€ii.i'::'ci or-' CiI'CUI1"1StE111':iaL There iS*V'21i1{}i,if1€f insisting on plurality of \&*ii:icsscE;i" i1*i9<§:Sg:5€,{:iixre cfviihé quality of the oral evidcnce4c'f;::1 if courts were it) insist on pluralityur:iffwitrie,ssi%é;. iiiﬂizfcof of any fact, they irigiircgtciiy "ciic{§i1rgig§ng' subornaiicn cf XN'itﬂ§Sé€S.;:$§'£iJ.3ﬁQ.§iSv..'If:Q_y":"vaI'iS€ and do arise where Qniy siriigle pérsiih; isvéivailabie to give evidence in ;v$u1;iV;:'s'r:>i~;'iV5.§)f a.;\f:'§VC";'is;::»i;1i;éd facif The court naiuraiiy has to Weigh C.Tr1i'V{::f:?.."4-}_'i}'7"»S'13;tZ7_'_f?Vi'"£1 testimony and if it is satisfied ihatij the é'vici%:if1c--cﬁ"i:3 'reliable: and frcc from 311} iainis _ which '£€§ILdVi{} r'c:_né:i*ér oral tcsiiiiiony opcri to suspicion, it*bec0rfi'e:=. iiis duty to act upcn such '[€SﬁI1'i€}}f1§r1 The i':3;&,v fcporis contain many precedents where the couri 3 _ 'iigic; iifiifdcpend anci ac: upcn the testimony (if a single gK?ii'i'1ff_SS;;VVii1 suppceri ci ihc pi'OS€Ci1'i;i€}i"i. There arc cxcapiiciis to iiiis riiic, far exanipiei in cases cf scxuai " giiiériccs 0; {if ihc icssiinicnjg cf an a,ppmVci*; both ihcsc arc cases in which the orai iesiiriioriy isi by its very iiaiiiféi siispcci, being' iiiai: ci a particigiaizsr Ki crime. Buii. i}J:"iE?i'€3 iiicrc age 53.9 Sijﬁh c;x:<":cpiic:i.:>:i 'i'€a8Q}"iE5 Ix) U) operating, ii beeemes the duiy 0f the court 'Ea Convict, if it is satisfied thai the testinlony sf a single witfgees is entirely reliable. We have therefere, BC} refuse :0 act upen the testimerty ef the_.fié'st$#;riv{i're$s-.e' V- Which is the oniy reliable evi¢:ieI1ee irgcrf the prose<:uti£3::."

In a decision Y€pOFt€C1V>iI:} '{_}'98$}. 41 theV case of State of UZP. :2.' Gbpql arid .c;nQi'her}, the Supreme Court has helei: T --. "

"25, ' ' ' perséﬁ _ prefound right §::::::1Vi_<:5:Veci "ufferzee which is not . V":g:vVie_eniia1 standard of p1'<:)Qf : _reaee.1:Via¥ﬁ3ie--v . doizbt. Theaugh this igE1ei*' .~3__ts:::1.dard, there is, hewever, ne §;1bsQ1ui'.e.'sAf§:1rTie§.af€i;. What degree of probability _ameu*:1iSv ta an exercise particular :0 each eaVéseV,.:Refe:rmg ta the interdependence ef andméhe eonfirmatien Csf one piece of V T. another a learned author says' ':

V _ VA V' The simple muitipiieatien rule does . '<"i%1et; apgiy if the separate pieces ef eviéenee are dependent. Two events are dependent when they tené :9 seem: zegethere amj the eeééerzee ef such evenie may 333$: be said ie be depeeciezzé. is 3: cﬁitziizaé case, """~w«.

different pieces of evidence di1*eC£e<:i {Q establishing that the e::iefe:1da:1{. eiid prohibited act wﬂh the specified mind are g'e:1eraHy dependent 3':e2::c::V>:¥" 3 may fee} deubi whether alleged cemfessiene aijei <i<_}1ib?; "wh1et'he1*'. infer guiit from the faef ihe §e.f7er~:r..fie:ni, '* VV ﬂed from justicef _ But since ibis Tgene'1ea1Iy guilty rather thahvh4h"h :r:Qeenﬁ"peep:}e who make e0r:fee.$iohs;' ﬁne' gﬁiliy rather {ham innocent the two doubts are itch together.

'ITi'1e"r'}j::1:e pie_eeaof"evideh'eeV» cenfirm the "<>Ehe1£"';~-~-7:'--__' 'V ' V" 4' ' De_g1bte.VA'{x'<ii%.;1::1_C§ eei1ed..:::eaf30nab1e if they are free :':4o;%n.. Q 2ﬁes1L--.fe"r_abst,raet. Speculafgirme. Law ehanhotVaffeteﬂfaﬁy_fet*Jeurite ether than truth' To eohséftufge '1'eaSQr1aHh1e doubt? it must be free ' fixjm an"':>igef~erhe3ti0na1 respehse. Doubts must aiiilai ahVd"éi§bs:antia1 doubts as to the guiit eiihtiieaeeuesed person arising {mm the evidence, e%«§':'o::i~}L.'Eie lack. sf it, as eppeeed to mere vague af}p:fe.he:/isierzs. A reasenahle doubt is net an ~3'm2;:ginarjy: trivia} er a mereiy possibie doubt; but " 21 fair deuhé, 'eased zgpoh reason and eemmeh S€IES€ia 1% ems: grew em ei' {he eviéehee in the {7:?}E§€.

37.

p§ineipieSV"eQf e:'§jVi:1_i:':1;:«';I " that no particular number of wim_esuse':: shall" 31: any ease, be required for the pmef of any C2bé?i0L:e--_E§? "be expressed in Eierms sf units ':5: be Ix.) {J1

26. The eeneepis of probabﬂiiy. and the degrees of it, cannot obviously be expressed in terms of units to be nlathematieakiy enun1e.r;3':euaf* as {/0 haw many csf such units c0r1stitu%;'e*-- prQuo'7.'"' beyond reasonabie doubt.

unmistakable subjective :ieIebf'Ii<:X:1::"._ an evaluatien of the degrees of a'preE2abi1ity"3hd.V quaritum of proef. F0:'en$iC prObab:Eit.yT'ifnu.Si,..,in the last analysis, rest an 'é£V.r:<)"£:w1,_1sf; cexnﬁioh sense and, uhiimately, 03:): the; tfaii§:edVV 'Vi;1}tuiti0fiS" cifvthe judgge. While afhe -- gi\«'en by the criminai priccess :0 .1e}_1ev.aceu:se3"pefs§€}:£S is not 'Le be erojﬁede at :=_th€7 ~~éa'm§" 'fiiIr1_e,Vf« uninformed 1eg:::;r::§;:;';f;¢_::E;;«.-':7__ __W0u1c:1 make a mockery"<:»f;g1;:irr;i:jiisf:*at'i0;1 of ,CI'iI1"}iI18J justice." .Af;2£C.:'. e§9icie:1ce has to be Weighed and net counted, The 'V.'m"ebabiii:y' and {he degrees <::=f it, eanrzet . :7n3.e{hen';ai,ieai§y enumerated as tie haw many af such units ' 'AeV:r::eifiie:;£,e preeﬁjegregad reasenabie ésazbi, Eirorn' :1ee.e'i'si'or'1s, We find {hat the settled 26

18. As edready stated, ?\2'v'1 is the nephew of deceased Gexzmda Reddy. PW} has deposed about the quarrei that eccurred around 8.80 p.m.§ 0:1'. when the deceased and PW} were laying sfdh'e:S1a3:$=e'nV t,'i:1Ve" "

drain in {rent of the house of dee;eaee'dc:c'PW.}L 'ehdds that accused 1 :3: 2 armed \xsftEz.._deadJ'g; {x'eapc§e.'sA..&:c8.dVIune _.ihere.:e. and threatened them; therefd:re.i,V:'c{he end PW} decided to ledge .21 cciice. PW} has depcased thaﬁ (cited as witnesses went to police station tog. egnd the deceased were f01}0xx2j;fi'g"Viheg%::v,_v deceased had covered a distance 150': the deceased that he would inform ':he""n13*d;erf._ tc*--,_I:1i'e"nVanef,her uncle and asked him te '«'\fhenAdF's7i3..I____.?:ad retreated for a distance of :20 feet; ' ..heae;fde cf deceased saying "Raja, Raga". P\;'~f1 has .{§,.ti;j§'€)'S€V§.': reievami P1351 was called by beih the names Le: 'iSéii;r1ii%e;s and Raga"; immediaieiy PW} returned back 2 ?2:1*15E_.'sa.véir accused No.3 helding the deceased frem back side; dddaccdsed §\Ec/ii 8»: d were heldmg cidbe in Eheir hands: fezmd .

'W M MV;Q.?* accused 5 8: 8 aseaulied the deceased with clubs; er:-eased N03 stabbed on st<:«r:121c:h of deceased with 3 Hang}; at that time. deceased feﬂ down; stabbed on the stomach of deeeaeed »;1beu_--1"°748~:§::ﬁ'esV.".P\}i31 ' has deposed that he had seen occzgrreit-me' freszn-aV"diS"i§:nee:1;:;{ 25 feet; PW} shouted that deceasedehéli nc-{fiev£;e$af:z}f:ed:_ > accused ran away from the p1éieeV'aIQng 'w=i€:hTWeap5ons; PW} got frightened and t<f3l of aieeeased and brought PW6 (wife of dVeVeee,sc:~L'<ii_},b deceased had succumbed te' iiéj},;:1%'ies::=__P\?%7 Koramangaia Police Station; police, who reduced the signature ef PW}: police xrisite<i "1_.3he¢'_ around 10 pm. and found dead b0dL{:'«.p.f bleeding injuries and biood had i'a}_%e§1 éhe g:;{:eands..e10thes of deceased were stained with 'Eeletéﬁ;_,p*:ai§c.e'"'a§ter taking sampie mud and bieod Stained 1zr;t::i'sei::eEi'-.'aheVsame as per Spent nzahazae marked 21.3 Ex.P.2£ P1?v"§ i.d4'em,ified the bieede séained {Gag knife marked as V1' 29 E'/I'OSS~€'XEiH1iI1€i{,iOI"£ of PWI, we firm' that his preseneenear the place of incident is disputeci. The defence had ee.tahiish:-- that deceased had several peteniiai*."e'heniiee§ V' some {if them had assauited the éeeeaeegig Eesiiiirigg ii in his house ea; 3. distance ei" Jh*oip_AAthe incident; PW1 after coming ieukhew Sf ihe _ifieieie:ri:;...}:5dged*hi first information, faleely :a,AeeALised: the conduct of PW} at the tihiieeef .g:§r",;';S'1"1C){ nature}; the eenduei; of PW71 weii,1d.:._'ee1ieh' P\.-V1 had implicated 3?; had not named them in the 55$ falsely deposed about i31'€3€1':?~_J(v3H€gf_A h3<iehiitted to mention his name in the E'f;1~ei:- there was inordinate delay in lodging firef i The i.e:é;r._heei senior eounsei for accused referring to the eVii%i_ehCe:"i<;.§fV_ and the eeniehés :31" fire: infermaiiien report aitiéa evidehee has made %he ibiiawihg primary euhmissiens: ~ A3 per the fire': iiifermaiieh reperii, eiaee of iheieiehi 21: 22 <iis;i2m=::e {if 208 metres; iéierzi i{ei*ai::arig'ai:: ?0iiee V':

" VV,_?¥.?'?;D':..B.R,S=Kashyap has eieposed that injuries II.

III.

N. * >251.

Station [jurisdictional police station}. 'Fhe:'ej 'was inerdinate deiay in lodging first first infermaiien was iedged after K PW} on oath had i1np1ieateee1We;'ec%;s'e§:i he does not refer toVtehe:1'1 4i.:1 t1i_1e PW} W33 .3 highly iriiexgeeﬁed {5sf:€':_1e:'3e;TV h_e"%i:1V:;*{'ciVVVii'i:~\.xJ1'1I "

against aceuse_:§ N0.

The evidence {:55 IL.'tevegiafdiiiegé'immediate motive fer t1'1€"'.i?1\§iC1§iI'1t*~..,;'55': "There E3 {eta} inc9:3s::Si%i:§e'f?_E3tV::bei2~f;§6f§.'4i1ié' %:v1dence Qf pw1 and ' by ?.

T eelitafy eye~Witr1es.e / PW1 is wholly A":;nre1iab1e.A:.:'a'fhe "".*:esiirner1y of PVJ} is also _ V Cofiirgidieiied .:)y %}:e<:ii(:ai evidence. The prosecution has. net ekérhined independent witnesses' fei:'j_:1§:§' on Cieeeased Cannot, be Caused by iezzg éweapen of assault} marked as M.G.?'I The sketch 01' scene 05 occurrence and ev£::':e::ee ef P'xFa'§~'E.H.&aVaraia§: {me then Junier Eingimeer ef 5.4)) No.8, Building Division) wauld estabiish théxje was no street lamppost near thsf place of inc:de:':1:g"-._ '~.

21. The Esarned S€iE}iO§' Ceunsei for a<:<::us€Ci on fgﬁowing de«::isions:--

1. AIR 2004 SC 2943 (in the Ciaﬁse Qf A' and others V. Siate 0f Raj_aSthé1}}:". A '~ «' H. AIR 199:; 3c: 1539 (:n':h;é'~'case {if.N:w;is-.y;"'~.éa::;

Bhamsey and ot:hCI'S} 3:. 1992 Supp (2'§ '*"::=:.<:<:.'_"i 24?' césé of Madhumoy MadhﬁVs1i&a':11VV:'Ebu_1:jV. 'E3f'a{e of W63:

Bengal) _ __ . _ _V IV. (2007; 3:; s{:'<:',{c.:i3« gnfﬁhé' éase' Qf Khambam Rajai. Reg:'1 Li}/ \};=.: Pﬁblic Prosecutor, ligh f5f3de.3f1) 'xx'. éhe casfs of Ra;:na:1a:1<:i YAa;d_a'V V. Jha and others} VI. _ AIR 2'..0€)'1 V {in {hes case of Surendra i3f2:tap é1"13.1}.lv"121}'f"'iv\Z. Ram Naik and others] ~:;i;i;_ ape {cri} 2053 {in the case ef Bhimappa T. 'ﬁfaganur xx Siate Qf Karnataka) E;-'IfI';7 VSCEC 432 Paras (23 & 2%} {in the: case sf Néiinviéingh and anather V. Stats 223? iJ.P.} z 2981 {Supp} SCC 20 {in the case 01' Dhaxam Pal V V. Stats Qf Uitar Pradesh} 19?'? 853$ fen') $533 (:2: éhe C2188 GE Bi: Sing}: and ei;E::e:'s 2:: S'Laé€ Q? Eliza? ?r::deShE L») K) XI. 1994 Supp(2) SCC 289 {in ihé case of l\zIz>J1ir2;:.1*: _ 'T and archers V. Siate cf UP.) XI}. 1993 Cr1.L..J.:3909 (SC) (in the C336: of Haryarza V. Indaraj and anothegj XIII. 2008 Cr1.L.J.?3O {SC} (in :13; _ Manda} and others V. State o{A:B_i?:a_r) _ :><1v; AIR 1971 SC Page :55':i__::,~§; the'-age,gi'*§:'h2g:1anV Singh V, State of Haryana5 ~.. V "

2007(2) sec: (cm mg {1n":?he.:;;f AvtéL:*"Siiigh V. State of Punjabi" " _ XVI. 1994 Cr1.L,_J.13-<;I3V--V--{i)¢.1hi-._H;gHt.CE;:--{;:*t) (in the case 0f F<ié3§:?. -Fal Ti1<:.v'Sté'1{<:2:]' u

22. On cgrefiz} i:e::r:r'.1-:<,:ié1ir::_:faj_L__1E1£)_1r1 (if f;_:cts»and circumstances 0f the cas€_,V__§~*e"V~ajf:é: there was no inordinatie delay {:31 :a_dg:ﬁ7g"V§:.:§:.:n:2§f:ng::m::, which was recordeﬁ at 1.0 p.m¢ 01:1' Vﬁoint of time at which first inf0r_H'1af;_iQ:1 VV-:a,$ 'I'éC0f"d€d by 'Lhcf: jurisdictional pslice is "er;$Vi:r€r."§"L"by" ~:he f€¢éip{ of first information raport by the I =.ji.i:_i:%€:iT:cﬁii3.;1a1VBfﬁagistrate at 11 pin; :33 the same day L€., an having Seen bruiai attack an ihﬁ deceased Hihi-3 uiicié} must have bsen shecked amt} stunnéé. PW} has "' '_A:i+3:p'§ i;:ed that he crieé {Gr heip but as body Cams :0 his rséaczza. PW} ;%f':er :$'i:Vn€:3si§:g_gf {E153 initidszné <2»? agszxzzié had 33:

gene to the heuse sf deceased to inferm the ineésjiezifie V' {wife ef deceased}. in the eireu:r:ssiJ3.:1e'e;€:g._We Vexpeei. 'that PW}, was in eeei and' eomgijesedn s%:a*:.e_~_e e'i"- irnmedieiely rush te the po1iee"Vs{atier:.. :6 fir.3t irifermatiezz. The inei:§e~:1j§ eeeLz:*:'e?:f§'--E:§et1_x;een«'«9";>.:3:: or §.3Q p.rn. ané first infermeeizegi' at 10 p.m. on 12.04.1999. Tixeeefereg ieaeeeed senier eeunsei for accuser; 11::1j;::};;»:;_e:ér€% .V;;:1e1*cii;;2§.te:"eiVeEa3r in lodging first inferrnaﬁign be a_C~::e}:«¥:e:i...___ V

23. ffhe ie:a;f11ecIi"§se:11:};*" eeu:1se1 for accused No.1 has con:en}_ied* 't:1af":5?Jif1'*3:§:g.h1y interested Witness; his evidence .jeneu.nsEete:}u?; with the eontents of first inferfinéitieng his..presence near the place of incident at the time is highly deubtfuig 'there was :10 source of A "'§ig7i5.é_.; feiﬁentiﬁr the assailant. 2%.' It ie'i:?;2e' that PW} is a close reiaiive of deceased; It is ] true.' 2325:' there were eeriain eases peeding between farniiy "'V.:e~.,:f:e131feefe ef accused :N{:§«1 and the eleeeaseei. PW1 being a 2%::--§e SeA reiative ef éeeeased weuéé be Eeaei éiepeeed {e 34 implicate aeeueed No.1, leaving aside the reed culprit. The evieience on record does not ineﬁeate that PW} }::e§ri. _enn1i:y against aeeused No.1 and PW1 had gone to faisely implicating accused No.1 in a :n_u1'~de1§"~.Vee{3e.<--The eontention of defence that; PW1 fwas:...3;nf} .hou:3eV:"V-.,_aféeor« Coming to Know that his one1e,_GoVir"1r_i5;"Redd;¢'A-was done to death by some unknown asseiigézinisf eafne piace of ineident and foisted iI"i2i_st imoiieeting the accused cannot be aeeep"£e<§.AV If he could not have eono§;e:egcVLi:V1'iheizeononits'«.of fi_i*:3: néformation within a short period}; of first information that No.1 and giving details of assooi: on aeeused No.1 with a long had not irnplieoeéeﬁi the -otAh_e'f'«e7ecused. Thus, the eubstratunl of ex/'i(fl~e§e:;ce_LA'ofVv PW1u"":ha:_¢.aeeused No.1 repeatedly stabbed on _s;to._nIo.eh:"o>{f_ deeeaoed with a long knife {long} finds eorfoboraéion fzronl the eonienis of first information.

325. 'C?'e_A'1~see from {he evidence of PW}? eontentis of spot; V"--V'§_::<.~:epe'E;':';?<:>n znahazar and phoiograpne n':arE»<ee? as EX,D.Z}; 'to {he ineiéené; of zzesauk, me iaken piece on {he road L» U:

in from of Ehé: hause at" 021:: James Nimiai Raj and that the:

area haﬁ electric fagjiiiiy. In the phat<i:graph$ EX.B.2} to Ex.D.2/LL we aisa see eiedric poies ~ of incident. At this junctura, we d_e.e.r::_ it r:é€iéS'$§%f:;fyv"'tQ"staff:"V' that the incident had taken piacéé ir1:;"K:iraﬁ2.ar1gé:i€i Though the placﬁ where the iﬁicigierlt dssauii'h.ad.,9<:c_:ﬁrrégi. : ; is called as Koramangala x'i11agé"'§Ej§e said" égx avvfdeveloped area and it is in ihe _<:}f Th€I"€f0I'€, submissian of learned s.e.f.1 i_0j? that there was no "RPW * vidérxtify accused No.1 cannot bé. » accused No.1 was knoxmiiv 1€:%fI§:T.'p€Yi<u)aVVVb;3fOf€ the date: of irzcident. Th€1'€f<:}r€V; €xr§def1tf;/Qofpi€i_§§i1r::ii7ication of accused No.1 by PW1 befofe fhé 'C«Q"LU"T. suspected.

2E7'_v';'5'«:. k':arIié'<i 3__€__rL§01" counsel appearing for accused 115.}; ' 1iié1;3_ sir:fé:'n:LQii::a_§y Contanded that oral evidence of PW} is 'e:gﬁ.:;--t;fr3.;-i':1iL:1§V:>;€i medical evidence given by PW'Z?', PW: has d@§§i::sf€§ éﬁét; accused No.3 stabbed can ihét stomach sf "<1::a::§as écE for 2?' :3: 8 éimes, PW'?-Dr.B.R.S.Kashj;ap had 7r_':G n'§EuCi€§ §}GS?;~If}£f}§'E§t.E11 examinaiiszz 9:: éhfs éeaé bgziy af 36 {}<::Vinda Ready» During examin.:2ii0::»in~eh:eiL PW..':}""'«.._1':-gv~1:-3» deposed that stab and incised wounds ~ mortern examination report eaxlnothqe caueeéi"'i:}}?e'EJi.(3.I?'~.io11gI "' knife. PW?' has Stated {hat M.O.v'I.f" has further exanxirzaiionwizvehief by "'£_h'e }e.::i4:§.V§;:¥4_V_H }?ubIi{:. ~ Prosecutor. PW'? has deposed 1"rh_:é1{.uinjufi'es 'fzlenéioned in pest-mortem €X€LI13if1€Jii€)I..1V *I'€p:C3I"E3~Sféitiiﬁi».bE.'CaLIS€d by a sharp edged weapon with a poiVnV:ed.VVt1§>e.V V jv --. -- During Q$035~ex;9.mir:a§i0_n;a..';'PW?' ghas deposed that M.().?' {xwreagufz.4QfAI}e.f§7er:e:e}._ha.s gaziﬂai and cutting edge of M0,'? 'siaéefdﬁthat width of the blade is about C£1§::5. "»_" "

2?'. The i€:<:~1rr1ed 'sen~§0:*'~e0unseI for accused relying on the " '~ absjve Qpirxien eviéi'er3.ce' given by PW'? and also by referring 'Le Hie' -exjrid_ef;evee.§i7.PW2 weuid submit; that biade sf 54.0.? was <;e£y-thir: could be bené. The Eearlieci senier eeunsei " V, §'*1?EF1_ - the seliiary witness' ;' S:/:b414:i:'£.:&*§'.§h.:?:"te evi::iem;:e sf PW'? eantrzidiets oral evieience sf :meaSu:*;ng :3 ems X 1 em X ehesi; :::aviE}; deep. 555$ per

28. In order to find out whether the medical exﬁ <i~e13ee (opinion eviéienee} given by PW?' eorzlpletely ﬁxtie-34'e:".e.:{§u.t pessibiiiiy ef injuries taking place in the nsannefxdepieiseéi PW}? we deem it proper to refer te.?iehe»-nat;u re/ bf injuriee, description ef weapon and«&se€_:1ed p?:§n"eipVies ~:ﬁ}':'..1_éii\z.

on appreeiatien of medical ex%£de':;ce vis:53.;~vis Ci::*e'e1tV"ei.r:.<i'er1cee'V V As ceuld be seen from mediee;1VVV:A'e§fi<ience.ef and the cements of pest~morfe'u"1._§§'€;<emi;;;eeLief:~eepert the deceased had suffered as many_.._2.§ have been described judgmeni}. Out of the twelve been described as an cm X bane deep. Injury No.03} as stab Wound on front of abdomen epiegaeufie fe_g'iV0:iV in middle line, vertically placed X abdominal cavity deep, lower end 'ii?":\:;.}'1a:'§V*e.f;r:1' 'upper' end is blunt. Injury Neﬁii} has been :ieeeV2'ibede~§.L:= ebfiqueiyr pieced stab weund on left side ﬂoat ef eheésie. beiew Eefi nipple and § (31315 iefé; ie {he midline. V. "E'1*:e.4_§ow;e: euier erzé is biunt and upper inner end is peinied, 5 ' V E E 'EM/. ' eh §/. V peiniedz coils Of smali intestine pfetrzxdizlg gut. Injzgzjé has been described as vertically piae/ed stab inci_se'wQL2.,r}ei ;_9r1. lower par? of abdemen on right side. 3 ems _E::?feefa}V ie{Vi114idiir:i';4 and 8 ems media} to anterior S'L1p€;1"iO1'_Iﬂieiﬁ"'$p}f1€'--_}ﬁ€a.§1;1f§§}§ 3 ems 2»: 1.5 cm 2:: abdemina1»e;1Vit};' c}eep.: uppeiir:;u§1eer e'r1c?is."Ve poinied and lower end is I11juVr'y_V_ been described as vertieaie1y':'p.£_§1ee§i s{eie jej'u1j§; oI«1 f}'ofi'e of lower part of abdemen r11eeasu':"iV1xgj'V2;"' synphysis in midline ebdominai Cavity deep; uppef lesver' end is blunt. Injury Ne.(xi} es""'eE3i'£que1y placed perferating stab siiuate 8 ems below elbow joint on inner ems X 1.5 ems X 7' ems. injury Nofggii} has bee':3.__des.eribed as horizontaﬁy placed incise .W0.11_:1J_V 0'=J.er'ieft_ forearm situate 3 ems beiow elbow joint on e_L:£ier aspect measuring 6 ems X 1.5 ems 2»: bone sleeps 29,' Fre:n:L"f{i:e deseripiion of injuries, we find ma: there are :neised_vC*oeuI:§s 9%' eensiderabie depth, The injuries are net "'-- ;,:*u_ne§;ured wewzds. F':'<}:::i {he evidenee ef P'5i?e we de :10':

' §E}:fa{§ ihiéiésgkess ef blade {)5 ézszég knife ijfv'§.G,'?je however wiétih 40 of biade is shewr: as 4 CFIES. M3,? has a ﬁat tip and._:1:31: a painted tip. 13W} has ciegosed 1333? accused Na} _as§;a.1§»:iVt,e§ on 1:116 stomach §f ﬁeceaseé with a Eang ilcsng ' jj .

36. We fins} fram evidence af that leng knife {M'O.'?} resemblssbaa ';>1§.:§'e.. €:§f M.{).'7 COL11§ be bent. PW?' deﬁéséd s}j<n:ife" V {M.Of.?} is 3 single edged w€a§9;*'~::éLnd"--2:uttii1g'ecigevﬁof M.Q.7 {when shown ts PW'? beféi: sharp.

31. At this ;j'{,;:»:a;{j,: t'z1r€i:,=A__ it state that the incident M.O.'? was shown to the trial court an

22.O?..'éVE¥Q$ of 8 years and 3 months. It is probabie tfiatVb'1ad€:_'0f must have gathered some rust.

V. Thsréifoté, :3V§:uiaf'6vi.d.er:c€ of PW} that accused No.1 stabbed xﬁri"3».1:;:>1":;1;9;<:?x;i~<f»f'iisceas-sec? with 34.0.? is cerzsistsnt with the:

iigjuries f:v:i::§A'Tia:):: the deceased, which have been described 'V in i%'i€..}':§~i}S'{.?%I1£3I'i€IT3 examination reggrt The injuzies am ,d€s;{:2:;§ét} as inciseﬁ afiﬁ stab injzzriss. PW'? has deposed i£"--§a;i ' Ii'y'I.G,? {hag knife} hag gai 5. $3: ﬁg}; H$17£?:'E:'§r'€§} 42 inccnsistency bstween ii and the meéicai €:vide:1<:e:."

33. in a ::ies::i$i0r1 repertecl in (2083) :2 SCC _ case sf Kamaljit Singh 1:. State of P'unjczf2';--,--» ' Court has held:-W "8. It is {rite law' that viI1vi'I'?£3:"'r1' v2:19i3:~;ti§§ﬁs between medical e\ride:1é:'eL,:"a::d 0.c:u1a§::VV.e_i;:ida{%:1uééV ' dc) mat take away ':he_ sf 'the...Aiat{er.

Unless medical éx2'£€i~i:n;:{:_ goes 33 far as to certlpleteljg H ﬁéssibilities VVhatS0€3_V€'1:fL'Gf .f;é;}§iii_3;1_gV'1i:L:;{Vce in the manr__)_€:?'». 2 s1Eéi_t?d" ihét if .éyeﬁ%z9i£ness€s, fhﬁ t<::s*:i::r1:;>:1'1}?. €%f t}§'é'eyé§:%iifi'eSs€Vé; éannot bi? thrown Ukabhai U. State {}':J,jar'r2Vif7};:V:' :}5{§Sf'['§£)'1Ti.\VE3.S iiluminatingiy and exhegisfiveiji State of (LP. :2. Krishna _GQpqi§', thé5 acquitta1 by the triai court agfﬁs .f0un§:f 't'G~--b€ on the basis sf unwarranted .a sSu:7§i'pi1Qns and manifestly erroneous csf eviciencét by ignering vaiuabie a::é.":§3::}:di$1€ evir;¥.€:1<:e resuiiing in serious and ' zs€;ab:éf;é~:1tia1 miscarﬁage of justice, the High Cizgizrt C€:'LZ€1:'°I{}"§Z :1': this case be found fan}? with for (Me its welbmerited :::t€:;'fereric€."

aw '94.», 3" xxx» ::,,»0_;g%\ &

34. In a decisian reparted in 2008 Cz'Z.L.J,7'3O (in the""--;ﬁase of Kapildeo Manda! 82, Ors. v, State of Supreme Court has héldr "E1. It is now well g~3'e>i":'1'edL.

decision of this Court that:":§Vh:i1'€A~ Variance between II1€d,iC:'3,'1' €vi€:ie_1f1 C€: an;:':' evidence, oral evidence QfL.L;:¥j;'e--x&'itn6:~3_sV 'ltafs primacy as mczﬁical is' "'ba.Vsic:ii1y opinionative. {See. V'Ma;':g€;_ "Sia fe~ _§)f Haryana (1979) 4 SCC 349 on sale testimony- 0f_ xbf UP. V. az: d_ Agr.,.._4«;:j9é8}:'%i"'sc<: 30:2 gm para 32f}}::_ éu;1<:i V. Prabhu Nath :V§hél'V7v5iY}§gi?'(:)r;'§iE:% "g2{m:;) 1:24 606 (in para 17). Eiutfirjds inconsistency in the évidssfxce 'gixzéﬁ'i;z$§"«--.§j;:ie£ eyewitnesses which is X .t;QtaIi§'}' ";r;:C0:1é'ist:én'V£« "£0 that given by the medical JE}"1V€'}_1v..t.".':1/.'.1',€;'i€1'1<"U'€"Z' is appreciateci in différent p%::§sp¢€t.ive by the courts."

can hand, the injuries sufféréd by the £1:%€:§:ase§.=~fsi{::i*e eiiiher incised Wounds or stab/irzciseci *-v._ '-.wQunﬁ5,.H_ 3M.G.? is a hang singhé ﬁdged exiting \3V€3pQI'1.

"--"_'£'§1§1.i§;h it has 3. Tia: tip, siab injuries Cazzld bs causes E33' ihe 522:? i:;;} of '§}:?€€t§}G§1, Abeve 311., it is ﬁr}: pisgsibée is CC3I1C€i%f€ § 44 that deceased was static: when he was receiving injtzries at the hands of accused No.1. The nature of siightiy vary depending upon the nxariner and ' which the weapon is wieided. Thexjefeife, where medical evidence had camp:'e;e1;;§"nizee».§u{fp§s§;:e;;1:y« ef whatsesever injuries takenV'p£'ea.ee in izmnnef éjepeseéd by , L PW}. Therefore, testirnony of ee}.nn0i"E3e_'e1ise}arded on the ground of alleged' Ora} evidence and medical evidence.

35. The 'f;:eeVVe.ecused n<:».£ has taken place on the read __ ene James Nirmaﬂ Raj. The proseeueioﬁ any of the independent witn«::ee:es. fi'v-?1f1e"if1ei§.er:t had taken piaee in the manner .'""€1e;50eee"byV'A'PW1, ::"§§§u:d nevi have $03': sigh': of the inmates

-ef ;_'e;1:;e.e Nirmai Raj and aeijacent houses' A V PWI :he first mfern1at:en has not stated about; presence of in<i~e§e;31{§en€ eyeexiiizeeeeez PW} has :29: siepeseei abeuéi §:>Vres'e.r:ee sf ifi(i€p~'3fI1(i€E"§?L, witnesses er preeenee ef inmatee of the Eieuee Q? ¢¥a::':ee Nirezai Raj er edjaeezzi; heueee, if wgg:;:«

38. Therefore, Contention 0f deferxee as existence of light'; and doubts raised about.i:ie_i*:v:i§fi'::$*:i.:>11 (513. aecuseei No.1 by PW} are unienabie.

39. The learned senicsr counsel) f{§¥if ';§T'LCC1:'1':'§'€A.(§..Vi}C).'}_ '«f'iéi$. contended that PW} on c:sat}'i'T't': é:::i.. faleeiy i121p1iee.te:€i'v--aQei1sed*V no.2, 3, 5 and 6. 'i'E1erefo:'e,V__}:1VVi:s».4.'3vi_§ienee":1$_AAit_;*eiates to implication 0f aecusecf _Cginnptube_2:eAee§Led5

40. It is trueeihaf P_'.F£.I:..:i~n evidence has In implicated ac?euS§1:V<3'3.ViQ 'ﬁféts €):her"'a.ss5ai1ants alang with accused Nix}. -:f_§'b;ereib1'e_,xﬁfzeeA:Crueiéaii 'point for determination is:~V " sf PW1 has ta be rejeeieti

41. 4§'§;~;_.a deg-:g;¢n" reparzeci in AIR 1973 SC 1409 (in the 5453. 9} Ritggbir arid others 1:. State of Punjab}, the SVE,1_§JI;€§12T1.Vé«i:',{}1V3Lﬁ{"'EV'E218 held: W ~ Ne doubiﬁ in Cages 05 party faciionse €h'e§*e is; generaily speaking a tencieney an the " pert sf {he pmseeuiien wimegees is impiieate Same inngeeni persens 333:; aieng with {he g'ui§,':y canes, baa zaomzaﬁy where {he general 47 substratum of {he eceurrenee cannot be heki to.-.___ amuse any reasonable doubt or suspicion its having taken place, 'then the pr0see~uiieV£'__'__s' .T witnesses. grevided they are held h,a:s.:e"'u witnessed {he 0CCL1i"I'€I1C€ iobbe in'éi"pi;s_i:v:isi'3 _ to izjentify the assaiiants, 3re:;»erd;:1e2i1§i§yse ' f assumed is have left out the Vsetiisi offe.191;:fe'rs or"

the guilty persons. AiVih_<_ju.gh t1?:-em:;.:;ésse~§§":'m:

the prosecutiorz are eifeuhjstaﬁees prone to exaggerslte.&_the_*Aeu1fs;s3;§i1:'£ypf thesejzual assailants as a1s04"t€;_s.eXfe:1:€i::'the seveaﬁtieipation in the occurrence -- " innocent members ofipcisiie asmieli, the court has étf§;er'a close scrutiny W;'1.tI1 'esgi;:_Qr}1 to try to Come to :3, judi'ei§j.}V _ed'ne1u,sis;1 as ':0 who out of the ave-<:u'sedV be safely considered is havee.:;aLken pai':_iiziile assault. As painted out ;'i'r;s..Deep"'{1;h9;§1d State of Haryana, (1969:) 3 SCC t}ie""iﬁa_%<im falsus in 1.1110 falsus in

-is not a sound ruie is appiy in the in this country and. 'aherefeere, ii; is of the Court in cases where a Witness been fsuné is have given unreliabﬁe ' ei§£d.e:1ee in regard is Certain psrticuiarsg is serzziinise 'éhe rest sf his eaziﬁegsee i§r"§:f§E Care 32352 c:a:;i;§sn, if 'she remaining €'i='i§.€I7i{t€3 is cu / s V' 48 trustworthy and the substratum sf pmsacutiorx case remairizs intact, their: th<%3__coii:*f;;"*-. 5' .' shouid uphoid the prosecution case '£,0_f;§f1,€V:4_'<:%$*LeAVAIj": _ it is censidereéi safe and irusj€w0:*'Lh.}§."'. In the case on hand. the cori'?f;$r1 €.sT 'éf fii's§, in§0¢:*:13é;{.:;;5f1. promptly lodgad by PWI iégiulgi Ie'f1dV: jt;,c':5 evidence before the ceurt. in 'L}."1'<g'f§vI_'S"C1._Vi1"1ﬁ)%fIi2?%'ﬁi0I1,vEPVV1 has stated that accused 2.L_3ssa,:;1'Legi._ ('::; stemach of the cieceased with a lang knife. 1EIrjvééi}e1i;. €:iii§ifig. evidence? PW} has imp1iCate§1':3.Q¢';.:seé:i 2:. stated accused. N04 died Vp'i:Q€:*;>;e:i.:ngs. Accused N033, 5 8: 6 wears"a<:{iUifté§:€i§:.3by 'csuft and accused No.2 was acquiited ﬂy' '~ ; judgment da.t€d 25.03.2018. Theref0re,uV't.hé €ViVCi11€f'V1C§3"Q1ﬁ_.'i3V\#'1 that accuséd No.1 assauitatl on sf' décéaséd with a long knife, which is feund medical evidencs and the Ccrnduct Of PW} A'~~Ummp§1y"~EQ'Cig§i;:sg'the first informaiicnﬁ naming accused Na} i;h&'---..__E0r:f§r~ 3§§§;1Ai1an: has to be ac:<::ept;ed ::c>tWii,hsi;a:1ding the t}'1:a.j§:':'P'x?Rf§ has pmried to éxaggérate his <:videnc€~ by {he mhéf agiitzissﬁ in adéiiiiorz 'an accused nakfh 49 The court has a ::iu{y to sift the evidence and cicrseiy scruiirzisé {ha eviéence to arrive at a cerzciusion [who out of ihé accused pagans can bé safely C(}f1S;i_C'E é1"€<11.V_'i','£7¥_ __h:«:yé _ iiakén part in the assault.

4:2. Ai this juncturé, it is Ii€C¢3é':"§'<':'1I':} ."' sfégfgé that {nurse cxf investigation. *:1::=.*;'é~...was"' i:1tz§;jf€:r§:ri"c;é"'*<3I' one"

Surendra Redciy, who was iniI;1i<:éiv.:o"'.:3ﬁ;;cu¥e§eCi; it pmbable that at the i11star1v<:€ﬁ--. $3'§\ ua Réddys 313 Envestigatirig 017??'/Q»'§r father accused.

Therefare, PW}, implicating accused 2! ground to discard his evidenrge Cf accused" No.1. As already stated is {he in cases where witness has beenfaund {o.,ha'vé given unreliabis evidﬁnce in regard to ~ ﬁegiaigl i3'€iFti:::;g£ars, fa scrutinise the rest of his evidence with ..Cé.1j€Véi"{ﬁ*.§El:£EiQf?.~. if the remaining eVi<:£er1:::e is trugtwerthy' ané}.__ 1:h€,5ub;3':rai:um 9? prosecutian (:as€ rssmains in tact, .,:h&:1 {E'1<:_ %:<:sur{ sheuiﬁ' uphold the prosacution case is {he ".é,:::enfI';_« ii; is :?ensi{i:3:'€s:1 S356 2212:? §}fL2Sil'Jv£{}§'§hj;' {V§e::§€ 366;:

éiiizzgzﬁ 'v":~:. Séaie <2?' E'~~E,€::*§z22,:"::3g {;{Q89} 3 S88 x Vnvﬁ/WW"

43. in the éigcussiorz maée supra, we have held thatﬁlere are :10 reasans is daubt presance sf PW} at insider}: saf assault 9:} cieceassd by accused n0--;.}.;' S0._a"£::éé :»:f V' the time af iﬁcideni sf quarrei ihat .E"£a1i-.taks:~ £: p;1"a§{:é'4r1é%aiff:h"e.. drain in front of the hsuse cf d€:<:€:':§:s€<3_ Awheﬁ'~.dé::ea$edL"'~aﬁd: PW} had iaid a stone siab <::r; t}';:; drain. 'w*hicEj:"a;;i§;.g=:Vd"ir£g ﬁg ihe case {If prasecutign wza.sV___<_L:'L'i-":.:€_ "§'I_:'}T1I1'1€t.Cfi§'-"EA3.¥_L:€V:.: nﬁxtive fer accused No.1 to assa1i}t«.._{E';¢A evidence of PW} finds substantia} V fc01*:*ob§}:f,*;1:Tf§i{:}:1 f:;:§V:1:I1 -' evidence given by PW? lodging first infermationi. of assault would not only éﬁﬂéﬁce before Court but also ensure§lbi:s hplace sf incident We do not find any thing 'ur;1f:at{;--2ﬁ£ the candmst of PW1 before the 'bf 2:17.32-ident €)§f&€~€;Ei¥11f, at the time of incident of assault 'a;:9i<ii iiiircident 0f assauit, PW1 has depesed that he Sizetziéd ai:--V'ja:_~:<V:}§::V1s€d moi E0 assauit thze deceased. PW} aiscs criéﬁi f{}£.i.:;"E'1.eV3':bg but name fram neighbourhoed came ta their 1°e:g&§1a, 'P"i?%'1 immeéiatsijg aftaar the irzgiizierii: sf assauﬁ: had I 2 z :"::%:>€"""':.;%~w~g*?'%,.e*%--/*«'«e:i'?si;£§M "

(J1 .......

gene £0 the house ef 'deeeeseci and mformed {en the wife of deceased namely PW6~Ni:r1gamma. 414, §3W6~Niegamma has deposed ghee: i§}_--4i%s%'i'1'1'* between deceased and accused and etg'et:f:3etione 'E235' accused No.1 for the movemeht.__ef deceased e'e"i;§:e_._..m33d 1"

from ef the heuse of decease<f";e.;;ié} tkleeteteieof aeeused to prevent the deceased f:'§jm_ ia3?1iige1ab effthev drain in front of their heuse. PVW the incident ihai teak place. exeeuseci when the deceased 3:15. slab on the drain. PW6 has dep0s.e::{":1i£é§1f»'1§3::e1f 13.t¥fe.1::§Ve.ri{1..:'{;eiec§e3aseCi} and PW1 went to Eedge E::§}f»an--hour. PW} eerne back and infO%ﬁEe'd had killed the deceased in frame' :31" the i?:o~..;§e Qfames Nirmal Raj. PW8 has deposed to tliemplaee of incident aieeg with PWE and I had suffered muitipie injuries and he haC¥~..__sueeI:r;e}:3e:i :10 injuries; Therefeyee it is not peseibie ﬁe '='f1A0§<i the eonduei :3? PW} after the ieeiden': was "-"_wi1_eé;'é;u:'eE er ieeeneieient with his evidence ¥::=efere eeru:°f;. Lil {K} Thus? an reappreeiation of evieierzee, we hold {hat .e*qi'dei';ee Cr? PW1 is reiiable and free from suspicion. . _

45. New adveriing is decisions relied upez';"'by----.ii2e Eezuinesfi senior eeunsel for aeeusevzi, We find::=.~;_ _ .' _ & ' I, in a decision reported ease of Ram S\x?ar0op"V"e<e.>%f1d oth'e.re"* af Rajasthaﬁl ihé rejeeiedkhe ease Of p1'OSecuti(:1I1 evidence is iI1C:()I1SiS:'L'.f3I'::tL with H. In 3. V1994 SC 1539 (in the c;1se.e_<Ai:f --:::Bh:%§ose3r and ethers), the the benefit (if doub: to aeceesede 'as? of witnesses was ; i1'v;*ee0:1eii'9b}y in Canﬁiet with meéieai. evidence kit.' d"e:f:i»\s:QnEé:éor:ed in 1992 supp {2} sec: 247 {in 'V =ee{;s:vef0vf_:EvIadhum0y Madhusudam Soul Vs. State of A V Weeé: the Supreme Ceuﬁ: has rejeeteﬁ {he ease df_;§:'0Seeuiien ae éhe testimeny ef sole eye witnesses ' "'f.s.ra.s found wholly unreﬁiabée and his eendue: was um.

vi.

\\:~ K ,.

K V. U:

Lu highiy urmaiurai and suspicieus. Apart from te${imony was ctontradictéd by medictai eVvi§_«f:r:c«%i:} '__'_ ' A' In a decision rsported in {200?') 1 SCC ~43 b case of Khambam Raja Recidg} ';;rio_thi€:1'-- Prosecutorg High Cour: sf £5;r1:C1.h.ra Supreme court has thxére..

between direct exridﬁnce e*';i'Cl€:3r:cs:;'§ In a decision re;§<$:"é€2:i. 1053 (in the case sf Ramanan:dVV--Y;.1(iax?='yf;3'._ "Nath Jha and others}. he-ldifhat era} evidence has ':1;;e<ii'gaI Veviderice is basically has further held that advsrsé infVefé1f;<:§é"<j_:i12.'};>r3 Cirawn only when medical Ve\_;idexr:'Cs3 xVspe;:ifiA<§'::i1§/~"frules Cut injury as claimed to bgen A1'A;§ii;1ive--*-gcti as per Ora} testimony. r€§0rted in AIR ZOQI SC 184 {in the case . Pratap Chauhan Vs. Ram Naik and ofs}§e::*s ): {he Supreme Ccuri; has hztiﬁ that there was AA ._:<3§a1 Cantraéictien betweén orai evidelics and msdicai ' €viﬁ€nc€.

?< r-ma U1 U1 convinced to {:er1\:iet accused er: ihe basi~$..:_>'§7._s1i;eh"

evidence in an appeal againsi aequittai. in a éeeision reported in AER' ease Gf Chanan Sing}: Vs. Eéteait-e <T:>f Supreme Court has disE§eE:e\;:ed i;h e eviciefz-eeV"eVf "s<3E1'V{ar3; * eyewwit,r1ess an the grog):-1e%h§.ss, abri<jr:r;a1..°Cor:duet after the 0ceurrene'ef - "

In a decision repogfteesiihhj. 105 {in the Cagﬁ the Supreme Courti. of eye»wimess; soon did not inform the oceurrenee_ei':her'--~ie£"»«?;he family members or to the Vp_Q1ieeL,""'éhVe ir3.C:idei1tV*»X?I'1ieh had occurred an 19.11.1989 .:irmjiden€ivae"fepesrted by presenting a letter t0 the " = V 1?:~<5s;ic{en};' en 22. E 1. 1989. f1Em$._0nV;?e==appreeiat:i0:1 ef €AVE€i€1/1063 we hold that:--

the' pfevseeuiien has proveei beyend reasenabie deubf. ::';:,;§:% accused Na} stabbed em stemaeh; 0? deceased ,,,..,;wit,h 3 leng 3952;; Eiziife} aenﬁ caused muiziple ineise am} '?"u_

11.

Hi.

56 stab injuries. as a result the deceased eueeumbed at the spat;

There W38 immediate nlotive for " :0 eommit the murder of deceased;

PW: had witneseed the ocezgrrexlee; uagfi' PW: in promptly 1e&gi::.g.f£rst i'n_fOrmatie£:. .gi xe>if1g':';:r{1ee Version sf incident of _1er1e{'s..e'é1';*ebe§a{ion to his evidence befere Hnof doubt extended ta judgments narrated' 's'e;e§é*a to discard the ex'ideiiee'::5f_»if'i7\;?.I. high': fer PW} to iV=5;e:§i':1%>.V:;i?.ce1i'§£}e6 ease' otherwise, accused No.1 was'iindwﬁ':{VG«.PWf1'e'--.1e;:g before the date ef incident. 'Theeefazfev, ample opportunity to identify "'3'«:.ae_eu§_Ved Nb;.«1.._____T§;'1ere were no independent Witnesses V' " Witnesses, except PW1 near the place of we eafnngi find fault with the 4' p§§§¢'.:?%;n:gn fey non-examination ef Independent V " séeieneeeee. PW} being nephew of the deceaeeei Wouid AA rtzei be Eeasi dispersed. is} spare ihe yea: as;$ai§a:nf;e ﬁe U':

N} falsﬂy iniplicate accussd N0. 1. Theirs was V' I16? inordinate dslay in sip' aisa in the dispatch sf fﬁisii jurisdictisnal EV£agist4rat€».V._ '~., " V ' M IV. The manner in whﬁih stabbed on stomach sf d¢::é};sec:_ {bag knife} and Caused his "squareiy attract an 0ffencit§=: z:{n<i_ér:vsvs'c{i::'h; 302 K38. Th€r€f0r§,_"wé"'dQ I'1()§\.fixI"1"s:i_'E'L'~j'1j.,:*'vg1'(3L1I'1d8 to interfere with the réI2it::--s'V:t0 Conviction sf accused No.1. ' = '

47. In thgés '~3.'_éSu1'EV,' WVépé.s.s7the foHowing:-

' V ' ORDER appeal é1's;""'i'€jVre1ates accused no.1 is dismissed. 'i:n"'--:.15riéd V 'Md fment as it relates to CQf1VEC1LiOI1 and ?,é 1,5 seiztéhss O'1i":f;.1'§'éLlS€Ci Ns.1 fer an sffencs punishabie under ",.'S€Ctié¥f};~ :3{};_2v£PC is confirmed. in Visa? of the fact'; then: {he ':'~S=ia'::?._z not prsfsrrsd any appsai against acquittal sf éL{.%{:i:ss=é N552 by éhs §u£igI::eni sf éhis _<:0m'§ in 9*'. I 6:.) :\ . if ,:/'m_ g . ":2, an S8 (Zr1.A.N<3.5'?8/2007 dated 25.03.2910, the acquitted of accused no.2 has attained finality.

The trial Couri; ghall secure appellant :':%§';1j.::1VCC:-:':'s€€i*T " ncm. ts) implement the semence. 'I'.}'1€'p<::riQ{:i €)§f;{":i'\V:;f1Lf?1'V1V'5;i{}:1:1 if, any undergoné by accused No.1 is '§g:ivé_ri "Set {:>if7f §)'I'C3S}id'ét3;. under section 428 Cr.P,C. Clffiéa is d"irectedViV0"«s§€'n«:i. back * ' records aleng with a copy of thiis.;i:i1:i_g:1;en{ idihgi ﬁriiai court? immediately.

Sﬁfé EUSGE Sﬁfé Egﬁﬁﬁ

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court