Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

We have independently scrutinized the evidence of the material witnesses in the teeth of the rival contentions of the parties. On reprisal of the evidence of the injured witnesses Rajanna (P.W.1) and Kenchaiah (P.W.3) as also the evidence of eyewitness Moodalagiri (P.W.2), it is clear that the evidence on record fully establishes the case of the prosecution against Venkategowda (A-1), Muddegowda (A-2), Shivanna (A-3), Govindappa (A-4) and Govindaiah (A-5) although, there were certain discrepancies in the testimony of the injured witnesses and eyewitness in regard to the weapons of offence individually used by (A-1), (A-2), (A-3), (A-4) and (A-5) for inflicting injuries on the person of each of the injured witnesses (P.W.1) and (P.W.3) as also on the person of the deceased Venkatesh. The discrepancies, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, are minor and insignificant. The witnesses were examined in the court after a gap of almost ten years. The injured witnesses were cross- examined not on the very same day when their examinations- in-chief was conducted, but their evidence was recorded after a long gap of time. On examination of the evidence of Rajanna (P.W.1), we find that he was examined-in-chief on 26.11.1996, but his cross-examination continued and he was cross- examined again on 27.11.1997. Likewise, Kenchaiah (P.W.3) was examined-in-chief on 28.11.1996, but his cross- examination took place on 28.4.1997. Further evidence on record would show that the injured witnesses had been subjected to searching lengthy cross-examination and questions numbering more than hundred were being put to each witness. In such type of cross-examination by the defence, some improvements, contradictions, and omissions are bound to occur in their evidence, but they are not of serious nature and they cannot be treated as vital and significant contradictions so as to disbelieve and discard the substratum of the prosecution case. The evidence of the injured witnesses Rajanna (P.W.1), Kenchaiah (P.W.3) and eyewitness Moodalagiri (P.W.2) has been rightly appreciated and accepted by the High Court and we find no cogent and sound reason to differ from the reasoning and finding recorded by the High Court against Venkategowda (A-1), Muddegowda (A-2), Shivanna (A-3), Govindappa (A-4) and Govindaiah (A-5) holding them guilty of the offences. There is no substance in the argument of the learned senior counsel for the appellants that the evidence of Rajanna (P.W.1), Moodalagiri (P.W.2) and Kenchaiah (P.W.3) should be levelled as the evidence of the interested witnesses. There was no basis for Rajanna (P.W.1), Moodalagiri (P.W.2) and Kenchaiah (P.W.3) to falsely implicate the appellants Venkategowda (A-1), Muddegowda (A-2), Shivanna (A-3), Govindappa (A-4) and Govindaiah (A-5) in the present case. On the other hand, we find that the evidence of the injured and eyewitnesses is quite natural, convincing and trust-worthy. The learned senior counsel for the appellants then contended that there is an inordinate delay in lodging the complaint by Rajanna (P.W. 1) and registering the FIR in the Police Station. In support of this submission, reliance is placed on Peddireddy Subbareddi And Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh [AIR 1991 SC 1356] and Amar Singh v. Balwinder Singh And Others [(2003) 2 SCC 518]. We have examined the ratio of the said decisions.

After perusing the entire evidence on record in the present case, as noticed above, the incident took place on 04.11.1986 at about 6.30 p.m. in front of the house of Venkategowda (A-1) and the manner in which Venkategowda (A-1), Muddegowda (A-2), Shivanna (A-3), Govindappa (A-4) and Govindaiah (A-5) had assaulted the injured witnesses and the deceased, the witnesses were frightened and they fled away from the scene of occurrence to save their lives, therefore, they did not lodge the complaint with the police on the same day. The injured witnesses have explained the delay in lodging the FIR and it was on the following day of the occurrence that Rajanna (P.W.1) along with Venkatappa (P.W.7) went to the Kudur Police Station, which is about 15 kms. from the place of occurrence and made the complaint to the police official. Having regard to the injuries inflicted on the body of the deceased as also on the person of the injured witnesses, it was but natural for Rajanna (P.W.1) and other witnesses not to venture to go straight to the Police Station and lodge the complaint with the police on the day of the occurrence and the fact that the witnesses left the deceased Venkatesh on the scene of occurrence itself would indicate the gravity of the situation. It is settled law that the delay in lodging the FIR will not be fatal in every case if the ocular version of the eyewitnesses is reliable and trustworthy. The prosecution has explained the reason of the delay and as the testimony of the injured witnesses was found credible by the High Court, the delay in lodging of the complaint and FIR will not be fatal to the prosecution case. The sequence of the events and the manner in which FIR has been lodged have been rightly taken into consideration by the High Court and we do not find any infirmity and perversity in the findings of the High Court accepting the explanation of the prosecution for lodging of F.I.R. on the next day of the incident. The submission of the learned senior counsel for the appellants that the prosecution case should be discarded and disbelieved on the ground of delay in lodging the FIR, does not merit acceptance. There is no material on record from which an inference can be drawn that the material witnesses have implicated appellants Venkategowda (A-1), Muddegowda (A-2), Shivanna (A-3), Govindappa (A-4) and Govindaiah (A-5) in a false case. However, the evidence proved does not permit any inference to be drawn regarding participation of other appellants in the commission of the offences, therefore, the conviction of Venkataramanaiah (A-6), Rajashekaraiah (A-7), Lakkegowda (A-8), Rama (A-9), Shivanna (A-10), Mahadeva (A-

11), Ganghahanumaiah (A-12), Singraiah (A-13), Annaiah (A-

14), Bettegowda (A-15), Chikkanna (A-16), Govindaiah (A-17) and Rama (A-18), as recorded by the High Court, is simply based on the inference drawn regarding their participation and existence of common intention on the basis of conjectures and surmises cannot be sustained. The established facts, however, conclusively prove the complicity of Venkategowda (A-1), Muddegowda (A-2), Shivanna(A-3), Govindappa (A-4) and Govindaiah (A-5) in commission of the aforesaid offences. Having given our careful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the judgment and order of the High Court suffers from no perversity and illegality to warrant our interference to the extent of convicting Venkategowda (A-1), Muddegowda (A-2), Shivanna(A-3), Govindappa (A-4) and Govindaiah (A-5) for offences under Section 326 read with Section 149 IPC and Sections 143 and 148 of the IPC. However, the conviction and sentences imposed upon Venkataramanaiah (A-6), Rajashekaraiah (A-7), Lakkegowda (A-8), Rama (A-9), Shivanna (A-10), Mahadeva (A-11), Ganghahanumaiah (A-12), Singraiah (A-13), Annaiah (A-14), Bettegowda (A-15), Chikkanna (A-16), Govindaiah (A-17), Rama (A-18) are set aside and they are acquitted of the charges levelled against them.

The residuary question is whether the sentence as imposed by the High Court upon Venkategowda (A-1), Muddegowda (A-2), Shivanna (A-3), Govindappa (A-4) and Govindaiah (A-5) is harsh. Considering the background facts, namely, the incident took place on 4.11.1986, the nature of the injuries sustained by the deceased and the witnesses, the fact that Venkategowda (A-1), Muddegowda (A-2), Shivanna(A-

3), Govindappa (A-4) and Govindaiah (A-5) have suffered physically, mentally and financially in prosecuting the legal battle in different courts for the past about 20 years, while maintaining their conviction under Section 326, IPC, read with Section 149, IPC, it might be appropriate to reduce the sentence of Venkategowda (A-1), Muddegowda (A-2), Shivanna (A-3), Govindappa (A-4) and Govindaiah (A-5) from five years rigorous imprisonment to one year rigorous imprisonment each and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each instead of Rs. 10,000/- each as imposed by the High Court. In default of payment of fine, Venkategowda (A-1), Muddegowda (A-2), Shivanna(A-3), Govindappa (A-4) and Govindaiah (A-5) each shall further undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment. Out of the amount of fine, if realized, a sum of Rs. 5,000/- each shall be paid to Rajanna (P.W.1) and Kenchaiah (P.W.3) injured witnesses and a sum of Rs.10,000/- shall be paid as compensation to Venkatappa (P.W.7) - the father or the legal heirs of the deceased Venkatesh.