Karnataka High Court
Shivayya And Ors vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 January, 2025
Author: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:622-DB
CRL.A No. 200063 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 200063 OF 2020
(374(Cr.PC)/415(BNSS)-)
BETWEEN:
1. SHIVAYYA S/O RAMAYYAKALAL
AGED ABOUT: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
2. LACHAMAYYA S/O SHIVAYYAKALAL
AGED ABOUT: 27 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
Digitally signed
by RAMESH 3. RAMAYYA S/O SHIVAYYAKALAL
MATHAPATI
Location: HIGH
AGED ABOUT: 26 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
4. SHARANAYYA S/O SHIVAYYAKALAL
AGED ABOUT: 23 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
ALL RESIDENTS OF BOMMASHETTI HALLI,
TQ: YADGIRI, DSIT: YADGIR - 585201.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI ARUNA SHYAM, SR. ADV.(VC) A/W
SRI GANESH NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH
RURAL POLICE STATION, YADGIRI
TQ: YADGIRI, DIST: YADGIRI
REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENCH AT KALABURAGI - 585107
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SIDDALING P. PATIL, ADDL. SPP)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:622-DB
CRL.A No. 200063 of 2020
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S.374 (2) OF CR.P.C,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT OF
CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 11.02.2020 & 15.02.2022
PASSED BY THE SESSIONS JUDGE AT YADGIRI IN SC
NO.17/2016 CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS FOR LIFE FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC.302, 120(b) R/W 34 IPSAND
IMPOSED FINE OF RS.50,000/- EACH AND IN DEFAULT TO
UNDERGO FURTHER RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR A PEROD
OF FIVE YEARS, AND ACQUIT THE APPELLANTS OF ALL
CHARGES.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV
AND
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K.,) This appeal by the convicted accused Nos.1 to 4 is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.02.2020 passed by the Sessions Judge at Yadgiri (hereinafter referred to as the 'learned Sessions Judge') in S.C.No.17/2016, whereby the learned Sessions Judge convicted accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 504 and 120B r/w Section 34 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous-imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of -3- NC: 2025:KHC-K:622-DB CRL.A No. 200063 of 2020 five years for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 120B r/w Section 34 of IPC. Further, it was directed that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.
2. The abridged facts of the prosecution case are as follows:
The deceased Nagayya Kalal is the uncle of PW.1 Devendrappa. The accused No.1 Shivayya Kalal is the senior uncle of PW.1. Over several years, there existed a dispute between the deceased-Nagayya Kalal and the accused No.1- Shivayya Kalal regarding bund existing in the landed property.
A panchayat was conveyed six months prior to the incident in that regard. Against this backdrop, on 14.09.2015 at about 11.30 a.m., PW.1 was returning home, at that time, deceased Nagayya Kalal had laid the raw green gram on the courtyard of his house for drying. The accused No.4 Sharanayya Kalal came riding a bullock cart, the cart passed over the said raw green gram while one of the cows dropped dung on the raw green gram, following which the deceased-Nagayya Kalal advised the accused No.4 Sharanayya Kalal to warily take out his cart.
Enraged by this unsolicited advice, the accused No.4 Sharanayya Kalal picked a row with the deceased and assaulted -4- NC: 2025:KHC-K:622-DB CRL.A No. 200063 of 2020 him. Thereafter, PW.1 intervened and consoled both the accused No.4 and the deceased and sent them away from the spot. Later, the deceased-Nagayya and his daughter P.W.3- Yankamma informed PW.1 that the accused No.1 Shivayya and his children i.e., accused No.2 Lachamayya, accused No.3 Ramayya and accused No.4 Sharanayya i.e., were searching for the deceased to assault him. PW.1 advised deceased-Nagayya to stay home. It was raining, as the roof had leakages, PW.1 while on his terrace attempting to stop the leakage witnessed the deceased-Nagayya walking towards his house from the bus stop. At this time the accused Nos.1 to 4 wrongfully restrained the deceased-Nagayya Kalal and picked a row with him and assaulted him. PW.1 forthwith on witnessing the incident rushed to the spot along with his daughter-P.W.3 and his wife. In the said skirmish, the accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 restrained the deceased-Nagayya Kalal while accused No.3-Ramayya Kalal stabbed the deceased's abdomen, chest and right portion of his neck and cheek with M.O.5-knife thereby causing profuse bleeding injury. Owing to the assault, the deceased collapsed and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. Thereafter, all the accused collectively fled the spot. Subsequently, P.W.1 lodged a complaint before the respondent-Police on 14.09.2015 at -5- NC: 2025:KHC-K:622-DB CRL.A No. 200063 of 2020 about 02:30 p.m. as per Ex.P1. On the strength of Ex.P1, P.W.20-the then ASI of the respondent-Police registered an FIR in crime No.218/2015 dated 14.09.2015 against the appellants/accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC as per Ex.P18. Subsequently, P.W.21-Investigating Officer conducted the investigation by drawing inquest panchanama-Ex.P4 and spot mahazar-Ex.P5. On obtaining the necessary documents from the concerned authorities and recording the statement of the witnesses, PW.21 laid the charge-sheet against the appellants/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 504 and 120-B of IPC before the committal Court.
3. After committal of the case before the Sessions Court, the learned Sessions Judge framed the charges against the appellants/accused for the aforementioned offences and the same was read over verbatim to them. However, the accused denied the charges leveled against them and claimed to be tried.
4. In order to prove the charges leveled against the accused, the prosecution collectively examined 22 witnesses as -6- NC: 2025:KHC-K:622-DB CRL.A No. 200063 of 2020 PW.1 to PW.22, marked 29 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P29 and identified 5 material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.5.
5. On completion of the prosecution evidence, the learned Sessions Judge read over the incriminating evidence of material witnesses to the accused as stipulated in Section 313 of Cr.P.C. However, the accused denied the same. The defence of the accused is of absolute denial and that of false implication.
6. Post assessment of oral and documentary evidence placed before the Sessions Court, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the appellants/accused for the offence punishable under Section 504 r/w Section 34 of IPC, however, they were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120- B r/w Section 34 of IPC and were sentenced stated supra. The said judgment of conviction and order of sentence is challenged in this appeal by the appellants/accused.
7. We have heard the learned Senior counsel Sri. Aruna Shyam appearing on behalf of Sri. Ganesh Naik for the appellants and the learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor Sri. -7- NC: 2025:KHC-K:622-DB CRL.A No. 200063 of 2020 Siddaling P. Patil for the respondent-State, also we have perused the records made available before us.
8. The primary contention of the learned Senior counsel for the appellants is that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Sessions Court suffers from perversity and illegality. The learned Sessions Judge has grossly erred while convicting the appellant without duly appreciating the evidence and documents placed before him. He contended that the learned Sessions Judge failed to appreciate the evidence of eyewitnesses i.e., PWs.1, 3 and 11 in right perspective. According to the learned Senior counsel, their evidence suffers from severe infirmities. By elucidating his submission, he pointed out that PWs.1 and 3 in their cross- examination have categorically admitted that they have not witnessed the incident and they reached the spot after the incident. Moreover, P.W.11 one more witness to the incident also admitted in his cross examination that PWs.1 and 3 informed him about the incident. In such circumstances, much credence cannot be attached to the evidence of these witnesses. He further contended that, PWs.8 and 9 are the hearsay witnesses, before whom P.W.1 narrated the incident. -8-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:622-DB CRL.A No. 200063 of 2020 He also contended that the independent eyewitnesses i.e., PWs.4, 5 and 6 have collectively turned hostile to the prosecution case. Further, the prosecution also failed to prove the recovery of weapon-M.O.5 used by the accused No.3 while perpetrating the crime as the witnesses for Ex.P21 i.e., the recovery mahazar, PWs.17 and 18 turned hostile to the prosecution case. In such circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge by relying on the uncorroborated testimony of eyewitnesses i.e., PWs.1, 3 and 11, convicted the accused, thereby rendering the impugned judgment unsustainable under law. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge.
9. In order to buttress to his argument, he relied on the following judgments:
i. Pradeep Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2023) 5 SCC 350 ii. Chunthuram v. State of Chhattisgarh (2020) 10 SCC 733 iii. Nand Lal and Others v. State of Chhattisgarh (2023) 10 SCC 470 iv. Jabbar Ali and Others v. State of Assam (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1440 -9- NC: 2025:KHC-K:622-DB CRL.A No. 200063 of 2020 v. Ramanand @ Nandlal v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1396 vi. Mr. K.R.Pushpesh @ Puppi v. State of Karnataka in Crl.A.No.879/2016; DD 21.07.2023 vii. Nagaraja P.M. v. State of Karnataka in Crl.A.No.348/2015; DD 05.01.2019 viii. Pradeep Narayan Madgaonkar and Others v.
State of Maharashtra (1995) 4 SCC 255 ix. Pulen Phukan and Others v. State of Assam (2023) SCC OnLine SC 350 x. Khokan @ Khokhan Vishwas v. State of Chhattisgarh (2021) 3 SCC 365 xi. N.Ramkumar v. State Rep. by Inspector of Police (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1129 xii. Gurmukh Singh v. State of Haryana (2009) 15 SCC 635 xiii. State of Rajasthan v. Teja Singh and Others (2001) 3 SCC 147
10. Refuting the above submissions made by the learned Senior counsel, the learned Addl. SPP for the respondent-State vehemently contended that the judgment challenged under this appeal neither suffers from perversity nor illegality since the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellants/accused relying on the evidence of material witnesses i.e., PWs.1, 3 and 11-eyewitnesses to the incident. All these witnesses have categorically deposed that, on the
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:622-DB CRL.A No. 200063 of 2020 date of incident the accused had a row with the deceased and that the accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 restrained the deceased while accused No.3 stabbed him. The evidence of these three witnesses clearly corroborates with the medical evidence i.e., testimony of Doctor-P.W.10 who conducted the autopsy on the corpse of the deceased as per Ex.P10. The said Doctor also rendered his final opinion as per Ex.P11 regarding the weapon used in the crime. He further contended that albeit PWs.8 and 9 did not witness the incident, nevertheless they visited the spot soon after the incident and PWs.1, 3 and 11 informed them about the same. In such circumstances, evidentiary value can be attached to their testimony. In such circumstances, the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and the learned Sessions Judge has rightly convicted the accused for the charges levelled against them. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal by confirming the impugned judgment.
11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and also upon comprehensive perusal of the evidence on record, the points that surface for our consideration are:
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:622-DB CRL.A No. 200063 of 2020
(i) "Whether the judgment under this appeal suffers from perversity or illegality?
(ii) Whether the learned Sessions Judge is justified in convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 120-B of IPC?"
12. In the instant case, albeit the prosecution examined 22 witnesses to prove the charges levelled against the accused, it is redundant to delve into the nitty gritty of individual evidence of all witnesses, it is sufficient to appreciate the evidence of material witnesses.
13. In order to prove the homicidal death of the deceased, the prosecution predominantly relied on the evidence of P.W.10-Doctor who conducted the autopsy on the corpse of the deceased as per Ex.P10. On perusal of Ex.P10, the Doctor has opined that the cause of death is due to 'multiple injuries causing bleeding and Cardio Respiratory failure'. The Doctor further opined that the injuries caused to the deceased are anti-mortem in nature. Nevertheless, the prosecution also placed the inquest panchanama conducted on the corpse of the deceased as per Ex.P4 by P.W.21-Investigating Officer. P.W.2 is the witness for the said panchanama. PWs.2 and 21 identified the injuries on the corpse of the deceased. As such, a conjoint
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:622-DB CRL.A No. 200063 of 2020 reading of the evidence of P.Ws.10, 21 and 2 i.e., the Doctor, Investigating Officer and panch witness for Ex.P4 respectively along with Exs.P10 and P4, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has proved the homicidal death of the deceased beyond reasonable doubts.
14. To connect the accused with the homicidal death of the deceased, the prosecution has significantly relied on the evidence of eyewitnesses-PWs.1, 3 and 11. On careful examination of the evidence of these witnesses, among them P.W.1 the son of deceased's elder brother set the criminal law into motion by lodging Ex.P1, alleging that on the date of incident i.e., 14.09.2015 at about 01:30 p.m., the accused Nos.1 to 4 had a row with the deceased and the accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 restrained the deceased by facilitating the accused No.3 to stab him. Accordingly, the accused No.3 stabbed the deceased with M.O.5-knife on his person. Owing to the assault, the deceased collapsed and succumbed to the injuries. Thereafter, all the accused fled the spot. Albeit P.W.1 reiterated the contents of Ex.P1-complaint in his evidence, on perusal of his cross-examination he has categorically admitted that when he reached the spot of incident, the deceased was already
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:622-DB CRL.A No. 200063 of 2020 laying on the ground injured. This witness also admitted in his cross-examination, that when he reached the spot, the accused fled. The one more eyewitness to the incident i.e., P.W.3 the daughter of the deceased deposed verbatim as that of P.W.1 and admitted in her cross-examination that the alleged incident took place when she reached the spot. Hence, there is a clear contradiction in the testimony of PWs.1 and 3 so also to the contents enumerated in Ex.P1. Nevertheless, P.W.11 another eyewitness to the incident also admitted in his cross- examination, that he reached the spot after the incident and PWs.1 and 3 have narrated the incident thereafter. Hence, there is no corroboration in the testimony of eyewitnesses. On careful perusal, there creates doubt in the mind of this Court regarding their presence in the scene of occurrence at the time of incident. Though P.W.1 lodged the complaint immediately after the incident at about 2:30 p.m. on 14.09.2015 and there upon the FIR was registered immediately, however, the same reached the jurisdictional Magistrate at about 09:30 p.m. on that day. P.W.15-Head Constable deposed that the distance between the Police Station and the office of the Magistrate is merely 2 kilometers. Further the column No.13 of the FIR depicts that the FIR was sent to the Magistrate at about 03:30
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:622-DB CRL.A No. 200063 of 2020 p.m. on that day. There is no explanation forthcoming for the inordinate delay of 6 hours for the FIR to reach the Magistrate. As such, as rightly argued by the learned Senior counsel, there arises doubt arise on the genesis of the crime.
15. Further, though the prosecution has examined PWs.4, 5, 6 and 9, the independent eyewitnesses to the incident, however, all these witnesses have collectively turned hostile to the prosecution case. PW.8 is a hearsay witness to the incident. In the instant case, as discussed supra, the evidence of PWs.1, 3 and 11-eyewitnesses to the incident are untrustworthy eyewitnesses, as such even the evidence of PW.8 cannot be relied to prove and establish the guilt of the accused.
16. The prosecution also failed to prove the recovery of M.O.5-knife used in crime at the instance of accused under Ex.P21, since the mahazar witnesses for the same i.e., PWs.17 and 18 collectively turned hostile to the prosecution case. On careful perusal of Ex.P21 and Ex.P22, it can be learnt that these recoveries were conducted not within the ambit of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:622-DB CRL.A No. 200063 of 2020
17. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Subramanya v. State of Karnataka reported in (2023) 11 SCC 255 held in paragraph No.78 as under:
"78. If, it is say of the investigating officer that the appellant-accused while in custody on his own free will and volition made a statement that he would lead to the place where he had hidden the weapon of offence, the site of burial of the dead body, clothes, etc. then the first thing that the investigating officer should have done was to call for two independent witnesses at the police station itself. Once the two independent witnesses would arrive at the police station thereafter in their presence the accused should be asked to make an appropriate statement as he may desire in regard to pointing out the place where he is said to have hidden the weapon of offence, etc. When the accused while in custody makes such statement before the two independent witnesses (panch witnesses) the exact statement or rather the exact words uttered by the accused should be incorporated in the first part of the panchnama that the investigating officer may draw in accordance with law. This first part of the panchnama for the purpose of Section 27 of the Evidence Act is always drawn at the police station in the presence of the independent witnesses so as to lend credence that a particular statement was made by the accused expressing his willingness on his own free will and volition to point out the place where the weapon of offence or any other article used in the commission of the offence had been hidden. Once the first part of the panchnama is completed thereafter the police party along with the accused and the two independent witnesses (panch witnesses) would proceed to the particular place as may be led by the accused. If from that particular place anything like the weapon of offence or bloodstained clothes or any other article is discovered then that part of the
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:622-DB CRL.A No. 200063 of 2020 entire process would form the second part of the panchnama. This is how the law expects the investigating officer to draw the discovery panchnama as contemplated under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. If we read the entire oral evidence of the investigating officer then it is clear that the same is deficient in all the aforesaid relevant aspects of the matter.
18. Though this case is based on the evidence of eyewitnesses and the motive does not play pivotal role in proving the charges levelled against the accused, nevertheless, the prosecution also failed to prove the motive for the incident by placing sufficient and relevant evidence. The motive projected by the prosecution in this case is that the bullock-cart passed the courtyard of the deceased and owing to cow passing faeces, the entire incident occurred. However, on perusal of the evidence of P.W.1, the said incident occurred at about 11:30 a.m. on 14.09.2015 and the deceased was murdered in the afternoon at about 02:30 p.m. Further, Ex.P1 enumerates that there was a civil dispute pending between the complainants and accused No.1's family regarding bund in their landed property. In such circumstances, the prosecution failed to place cogent evidence to prove the motive per contra, the defence taken by the accused that owing to the civil dispute they have been falsely implicated in the crime cannot be ruled out.
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:622-DB CRL.A No. 200063 of 2020
19. It is the vehement contention of the learned Addl. SPP that the evidence of PWs.1, 3 and 11 cannot be discarded for the reason that they are the partisan witnesses and the minor contradictions in their evidence does not go the root of the prosecution case.
20. The Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Darya Singh v. State of Punjab reported in 1963 SCC OnLine SC 123, held in paragraph No.6 as under:
"6. There can be no doubt that in a murder case when evidence is given by near relatives of the victim and the murder is alleged to have been committed by the enemy of the family, criminal courts must examine the evidence of the interested witnesses, like the relatives of the victim, very carefully. But a person may be interested in the victim, being his relation or otherwise, and may not necessarily be hostile to the accused. In that case, the fact that the witness was related to the victim or was his friend, may not necessarily introduce any infirmity in his evidence. But where the witness is a close relation of the victim and is shown to share the victim's hostility to his assailant, that naturally makes it necessary for the criminal courts examine the evidence given by such witness very carefully and scrutinise all the infirmities in that evidence before deciding to act upon it. In dealing with such evidence. Courts naturally begin with the enquiry as to whether the said witnesses were chance-witnesses or whether they were really present on the scene of the offence. If the offence has taken place, as in the present case, in front of the house of the
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:622-DB CRL.A No. 200063 of 2020 victim, the fact that on hearing his shouts, his relations rushed out of the house cannot be ruled out as being improbable, and so, the presence of the three eyewitnesses cannot be properly characterised as unlikely. If the criminal court is satisfied that the witness who is related to the victim was not a chance-witness, then his evidence has to the examined from the point of view of probabilities and the account given by him as to the assault has to be carefully scrutinised. In doing so, it may be relevant to remember that though the witness is hostile to the assailant, it is not likely that he would deliberately omit to name the real assailant and substitute in his place the name of the enemy of the family out of malice. The desire to punish the victim would be so powerful in his mind that he would unhesitatingly name the real assailant and would not think of substituting in his place the enemy of the family though he was not concerned with the assault. It is not improbable that in giving evidence, such a witness may name the real assailant and may add other persons out of malice and enmity and that is a factor which has to be borne in mind in appreciating the evidence of interested witnesses. On principle, however, it is difficult to accept the plea that if a witness is shown to be a relative of the deceased and it is also shown that he shared the hostility of the victim towards the assailant, his evidence can never be accepted unless it is corroborated on material particulars. We do not think it would be possible to hold that such witnesses are no better than accomplices and that their evidence, as a matter of law, must receive corroboration before it is accepted. That is not to say that the evidence of such witnesses should be accepted light-heartedly without very close and careful examination; and so, we cannot accept Mr Bhasin's argument that the High Court committed an error of law in accepting the evidence of the three eye witnesses without corroboration."
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:622-DB CRL.A No. 200063 of 2020
21. Applying the guidelines of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above case to the facts and circumstances of this case, as discussed supra, the evidence of PWs.1, 3 and 11, create doubts regarding their presence in the scene of occurrence at the time of incident as they admitted in the cross-examination that they reached the spot after the incident and that the deceased was laying on the spot when they arrived. Hence, we are unable to accept their testimony. It is a cardinal rule of criminal jurisprudence that the burden in the web of proof of an offence invariably lies on the prosecution to prove all the facts constituting the ingredients beyond reasonable doubts. If there is any reasonable doubts, the accused are entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubts. At no stage of the prosecution case, the burden to disprove the fact would rest on the defence.
22. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mousam Singha Roy v. State of W.B. reported in (2003) 12 SCC 377 has made an observation in respect of moral conviction that, wandering on strong suspicion is not an option to decide a case by the Sessions Court and held in paragraph No.27 as under:
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:622-DB CRL.A No. 200063 of 2020 "27. Before we conclude, we must place on record the fact that we are not unaware of the degree of agony and frustration that may be caused to the society in general and the families of the victims in particular, by the fact that a heinous crime like this goes unpunished, but then the law does not permit the courts to punish the accused on the basis of moral conviction or on suspicion alone. The burden of proof in a criminal trial never shifts, and it is always the burden of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence. In a similar circumstance this Court in the case of Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 1957 SC 637 : 1957 Cri LJ 1014] stated thus:
(AIR p. 645, para 12) It is no doubt a matter of regret that a foul cold-blooded and cruel murder should go unpunished. There may also be an element of truth in the prosecution story against the accused. Considered as a whole, the prosecution story may be true; but between 'may be true' and 'must be true' there is inevitably a long distance to travel and the whole of this distance must be covered by the prosecution by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence before an accused can be convicted."
23. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that, if binary views are held on the evidence adduced in any case i.e., one pointing out the guilt of the accused and the other to his
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:622-DB CRL.A No. 200063 of 2020 innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted.
24. Placing reliance on the above judgments discussed above so also on meticulous examination of the evidence comprehensively placed on record, we are of the considered view that the learned Sessions Judge has erred while convicting the accused for the charges levelled against them. Hence, interference is required in the impugned judgment passed by the Sessions Court. In that view of the matter, the appeal succeeds and accordingly, we answer point No.1 in affirmative, point No.2 in negative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER i. The Criminal Appeal No.200063/2020 is allowed.
ii. The judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 11.02.2020 passed in
S.C.No.17/2016 by the Court of Sessions Judge, Yadgiri, is set-aside.
iii. The appellants/accused Nos.1 to 4 are acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 120-B r/w Section 34 of IPC.
iv. The concerned Jail Authority is directed to release the appellant/accused No.3-Ramayya
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:622-DB CRL.A No. 200063 of 2020 forthwith, if he is not required in any other cases.
v. The bail bond executed by appellants/accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 shall stand cancelled.
vi. The fine amount, if any, deposited by appellants/accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 shall be refunded to them on due identification.
Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Jail Authorities concerned.
Sd/-
(S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE VGR,HKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41 CT: PS