Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Srinivasa on 2 November, 2022
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K.Somashekar
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M.JOSHI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1610/2016
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SUB-INSPECTOR
KOLAR RURAL POLICE STATION
KOLAR, REPT. BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ABHIJITH K.S., HCGP)
AND:
1. SRINIVASA
S/O MUNIVENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
2. SHANKAR
S/O VENKATESHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
2
3. GANGARAJU
S/O MUNISHAMY
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
4. ASHWATHANARAYANASWAMY
S/O PILLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
5. NARAYANASWAMY
S/O LATE VENKATARAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
6. VENKATESHAPPA
S/O MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
7. MUNISHAMY
@ GADDINDLU MUNISHAMY
S/O MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
8. SRINIVASA
S/O HANUMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
9. CHANNAKRISHNA
S/O THIMMAIHA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
10. CHANNAKRISHNA
S/O HANUMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT
KUMBARAHALLI VILLAGE
3
KOLAR TALUK - 563 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI N.SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE)
***
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
378(1) & (3) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE,
PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 06.04.2016 PASSED BY
THE II ADDL. S.J., KOLAR IN S.C.NO.137/2013
ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 143,504,324,506,307,427 R/W 149 OF
IPC. THE SPP/STATE PRAYS THAT THE ABOVE ORDER OF
ACQUITTAL MAY BE SET ASIDE.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING
THIS DAY, K.SOMASHEKAR J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT
This appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal rendered by the Court of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Kolar, in S.C.No.137/2013 dated 4 06.04.2016 acquitting the accused of the offences punishable under sections 143, 504, 324, 506, 307, 427 read with 149 of IPC, 1860. Whereas in this appeal, the appellant/State is seeking to consider the grounds urged in the appeal and consequently, set aside the acquittal judgment rendered by the trial Court and convict the respondents/accused for the offences alleged against them.
2. Heard learned HCGP Shri Abhijith.K.S. for the appellant/State and so also learned counsel Shri N.Srinivas for respondents/accused. Perused the impugned judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court in S.C.No.137/2013 dated 06.04.2016.
3. The factual matrix of this appeal are as under:-
It has transpired in the case of the prosecution that, on 20.03.2011, at around 12.00 noon, at Jayanthi Restaurant situated near Kumbarahalli gate, wherein the accused, being the respondents in this appeal, formed an 5 unlawful assembly and came to the Daba along with whisky bottles and asked for glasses for the purpose of consuming the liquor and as the same was refused by the complainant/CW.1, the accused persons picked up quarrel with the complainant and also workers of that restaurant and whereby accused No.1 assaulted CW.1 - K.V. Jayaram with stone on his left thigh and caused him hurt and also extended life threat to the employees of that restaurant and locked CW.1 to CW.3 in a room and tried to kill them by opening the gas cylinder pipe and lit fire, ransacked tables and chairs and caused damage to the front wind shield of Santro Car bearing No.KA.25.9494 which was parked in front of the said Daba / restaurant, causing loss to the tune of Rs.50,000/-.
4. It is in pursuance of the act of the accused, on the basis of the complaint made by CW.1 - K.V.Jayaram, criminal law was set into motion by registering case in Crime No.94/2011 for the offences stated supra. Subsequent to registration of the crime by recording the 6 FIR, the I.O. has conducted the investigation thoroughly and during investigation recorded the statement of the witnesses and also drew spot mahazar at Ex.P1 and thereafter laid the charge sheet against the accused before the committal court. Subsequently, the committal court had passed the order as contemplated under section 209 of Cr.P.C., relating to the case in C.C.No.542/2011. Accordingly, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. Subsequently, the case in S.C.No.137/2013 has been registered and the accused have been secured for facing trial. The trial Court heard on charges on the part of the prosecution and also defence counsel. On the basis of the prima facie material, charges were framed against the accused for the offences under sections 143, 504, 324, 506, 307, 427 read with 149 of IPC, 1860. The charges were read over to the accused in the language known to them and the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Plea of the accused was recorded separately. Subsequently, the prosecution has let in evidence by subjecting PW.1 to PW.7 to examination 7 and also got marked the documents at Exs.P1 to P5 and so also got marked M.Os.1 to 7.
5. Subsequent to closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the accused were subjected to examination as contemplated under section 313 of Cr.P.C., for enabling them to rebut incriminating evidence / statement against them, whereby the accused have denied the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, but no defence evidence has been let in by them as contemplated under section 233 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly it was recorded.
6. Subsequently, the trial Court heard the arguments advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor and also the defence counsel. The trial Court considered the evidence of prosecution witnesses inclusive of fulcrum of mahazar at Ex.P1 said to have been conducted by the Investigating Officer in the presence of the panch witnesses.
8
7. PW.1 - Ramachandrappa has given evidence relating to the incident narrated in the complaint at Ex.P2, wherein he has specifically stated about the quarrel that occurred in daba about four years back, that some persons came with liquor bottles and tried to consume the liquor, for which, the Manager of the daba objected and stated that alcohol consumption is prohibited in his daba. Enraged by this, the mob broke the table, water pipes, gas pipe and other materials. On receipt of the complaint, the police visited the spot and drew the spot mahazar at Ex.P1. In the cross-examination, suggestions were made about the incident narrated in the complaint at Ex.P2 and so also the fulcrum of mahazar at Ex.P1. PW.1 has specifically stated that he is running the daba since 12 years after obtaining license from the Honnenahalli Grama Panchayath. There were 300 persons in connection with the protest rally organized by the Raitha Sangha. But who had visited the daba / restaurant and resorted to consume alcohol is not properly deposed. The bottle and its trade name and nature of liquor brought by the accused to the 9 scene of occurrence is not stated. Even though PW.1 has been subjected to examination-in-chief and also incisive cross-examination, nothing worthwhile has been elicited by the prosecution relating to the fulcrum of spot mahazar at Ex.P1. He does not know the contents of the mahazar at Ex.P1. The seizure of stone, bottle pieces, glass pieces, cement slab pieces belonging to table, wash basin and damaged gas pipe even though were identified, who had actually damaged the same is not specifically stated. The overt act of each of the accused is not positively and reliably testified by the prosecution even on subjecting PW.1 to examination, who was a panch witness to Ex.P1 and his evidence runs contrary to the evidence of PW.4 - K.V.Jayaram. PW.4 - K.V.Jayaram is the author of the complaint at Ex.P2 and his evidence is contrary to the contents of complaint at Ex.P2.
8. PW.2 - Dayananda is the relative of PW.1 and he has deposed in his evidence on the part of the prosecution that accused persons brought liquor bottles and tried to consume the liquor by securing glasses in the 10 daba, but the same was objected by the daba owner. Being enraged, accused broke the gas pipe, chairs and drinking glasses. But there is no fortified evidence brought in on the part of the prosecution. This witness has also not specifically stated who were the offenders who broke the table, chairs and wash basin and removed the gas pipe.
9. These are the evidence let in by the prosecution inclusive of evidence of PW.3 - Iraju who has also been secured as witness on the part of prosecution, he has not seen the quarrel alleged to have taken place in the daba. PW.4 - K.V. Jayaram is the labourer in that hotel. This witness has also not specifically stated in his evidence about the overt act committed by the accused persons. But there are some vital contradictions and improvements in the evidence which are not reliable. This way the evidence has been assessed by the trial Court inclusive of evidence of PW.6 - Dr.Harish Kumar who examined the injured PW.4 - K.V.Jayaram and issued 11 wound certificate as per Ex.P5 and deposed that the injuries are simple in nature. PW.7 - P.N.Ganesh, PSI, conducted the investigation thoroughly and laid charge sheet against the accused.
10. These are the evidence let in by the prosecution relating to the incident narrated in the complaint at Ex.P2. The trial Court considering the same, rendered the acquittal judgment. The same has been challenged in this appeal by urging various grounds.
11. Learned HCGP for the State has taken us through the evidence of PW.4 - K.V.Jayaram who is an injured and whereby he took treatment by PW.6 - Dr.Harish Kumar who has deposed that the injured had sustained injuries Nos.1 to 3 as indicated in the wound certificate at Ex.P5, namely
(i) contusion over left thigh middle third measuring 6 x 2 cms.,
(ii) tenderness present over left wrist and hand
(iii) tenderness present over the left side of chest 12 These injuries are simple in nature as opined by the Doctor. The injuries were inflicted over the person of the injured as indicated in Ex.P5 - wound certificate. Same has not been appreciated by the trial Court, whereby the trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence of the injured PW.4 even though his evidence finds corroboration with the evidence of PW.6 - Doctor. Therefore it requires intervention in this appeal, if not intervened by consideration of the grounds urged in this appeal, certainly substantial miscarriage of justice would be caused, even though the injured had suffered in the hands of accused persons. The accused have also caused damage, accordingly, section 427 of IPC, 1860 has been leveled against the accused persons. The accused persons forming an unlawful assembly with intention to cause not only damage to the scene of crime i.e., daba / restaurant, made attempt to take away the life of CWs.1 to 3, who have been cited as witnesses in the charge sheet, and PW.1 to PW.4 are the eyewitnesses to the incident as narrated in the complaint. PW.4 is specifically stated to be 13 an injured witness and all the witnesses are stated to have identified the accused who had entered daba / restaurant by carrying the liquor bottles and tried to consume the same and when it was objected by the Manager of the daba, picked up quarrel and there were some exchange of words took place between the accused on one side and Manager and employees of daba on other side. These are the evidence let in by the prosecution mainly PW.4 - K.V.Jayaram who was assaulted with means of hand and stones, causing injury to his thigh. Accused also extended life threat and also caused damage to the property, despite of which, the trial Court has not considered the evidence of prosecution witnesses and also did not give any credentiality to the evidence of injured witness - PW.4, even though his evidence finds corroboration from the evidence of PW.6 - Doctor who examined the injured and issued wound certificate at Ex.P5. The accused made attempt to take away the life of the injured PW.4 and also remaining persons who have been cited as witnesses and subjected them to examination as PWs.1 to 3. PW.4 who 14 had sustained three injuries as per Ex.P5 - wound certificate, has been subjected to examination by PW.6 - Doctor on the same day, but the trial Court has erroneously discarded the evidence of eyewitnesses only upon minor contradictions and discrepancies which were found in the evidence on the part of the prosecution, which do not affect the entire case of the prosecution more so no undue importance should have been given by the trial Court to minor contradictions and discrepancies in arriving at the conclusion that the entire prosecution case is doubtful. Therefore, in this appeal it requires revisiting the impugned judgment and so also re-appreciation of the evidence of PW.4 inclusive of evidence of PWs.5, 6 and 7.
12. The trial Court has not considered even the substances in the FIR at Ex.P4 which is in conformity with the contents of Ex.P2 complaint. It is also submitted by learned HCGP seeking for intervention, to consider the substances in the complaint at Ex.P2 and FIR at Ex.P4. The contents of FIR at Ex.P4 and contents of complaint at 15 Ex.P2 are credible as there was no chance for deliberation, consultation and false implication of accused persons. Though the prosecution has proved the case against the accused relating to the offences by facilitating the evidence, even to the extent of beyond reasonable doubt, by examining the witnesses and placing the material documents before the trial Court, the trial Court erroneously arrived at the conclusion and misdirected the evidence of prosecution witnesses inclusive of misinterpretation of evidence in rendering the acquittal judgment. Therefore, in this appeal it requires reconsideration of evidence and also revisiting the impugned judgment of acquittal on each count of the offences and also the ingredients of each offence for which charges were leveled against the accused. On this premise, learned HCGP for the State seeks for consideration of the grounds as urged in the appeal seeking for setting aside the judgment of acquittal in S.C.No.137/2013 dated 06.04.2016 and consequent upon setting aside the same, seeking conviction of the accused 16 for the offences under sections 143, 504, 324, 506, 307, 427 read with 149 of IPC, 1860.
13. Per contra, learned counsel Shri N.Srinivas for respondents / accused has specifically stated that based upon the complaint Ex.P2 filed by PW.4 - K.V.Jayaram, who is an injured, criminal law was set into motion and whereby FIR at Ex.P4 was recorded. The wound certificate at Ex.P5 issued by the Doctor - PW.6 depicts the injuries inflicted upon the injured and as opined by the Doctor, the injuries are simple in nature. The evidence of PW.4 has been contra to the evidence of PW.1 who has been secured to act as panch witness relating to spot mahazar at Ex.P1 and this panch witness did not spell out the contents in the mahazar. That there were in all 300 persons in protest rally organized by the Raitha Sangha. They visited the daba / restaurant to consume alcohol which they had brought along with them is not properly deposed by PW.1 on the part of the prosecution for securing conviction even for each one of the offence. There is no specific evidence 17 on the part of the prosecution relating to the brand, trade name of liquor bottle inclusive of nature of liquor brought by the accused persons to the scene of crime and more so, PW.1 has specifically given an evidence that he does not know the contents of mahazar at Ex.P1 inclusive of overt acts attributed against each one of the accused. Consequently, the evidence of PW.1 so also evidence of PW.2 run contrary to the evidence of PW.4, who is an injured who is alleged to have sustained injuries as indicated in the wound certificate at Ex.P5.
14. But PW.3 - Iraju, who was also subjected to examination has deposed that there was a quarrel between the accused and Manager of daba / restaurant whereby the Manager and employees of daba did not allow the accused persons to consume the liquor which was brought by them. But it is clear that when he came near daba, about 50 villagers had assembled. Therefore, he is not an eyewitness to the incident narrated in the complaint at Ex.P2. Accordingly, PW.3 is only a hearse witness and his 18 testimony could not be relied as corroborative evidence with the evidence of PW.4. Even though PW.3 has denied that a case was registered against him and PW.1, internal enmity amongst the parties cannot be ruled out.
15. PW.4 - K.V.Jayaram, who is a hotel worker and injured, has deposed that CWs.2 and 3, who are cited as witnesses in the charge sheet, are his relatives. He has deposed that on the date of the incident, the accused tried to consume alcohol which they had brought to the scene of occurrence i.e., daba / restaurant, but the hotel staff tried to obstruct them, as such, the accused assaulted PW.4. PW.4 has specifically stated that accused No.1 - Srinivasa assaulted him with stone on the left thigh. Accused also assaulted him on his left elbow, left side of chest, as a result, he sustained injuries. The accused also damaged the water pipes, broke tables and chairs. These are all the things which find place in the charge sheet. Bulb, flex and board were also stated to have been broken, but no evidence is forthcoming on the part of the prosecution. 19 Even it is not specifically stated in the evidence relating to the fulcrum of mahazar. There was some contradiction, improvement in the evidence which is affecting the proof of the case of the prosecution. These are all the contentions made by learned counsel for respondents / accused.
16. PW.5 - K.C.Krishnappa, being Head Constable, has also given evidence on the part of the prosecution. He being the Station House Officer had been to the hospital and took the complaint at Ex.P2 by PW.4 and based upon the complaint, criminal law was set into motion by registering the case in Crime No.94/2011 and recorded FIR as per Ex.P4 and further statement of complainant at Ex.P3. When the further statement has been made by the injured complainant who is examined as PW.4, a prudent man can infer that only after due deliberation, discussion and consultation, PW.4 gave further statement in consonance with the allegations made earlier. The evidence of PW.4, who is an injured, is contrary to the 20 evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 3. The material witnesses are PWs.1 to 4 and their evidence is inconsistent and not corroborative. The trial Court had rendered an acquittal judgment by assigning sound reasons and also referring the evidence of PW.6 - Doctor who examined PW.4 - injured and noticed that the injuries, which are three in number, are simple in nature.
17. Even no ingredients have been established by the prosecution to prove the guilt against the accused in respect of the major offences under section 307 of IPC, 1860, and so also the other offences relating to unlawful assembly with intention to causing damage at the scene of occurrence and also causing injury to the injured. The evidence of PW.4 in terms of contents of Ex.P2 - complaint and his evidence is contra to the evidence of PW.6 - Doctor and PW.7 - PSI who laid charge sheet against the accused by recording the statements of the witnesses. But the procedural aspects done by the Investigating Officer and his evidence does not find corroboration, by facilitating 21 any independent witnesses on the part of the prosecution in securing conviction. Consequently, the trial Court has rendered the acquittal judgment by assigning sound reasons and also justifiable reasons, more so there is no perversity or absurdity or any illegality committed by the trial Court which requires intervention in this appeal filed by the State by urging various grounds. The trial Court has arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to facilitate cogent, reliable, relevant evidence to establish the alleged offences against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, and therefore, the benefit of doubt has been extended to the accused since accused alone are entitled for the benefit of doubt. Consequently, the trial Court rendered the acquittal judgment and it does not call for any interference in this appeal. Consequently, appeal deserves to be dismissed as being devoid of merits.
18. It is in this context, the contentions made by learned HCGP for the State and so also learned counsel for 22 respondents / accused are analysed. Section 141 of IPC, 1860 relates to "unlawful assembly". Assembly of five or more persons is designated as "unlawful assembly", if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is with the intention of committing an offence. The common object has to be seen and also to be considered in the letter and spirit of the aforesaid provision. But to determine the existence of the common object, the court is required to see the circumstances in which the incident had taken place and conduct of members of unlawful assembly including the weapon of offence they carried or used on the spot. This view has been extensively addressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Roy Fernandes v. State of Goa1. Even in the case of Ramchandran v. State of Kerala2, it is observed that the common object may form on spur of the moment. Prior concert in the sense of meeting of unlawful assembly 1 AIR 2012 SC 1030 2 AIR 2011 SC 3581 23 members not necessary. The observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court are applicable even in this appeal.
19. In the instant case, the accused persons had been to the scene of occurrence i.e., daba / restaurant with liquor bottles with an intention to consume the same and requested the Manager / workers in the daba for glasses, but the Manager / workers in the daba refused permission to the accused to consume alcohol, because of that reason there was some enragement between two groups and the accused indulged in vandalizing the property of the daba and it is a mobocracy and same can be seen in the prosecution theory which requires to be established by the prosecution by acceptable evidence. The prosecution must establish unlawful assembly by the members thereof and also it is for the prosecution to establish the guilt relating to common object of such assembly that every member of such assembly is guilty of such offence. But in the instant case, there is no worthwhile evidence let in by the prosecution in securing 24 the conviction. This contention has been made by learned counsel for the respondents / accused. But the members of unlawful assembly, in the instant case, made attempt to take away the life of the injured - PW.4, and so also PW.1 and PW.2. PW.6 - Doctor has given treatment to PW.4 and opined that three injuries inflicted over the person of PW.4 are simple in nature and accordingly, issued wound certificate at Ex.P5.
20. Section 141 of IPC, 1860 deals with "unlawful assembly" concept. In the instant case, PW.4 - K.V.Jayaram was an injured who narrated about the incident in his complaint at Ex.P2, but his evidence has been contra to the evidence of PW.1, PW.2 and PW.3. Even though he being an eyewitness at the place of occurrence was undoubtful and his evidence is corroborated by medical evidence supported by prompt FIR against the accused persons, merely non-explanation of injuries sustained by injured PW.4 by these witnesses, the same is not fatal to the case of prosecution. But, 25 unless there is some worthwhile evidence, there cannot be any conviction judgment. That in the criminal justice delivery system, the prosecution has to prove the guilt against the accused by facilitating worthwhile evidence, cogent, consistent, corroborative and probabalise that the accused and accused alone have committed the alleged offences and also caused injuries over the person of the injured. There must be some nexus between the common object and the offence committed and if it is found that the same was committed to accomplish the common object, every member of the assembly will become liable for the same. This aspect has also been extensively addressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Allauddin Mian Sharif Mian v. State of Bihar3. But in the instant case, no worthwhile evidence has been facilitated by the prosecution to prove the guilt against the accused persons.
21. In respect of the instant case is concerned, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme 3 AIR 1989 SC 1456 26 Court in the case of Vinubhai Ranchhodbhai Patel v. Rajivbhai Dudabhai Patel4 relating to section 149 of IPC, 1860. In the instant case, even though the charges were leveled against the accused persons, it does not create separate offences, but only declares vicarious liability of all members of unlawful assembly for acts done in common object. Keeping in view the ratio of the reliances, a prudent man can go through in detail about the evidence of the prosecution. But in the instant case, there is no worthwhile evidence and no ingredients have been established by the prosecution relating to the offences under section 149 of IPC, 1860 relating to the common object.
22. In Vikramjit Singh @ Vicky v. State of Punjab5, the burden of proving fact especially within knowledge, it was held that it does not relieve the prosecution to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. 4 AIR 2018 SC 2472 5 (2006) 12 SCC 306 27 Only when the prosecution case has been proved, the burden in regard to such facts which was within the special knowledge of the accused may be shifted to the accused for explaining the same subject to certain statutory exceptions. On facts held strong suspicion legitimately arises that in all probabilities the accused was guilty of commission of heinous offence, but suspicion however grave cannot be a substitute for proof.
23. In the instant case, major offence is under section 307 of IPC, 1860 and so also other offence under section 427 of IPC, 1860 causing some damages by breaking certain articles which were found in the scene of crime, but suspicion however grave cannot be a substitute for prosecution having not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Consequently, the respondents / accused who faced trial, are entitled to acquittal. Accordingly the trial Court rendered acquittal judgment.
28
24. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra6 and in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra7, in the aforesaid cases, concept of criminal trial insofar as benefit of doubt when any fact asserted by the prosecution turns doubtful, the benefit should go to the accused, not the prosecution. It was extensively addressed in the Sharad Birdhichand Sarda's case, referred supra, in para Nos.121 and 142 in detail and so also in para No.163, it is observed thus:
"We then pass on to another important point which seems to have been completely missed by the High Court. It is well settled that where on the evidence two possibilities are available or open, one which goes in favour of the prosecution and the other which benefits an accused, the accused is undoubtedly entitled to the benefit of doubt. In Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in (1973) 2 SCC 808, this Court made the following observations: (SCC para 25, p.820 : SCC (Cri) p.1060) Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases, is that if two 6 (1984) 4 SCC 116 29 views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in cases wherein the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence.
25. Whereas in the instant case, PWs.1 to 7 have been subjected to examination on the part of the prosecution in order to prove the guilt against the accused. But merit of the statement is important rather than subjecting certain witnesses, who have been cited in the charge sheet, to examination. It is well known principle of law that reliance can be based on solitary statement of the witness, if the court comes to the conclusion that the said statement is true version and also correct version of the case of the prosecution. The same was extensively addressed in the case of Raja v. State8. Quality of the 7 (1973) 2 SCC 793 8 (1997) 2 Crime 175 (Delhi) 30 evidence are expected from the prosecution side, even the domain vested with the prosecution to facilitate the quality of evidence, whereas it is the quality of the evidence and not the quantity of the evidence which is required to be judged by the Court to place credence on the statement. It was extensively addressed in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kishanpal9.
26. Whereas in the instant case, PW.4 -
K.V.Jayaram who is the author of the complaint at Ex.P2 and also being an injured and infliction of injuries over his person were as indicated in the wound certificate - Ex.P5 issued by the Doctor - PW.6, but the evidence of PW.4 and PW.6 run contrary insofar as the ingredients relating to each one of the offences and so also contra to the circumstances in the FIR and inclusive of fulcrum of the mahazar conducted by PW.7 - Investigating Officer in the presence of PW.1 - Ramachandrappa and the accused persons alleged to have committed the offences, but in 9 (2008) 8 JT 650 31 respect of each one of the offences are concerned, there is no ingredient that offences have been proved by the prosecution by facilitating worthwhile evidence. In the case of Lallu Manji v. State of Jharkhand10, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the law of evidence does not require any particular number of witnesses to be examined in proof of a given fact. However faced with the testimony of a single witness, the court may classify the oral testimony of a single witness into three categories, namely
(i) wholly reliable, (ii) wholly unreliable, and (iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In the first two categories there may be no difficulty in accepting or discarding the testimony of the single witness. The difficulty arises in the third category of cases. The court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial, before acting upon testimony of a single witness.
10
AIR 2003 SC 854 32
27. In the instant case, PW.4 - K.V.Jayaram who is the author of the complaint at Ex.P2 and also being an injured even infliction of injury over his person as indicated in the wound certificate - Ex.P5 issued by the Doctor - PW.6, but in totality of the evidence of the prosecution and also on re-appreciation of the evidence and so also revisiting the impugned judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court, we are of the opinion that there is no perversity, absurdity or illegality committed by the trial Court in arriving at the conclusion and rendering acquittal judgment and therefore, the same does not call for interference in this appeal. For the aforesaid reasons and findings, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal filed by the appellant / State under section 378(1) and (3) of Cr.P.C., is hereby rejected.33
(ii) Consequently, the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court in S.C.No.137/2013 dated 06.04.2016 is hereby confirmed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Bss.