Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench, heard a criminal appeal filed by Veeresh and Mallesh against their conviction under sections 447, 302, 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The trial court had convicted the appellants for the murder of Ratangappa, which occurred on the night of 12 August 2011. According to the prosecution, the accused had a previous altercation with the deceased, who had allegedly smiled at the wife of accused No.1. The accused had threatened to kill the deceased. On the night of the incident, the deceased was sleeping at his agricultural field along with PW-5 Narasimhalu. It was alleged that the accused attacked the deceased with a sickle while he was sleeping, causing fatal injuries. The prosecution relied heavily on the testimony of PW-5, who claimed to be an eyewitness. The appellants challenged the conviction on several grounds: the name of PW-5 was not mentioned in the FIR; his conduct after the incident was unnatural as he did not immediately reveal the identity of the assailants despite being present; the recovery of the sickle was doubtful because the panch witness had a previous dispute with accused No.1 and the weapon was not sealed at the spot; and there were inconsistencies in the witnesses' accounts. The appellants relied on various Supreme Court decisions emphasizing the improbability of eyewitness testimony under such circumstances. The State defended the conviction, arguing that minor discrepancies are natural, the reactions of witnesses vary, and non-mention in FIR is not fatal if the witness is examined during investigation. The High Court heard the arguments and reserved judgment. The extracted portion does not include the court's final decision.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court's conviction based on the evidence of PW-5 is sustainable given the non-mention of his name in the FIR and his unnatural conduct; Whether the recovery of the sickle is valid; Whether the discrepancies in testimony are minor or fatal.
Case Details
2020 LawText (KAR) (07) 258
Criminal Appeal No.3501/2013
R. Devdas, P. Krishna Bhat
Veeresh S/o Doddanagappa, Mallesh S/o Doddanagappa
The State of Karnataka (Through Yapaldinni Police Station)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction for murder and other offences.
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought to set aside the conviction and sentences imposed by the trial court under sections 447, 302, 506 read with section 34 IPC, and to be acquitted of all charges.
Filing Reason
The appellants were convicted by the Fast Track Court-I, Raichur in Sessions Case No.5/2012 for murder and other offences, and they challenged the judgment on the ground that the trial court had erroneously relied on the unreliable testimony of the sole eyewitness, PW-5, and other evidence.
Previous Decisions
The trial court in Sessions Case No.5/2012 convicted the appellants and sentenced them to life imprisonment, along with fines.
Issues
Whether the trial court erred in relying on the testimony of PW-5, the alleged eyewitness, despite his name not being mentioned in the FIR and his conduct being unnatural.
Whether the recovery of the sickle (M.O-1) was valid given that the panch witness had a dispute with the accused and the article was not sealed at the spot.
Whether the discrepancies in the prosecution witnesses' testimonies were minor or fatal to the prosecution case.
Submissions/Arguments
The appellants argued that the non-mention of PW-5’s name in the FIR was fatal to the prosecution; PW-5’s conduct in not revealing the identity of the assailants immediately after the incident was unnatural and improbable; the recovery of the sickle was doubtful because the panch witness had enmity with accused No.1 and the weapon was not sealed on the spot; the trial court failed to appreciate the evidence in the proper perspective.
The State argued that minor discrepancies in witness testimony are natural and should not be used to discard evidence; witnesses react differently under stress; non-mention of the name in FIR is not fatal if the witness is named in the earliest investigation statement; the testimony of a rustic witness should be appreciated as a whole, and irrelevant details should not be treated as omissions.
Judgment Excerpts
the non-disclosure of the name of the eyewitness PW-5 in the complaint, would be fatal to the case of the prosecution.
the conduct of the so called eyewitness (PW-5), is most improbable and unnatural, inasmuch as, he has stated on oath that he was threatened by the two accused persons of dire consequences and therefore he went back and slept on the tractor.
FIR, as is well known, is not an encyclopedia of the entire case. It need not contain all the details.
Trivial discrepancies ought not to obliterate an otherwise acceptable evidence.
A rustic witness, who is subjected to fatiguing, taxing and tiring cross-examination for days together, is bound to get confused and make some inconsistent statements.
non-mentioning the names of the accused persons in the FIR would not be fatal to the prosecution case and it cannot tilt the balance in favour of the accused.
Procedural History
The case was initiated on the complaint of the father of the deceased, Aluru Rangappa (PW-1). The investigation was conducted by Yapaldinni Police Station. The trial was held before the Fast Track Court-I, Raichur in Sessions Case No.5/2012, which convicted the appellants under sections 447, 302, 506 read with section 34 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The appellants filed criminal appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. before the High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench. The appeal was heard on 14.07.2020 and reserved for judgment, and judgment was pronounced on 24.07.2020.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 447, 302, 506, 34
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 374(2)
