RAVASAHEB @ RAVASAHEBGOUDA ETC. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA on 16 March 2023

RAVASAHEB @ RAVASAHEBGOUDA ETC.

v.

STATE OF KARNATAKA

(Criminal Appeal Nos. 1109-1110 of 2010)

MARCH 16, 2023

[B. R. GAVAI, VIKRAM NATH AND SANJAY KAROL, JJ.]

Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 – Victim was murdered – The trialcourt and the High Court, despite most of the prosecution witnessesturning hostile, found the prosecution case to be established beyondreasonable doubt through the unrefuted testimony of PW-1 andconvicted the accused persons – The only point for considerationon appeal was, whether eight men can be convicted based on thetestimony of a solitary witness, who was the only eyewitness to thecrime – Held: Presence of the accused on the spot is not disputedby anyone – Witness, despite being cross-examined extensively, isconsistent in his testimony to the effect that the accused caughthold of the deceased and inflicted serious injuries upon his person– Though, the witness is not clear as to which one of the accusedhad assaulted the deceased after he fell down, but then he iscategorical with regard to the role played by each one of them –Testimony of the sole eyewitness PW-1 is worthy of credence,trustworthy, truthful and believable and the prosecution hadestablished its case beyond reasonable doubt against all accusedpersons – The findings of the trial court and the High Court upheld.

Dismissing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1. The presence of the accused on the spot is notdisputed by anyone of them. This Court may say so not only fromthe line of their cross-examination of the witnesses but also it isnoticed hereinafter, to have come on record through thetestimonies of the witnesses, who despite not having supportedthe prosecution on the issue of the accused having assaulted thedeceased, have supported on this count. Perusal of cross-examination part of the testimony of PW-1 unrefutedly revealsall the accused hiding in bushes at the spot. This witness, despitebeing cross-examined extensively, is consistent in his testimonyto the effect that the accused caught hold of the deceased and

965

A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

Ainflicted serious injuries upon his person. The accused had usedchilli powder as a weapon to stop him from fleeing away and pushedhim to the ground. Though, the witness is not clear as to whichone of the accused had assaulted the deceased after he fell down,but then he is categorical with regard to the role played by eachone of them. The questions in respect of the testimony of theBsole eye-witness PW-1 being worthy of credence, trust-worthy,truthful and believable are answered in the affirmative. [Paras 12and 14][973-B-G]

2. Merely because no recovery was made from anyone apartfrom accused Nos.2 and 4 would not mean that others were notCpresent at the scene of the crime; simply because a number ofwitnesses had turned hostile, does not on its own give a groundto reject the evidence of PW-1; and that PW-1 being the brotherof the deceased and therefore, is an interested as well a chancewitness, are untenable submissions. It is in the backdrop thisDCourt does not find favour with the submissions of senior counselappearing for the appellants that the conviction of eight personsbased on solitary evidence is not justified, particularly when thereis no vagueness in his testimony with respect to the role ascribedto each one of the accused. [Para 21][978-F-H]

E3. The role of PW-24 in drafting the complaint cannot betaken as negative simply because he was an advocate and so hepaid attention to detail. PW-1 has stated in his complaint that hedoes not know how to read and write. The person to whom therole of summoning PW-24 to write the complaint may be attributedor the discrepancy in drafting either on the instructions of PW-1For on the basis of the notes prepared by the police is not so stark,keeping in view the limited span of time within which all theseactivities took place for it to lend credence to the grounds urgedin these appeals by special leave petitions with respect to theapproach of the Sessions Judge being entirely erroneous or illegal.GThe genesis of the prosecution case cannot be said to have beenshaken or rendered doubtful. The complaint was alleged to havebeen drafted by an advocate (PW-24), and not by the petitionerwith the help of the police personnel. Does it cast doubt on theprosecution case? In this Court’s considered view, none. For, as H

this Court has noticed the defence to have admitted theirpresence on the spot and the independent witnesses ascribed aspecific role to each of the accused. [Para 22][979-A-D]

4. The holding in the landmark Masalti, where four learnedjudges have held that the prosecution need not prove specificacts to specific persons. With neither the number nor thepresence of the accused being disputed, this Court cannot, withinlaw, hold that the accused have been wrongly convicted by thecourts below. [Para 24][980-A-B]

Marudanal Augusti v. State of Kerala (1980) 4 SCC425; Chotkau v. State of U.P. (2022) SCC OnLine 1313;Mrinal Das v. State of Tripura (2011) 9 SCC 479 :[2011] 14 SCR 411; Rohtash Kumar v. State of Haryana(2013) 14 SCC 434 : [2013] 3 SCR 884; BhagwanJagannath Markad v. State of Maharashtra (2016) 10SCC 537 : [2016] 5 SCR 452; Karan Singh v. State ofUttar Pradesh (2022) 6 SCC 52; Karunakaran v. Stateof Tamil Nadu (1976) 1 SCC 434 : [1976] 2 SCR 708;Sadhuram v. State of Rajasthan (2003) 11 SCC 231;Bhagwan Jagannath Markad v. State of Maharashtra(2016) 10 SCC 537 : [2016] 5 SCR 452; Gopal Reddyv. State of Andhra Pradesh (1979) 1 SCC 355 : [1979]2 SCR 363; State of Rajasthan v. Doud Khan (2016) 2SCC 607 : [2015] 13 SCR 1131; Mehraj v. State ofU.P. (1994) 5 SCC 188 : [1994] 3 SCR 592; OmbirSingh v. State of U.P. (2020) 6 SCC 378; Satpal Singhv. State of Haryana (2018) 6 SCC 610; Ram Gopal v.State of M.P. (2023) SCC OnLine 158; Lalji v. State ofU.P. (1989) 1 SCC 437 : [1989] 1 SCR 130; Masalti v.State of UP AIR 1965 SC 202 : [1964] SCR 133; Atleyv. State of UP AIR 1955 SC 807; Gurudutt Pathak v.State of U.P. (2021) 6 SCC 116; Geeta Devi v. State ofU.P. 2022 SCC OnLine 57; Sharad Birdhichand Sardav. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 : [1985] 1SCR 88; Kalamani Tex v. P. Balasubramanian (2021) 5SCC 283; Bhajan Singh @ Harbhajan Singh v. Stateof Haryana (2011) 7 SCC 421 : [2011] 7 SCR 1; A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

AJagdish v. State of Haryana (2019) 7 SCC 711 : [2019]11 SCR 22; Harbans Kaur v. State of Haryana (2005)9 SCC 195 : [2005] 2 SCR 450; Bhaskarrao v. State ofMaharashtra (2018) 6 SCC 591 : [2018] 4 SCR 751;RajeshYadav v. State of U.P. 2022 SCC OnLine 150;State of Rajasthan v. Madan (2019) 13 SCC 653 –Breferred to.

Case Law Reference

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal AppealNos. 1109-1110 of 2010.

GFrom the Judgment and Order dated 20.11.2009 of the High Courtof Karnataka, Cirkcuit Bench at Dharwad in Crl.A.Nos. 546 and 599 of2006.

With

Crl. A. Nos. 1229, 1230 of 2011, 213 of 2012 and 682 of 2013.H

RAVASAHEB @ RAVASAHEBGOUDA ETC. v. STATE OFKARNATAKA

Nagamuthu S., Dr. K. Radhakrishnan, Sr. Advs., RameshwarPrasad Goyal, C. M. Angadi, Manish Goswami, M. Venkatesulu,Ms. Manisha Chava, Ms. Himani Pandey, Vairawan, Mrs. Rajani K.Prasad, B. Krishna Prasad, Ms. N. Annapoorani, Ms. Sunita Singh, Ms.Abha R. Sharma, Advs. for the Appellants.

Shubhranshu Padhi, Vishal Banshal, Ms. Rajeshawari Shankar,Niroop Sukrithy, Mohd. Ovais, V. N. Raghupathy, Manendra Pal Gupta,Advs. for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SANJAY KAROL J.

1. The only point which arises for consideration is whether on thebasis of testimony of a solitary witness, eight men can be allowed tosuffer incarceration for life, as has been concurrently bound to examineas to whether the testimony of this sole eye-witness YankappaPanchagavi (PW-1) is worthy of credence; Is he trustworthy?; Has hedeposed truthfully?; Is his testimony believable and free fromembellishments, improvements or material discrepancies so as to renderit shaky or doubtful?; and as to whether the prosecution has establishedits case beyond reasonable doubt, against all accused persons or not?All this is what we are called upon to examine.

2. It is not in dispute that one Satyappa was found to have beenmurdered in broad day light in village Kaltippi, Jamakhandi Taluka. It isalso not in dispute that in relation to the said incident, the very same day,i.e., on 13.08.2004 at 04.00 p.m. a report was lodged with Terdal PoliceStation, District Bagalkot, Karnataka. It is also not in dispute that theI.O Shri Hanamappa Sangappa Keri (PW-32), who conducted theinvestigation reached the spot and after making preliminary inquiriesand conducting investigation, recovered the dead body and sent it forpost- mortem which was conducted by Dr. Shabbir Patel, PW-27. Thepost-mortem report (Ex.P-25) duly proven by the said expert, doesestablish the deceased to have sustained 21 stab injuries inflicted ondifferent vital parts of the body. The multiple injuries serious in nature,were caused by sharp-edged weapon(s). They being on all the vitalparts of the body, resulted into the death of the deceased. Herein only,this Court notices, that in relation to the said crime, the trial court convictedall the eight accused persons, namely, Ramappa (accused No.1), Shanker(accused No.2), Krishnappa (accused No.3), Gulappa Gavappa Karigar A

B

C

D

EF

G

H

A(accused No.4), Beerappa (accused No.5), Ravasaheb Laxman Patil(accused No.6), Yankappa Shivappa Naik (accused No.7) and Parappa@ Gulappa (accused No.8), for having committed murder of the deceasedwith the use of different weapons, i.e., jambia/jambe (sharp-edgedweapon), button knives. Chilli powder was also used as a weapon ofassault.B

3. In the considered view of the trial court, despite most of theprosecution witnesses (32 in number) having turned hostile, the prosecutioncase stood established beyond reasonable doubt, through the unrefutedtestimony of PW-1 as supported by the unrefuted part of testimony onthe hostile witness, namely, Shasappa Reddi (PW-7). Hence, the trialCcourt convicted the accused and sentenced them to undergo imprisonmentas indicated in the tabular form hereunder :

D

(A-4) (A-6) (A-7)

E

F

The sentences, identical for all accused persons, were awardedto run concurrently.

4. The High Court, while concurring with the reasons and findingsreturned by the trial court, also took note of the factum of prior animosityGinter se the parties in relation to a land/boundary dispute.

5. Before us, only three accused, namely, (i) Ravasaheb @Ravasahebgouda (A-6), (ii) Yankappa Shivappa Naik (A-7) and (iii)Parappa @ Gulappa (A-8), have assailed the said judgment by way ofthese two appeals by special leave.H

6. Briefly, we may summarise that the deceased died as a resultof multiple injuries inflicted with sharp-edged weapons. For the sake ofbrevity, we need not repeat, as already noticed supra, the injuries andthe incised wounds sustained by the deceased on different parts of thebody. Most of the spot witnesses or the witness to the events prior orleading to the incident have not supported the prosecution. However,that would not mean that the testimonies of all these witnesses wouldautomatically stand discarded, with the natural corollary being acquittalof the accused.

7. In the exercise of the power under Article 136 of the Constitutionof India, this Court, normally would not interfere with the concurrentfindings of fact, except in very special circumstances or in the case of agross error committed by the courts below. Only where the High Courtignores or overlooks “crying circumstances” and “proven facts” or“violates and misapplies well established principles of criminaljurisprudence” or refuses to give benefit of doubt to the accused persons,etc., would this Court step in to correct the legally erroneous decisions.We are also not to interfere only for the reason that we may arrive at adifferent conclusion, unless, of course, there are compelling circumstancesto tinker with conclusions drawn and that the accused were innocent/guilty. Undoubtedly, there are limitations in interfering with the findingsof conviction, concurrent in nature.

8. We are not dealing with a case of circumstantial evidence.Here, the evidence is direct both in relation to the crime as also thereason thereof.

9. At this juncture, we may record the relationship between theaccused and the deceased who were far off cousins. Both the partieswere holding lands adjacent to each other. Deceased (Satyappa) is thereal brother of Yanakappa Panchagavi (PW-1). Accused Nos.4 and 5are real brothers of accused No.1 and accused Nos.2 and 3 are sons ofaccused No.1. Accused Nos.6 to 8 are all relatives of accused Nos. 1 to5. It has come forth in the testimony of the witnesses especially PW-1,which, to this extent stands unrefuted that there was a dispute inter sethe opposing parties with respect to the use of bullock cart road. Inrelation to it, six months prior to the incident a quarrel had taken placewhen accused No.1 had filed a complaint with respect thereto. Thedispute was resolved with the intervention of the elders of the family/village. But nonetheless, allegedly, as per the statement of the said witness, AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Athe dispute persisted. Shasappa Reddi (PW-7) who is also a relative ofthe parties, though initially stated that there was no dispute between thedeceased Satyappa and accused but then, in the very same breath,clarifies that, 15 days prior to the incident, dispute in relation to the landhad arisen and “as per my advise accused No. 1 Ramappa has notprovided passers way to Satyappa”. Even Pandappa Sidareddi (PW-8)Bdoes depose the factum of the dispute between the parties in relation tothe land. Thus, to our mind the findings of the courts below in relation tothe factum of the inter se dispute cannot be said to be not borne from thematerial on record or incorrect appreciation of evidence led by theprosecution.C

10. The next question which arises for consideration is as to whocommitted the crime, and in what manner. The courts below haveconcurrently, fully appreciating the testimony of PW-1, found the accusedto have committed the same by using different weapons referred tosupra.D

11. Elaborating further, having perused the testimony of PW-1 wenotice him to have deposed that on the fateful day, i.e, 13.08.2004 bothhe and the deceased had met at a place known as Terdal where thedeceased handed him a sum of Rs.50,000/- which he had withdrawnfrom the Grameen Bank Sasalatti branch. The deceased, after purchasingEfodder started returning on his bicycle to the Kaltippi Village (Place ofhis residence). This witness along with a pillion rider, Ashok Mareguddi(PW-19), started following him. On the way, around 2.45 p.m. the witnessfound all the accused (Nos.1 to 8), who had been hiding in the jali kantitrees, running towards the deceased. Accused Nos.2 and 8 startedabusing that ‘found satya Sulemagane Ninnanu Kondu Hakut teve’ (YouFson of a whore, we will kill you). Noticing them, the deceased leavinghis bicycle started running away from the spot with all the accusedchasing him. Thereafter, accused No.8 Parappa @ Gulappa threw chillipowder on the face of the deceased; accused Nos.1 and 2 gave blowswith jambia/jambe on the left side of the neck and chest of the deceased;Gaccused Nos.3 to 7 gave blows with button knives on various parts ofthe body, which led to the death of the deceased on the spot. Soonaccused fled away towards Golabhavi village. The witness cried forhelp when Shasappa Reddi (PW-7), Pandappa Sidareddi PW-8), Shrishail(PW-11) and Ramappa (PW-12) arrived at the spot. Also, adjacent landowners, namely, Lakawwa Siddapur (PW-9) and Sushilawwa (PW-13)H

arrived. He got a complaint drafted through an Advocate, namelyHanamant Bhimappa Reddi (PW- 24) and being illiterate, affixed histhumb impression, and lodged report with the police.

12. Here only, we may record that the presence of the accusedon the spot is not disputed by anyone of them. This we may say so notonly from the line of their cross-examination of the witnesses but also aswe would notice hereinafter, to have come on record through thetestimonies of the witnesses, who despite not having supported theprosecution on the issue of the accused having assaulted the deceased,have supported on this count. Perusal of cross-examination part of thetestimony of PW-1 unrefutedly reveals all the accused hiding in bushesat the spot. This witness, despite being cross-examined extensively, isconsistent in his testimony to the effect that the accused caught hold ofthe deceased and inflicted serious injuries upon his person. The accusedhad used chilli powder as a weapon to stop him from fleeing away andpushed him to the ground. Though, the witness is not clear as to whichone of the accused had assaulted the deceased after he fell down, butthen he is categorical with regard to the role played by each one ofthem.

13. PW-7, despite being hostile, in his undisputed testimony, hasrecorded the presence of accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 on the spot. Immediatelyafter the incident they were seen fleeing towards Golabhavi Village.Further he noticed the deceased to be inflicted with several injuries asalso chilli powder found on his body. Here only we may record thatLakkappa Siddapur (PW-9) and Ashok Mareguddi (PW-19) though turnedhostile in Court, had in fact made statements to similar effect before thepolice, with which they were confronted, which fact, in any event standsproven through other prosecution witnesses.

14. In view of the aforesaid, the questions in respect of thetestimony of the sole eye-witness PW-1 being worthy of credence, trust-worthy, truthful and believable are answered in the affirmative.

15. To answer the point of law as to whether the testimony of asingle eye-witness is sufficient to put all the eight persons behind bars,for life or not, we must deal with the submissions made at the bar.

16. It is stated that it is the quality and not the quantity of thewitnesses that matters and since, PW-1 is an interested witness beingthe brother of the deceased, and that his statement is not “inherently AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Abelievable” or of “sterling quality” as recently held by this Court, in thepresence of two possible versions, the one that favours the accused isrequired to be taken.

In support of their submissions, the learned senior counsel relyprimarily on Marudanal Augusti Vs. State of Kerala (1980) 4 SCCB425, specifically on the part where the learned Division Bench notesthat 29 hours’ delay in the FIR reaching the Magistrate despite the samehaving been sent by express delivery, as a “serious infirmity”; and therecent judgment in Chotkau Vs. State of U.P. (2022) SCC OnLine1313. Both these cases have been cited to substantiate the submissionthat there is a delay in the FIR reaching the Magistrate.C

17. This Court has on numerous occasions considered cases similarin nature, and, from such consideration emanated various principles indeciding the cases. Some of the principles essential for the instant lis tobe decided are –17.1 Evidence of hostile witness:D

a) Corroborated part of the evidence of a hostile witness regardingthe commission of offence is admissible. Merely because there is deviationfrom the statement in the FIR, the witness’s statements cannot be termedtotally unreliable;Eb) The evidence of a hostile witness can form the basis ofconviction.

c) The general principle of appreciating the evidence of eye-witnesses is that when a case involves a large number of offenders,prudently, it is necessary, but not always, for the Court to seekFcorroboration from at least two more witnesses as a measure of caution.Be that as it may, the principle is quality over quantity of witnesses.[Mrinal Das Vs. State of Tripura (2011) 9 SCC 479]

17.2Effect of omissions, deficiencies:

Evidence examined as a whole, must reflect/ring of truth. TheGcourt must not give undue importance to omissions and discrepancieswhich do not shake the foundations of the prosecution’s case. [RohtashKumar Vs. State of Haryana (2013) 14 SCC 434; BhagwanJagannath Markad Vs. State of Maharashtra (2016) 10 SCC 537;and Karan Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022) 6 SCC 52]

H

17.3. Reliance on single witness:

If a witness is absolutely reliable then conviction based thereuponcannot be said to be infirm in any manner. [Karunakaran Vs. State ofTamil Nadu (1976) 1 SCC 434; and Sadhuram Vs. State ofRajasthan (2003) 11 SCC 231]

17.4. Testimony of a close relative:

A witness being a close relative is not a ground enough to rejecthis testimony. Mechanical rejection of an even “partisan” or “interested”witness may lead to failure of justice. The principle of “falsus in uno,falsus in omnibus” is not one of general application. [BhagwanJagannath Markad Vs. State of Maharashtra (2016) 10 SCC 537]

17.5 Preponderance of probabilities:

To entitle a person to the benefit of a doubt arising from a dualityof views, the possible view in favour of the accused must be as nearlyreasonably probable as that against him. [Gopal Reddy Vs. State ofAndhra Pradesh (1979) 1 SCC 355]

17.6 Delay in sending FIR:

Unless serious prejudice is caused, mere delay in sending the FIRto the Magistrate would not, by itself, have a negative effect on the caseof the prosecution. [[State of Rajasthan Vs. Doud Khan (2016) 2SCC 607]

One of the external checks against ante-dating or ante- timing anFIR is the time of its dispatch to the Magistrate or its receipt by theMagistrate. A dispatch of a copy of the FIR forthwith ensures that thereis no manipulation or interpolation in the FIR. [Mehraj Vs. State ofU.P. (1994) 5 SCC 188; and Ombir Singh Vs. State of U.P. (2020)6 SCC 378]

17.7 Last seen theory :

On its own, last seen theory is considered to be a weak basis forconviction. However, when the same is coupled with other factors suchas when the deceased was last seen with the accused, proximity of timeto the recovery of the body of deceased etc. The accused is bound togive an explanation under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872. If hedoes not do so, or furnishes what may be termed as wrong explanationor if a motive is established – pleading securely to the conviction of the A

B

C

D

EF

GH

Aaccused closing out the possibility of any other hypothesis, then aconviction can be based thereon. [Satpal Singh Vs. State of Haryana(2018) 6 SCC 610; and Ram Gopal Vs. State of M.P. (2023) SCCOnLine 158]

17.8 Cases involving several accused PersonsB

A three judge bench of which one of us (B.R Gavai J.) was amember, observed as under in respect of the application of Section 149,of the Indian Penal Code, 1860- “30. Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code is declaratory of thevicarious liability of the members of an unlawful assembly forCacts done in prosecution of the common object of that assemblyor for such offences as the members of the unlawful assemblyknew would be committed in prosecution of that object. If anunlawful assembly is formed with the common object of committingan offence, and if that offence is committed in prosecution of theDobject by any member of the unlawful assembly, all the membersof the assembly will be vicariously liable for that offence even ifone or more, but not all committed the offence. Again, if an offenceis committed by a member of an unlawful assembly and thatoffence is one which the members of the unlawful assembly knewto be likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object,Eevery member who had that knowledge will be guilty of the offenceso committed.” [Hari v. State of UP 2021 SCC OnLine SC1131; Shambhu Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1960 SC725]

While overt act and active participation may indicate commonFintention of the person perpetrating the crime, the mere presence in theunlawful assembly may fasten vicariously criminal liability under Section149. [Lalji Vs. State of U.P. (1989) 1 SCC 437]

When a case involves large number of assailants it is not possiblefor the witness to describe the part played therein by each of suchGpersons. It is not necessary for the prosecution to prove each of themembers’ involvement especially regarding which or what act. [MasaltiVs. State of UP AIR 1965 SC 202]

17.9 Power of Court of Appeal:

a) The Court of appeal has wide powers of appreciation ofHevidence in an order of acquittal as in the order of conviction, along with the rider of presumption of innocence which continues across all stagesof a case. Such Court should give due importance to the judgmentrendered by the Trial Court. [Atley Vs. State of UP AIR 1955 SC807]

b) Referring to Gurudutt Pathak Vs. State of U.P. [(2021) 6SCC 116] the judgment in Geeta Devi Vs. State of U.P. [2022 SCCOnLine 57], this Court appreciated the law on this aspect and thenobserved that the High Court, being the First Appellate Court must discuss/re-appreciate the evidence on record. Failure to do so is a good groundenough to remand the matter for consideration.

17.10Power of the Supreme Court under Article 136:

In the absence of very special circumstances or in the presenceof gross errors of law committed by the High Court, this Court does notinterfere with the concurrent findings of fact of the courts below. [SharadBirdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116]

The limitations under Article 136 are self-imposed limitations wherein the ordinary course appreciation of evidence is not to be done in theabsence of manifest error or the judgment, subject matter of the specialleave, being ex facie perverse. [Kalamani Tex Vs. P.Balasubramanian (2021) 5 SCC 283]

18. Learned counsel for the appellants would have this Court holdthat the learned Trial Court and the High Court erred in convicting theaccused as PW-1’s statements, which are indirect in respect of numberof the accused in no way form a solid basis for the conviction to hold.

19. Having considered the submissions across the Bar, the materialobjects and the exhibits forming the record of the case, the learned TrialCourt observed that on the basis of the sole evidence of the complainantPW-1 and the supporting evidence of PW-7 (a hostile witness) theprosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt. It was observedas under:

“The prosecution has proved its case against the accusedpersons by adducing acceptable evidence of the complainant andother witnesses referred to above and as such the accused personsare found guilty of the offences of unlawful assembly, commissionof rioting who were armed with deadly weapons and they haveabused the deceased Satyappa in filthy language and then they A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

978SUPREME COURT REPORTS

Ahave committed murder of the deceased Satyappa on 13.08.2004in the afternoon at about 3.00 p.m., on a public road leading fromTerdal to Kaltippi and as such they have to be punishedaccordingly.”

The view stands affirmed by the High Court substantiating cogentBreasons, in full appreciation of entire evidence on record that the assistanceof Hanamant Bhimappa Reddi (PW-24) in drafting the complaint doesnot put a question to its credibility; discrepancy in the time of entrustmentof FIR to PW-28 as to the working hours being 8 a.m. to 8.00 p.m. doesnot dislodge the statement in the examination-in-chief where the timementioned was 4.45 p.m.C

20. In regard to the delay in the FIR reaching the Magistrate, it isthe settled position of law that each and every delay caused is not fatalto a case in the absence of demonstrated prejudice [Bhajan Singh @Harbhajan Singh Vs. State of Haryana (2011) 7 SCC 421]. InChotkau (supra) it has been held that a Court is “duty bound to see theDeffect of such delay on investigation and even the credit worthiness ofthe investigation.” In the present case, though, while there is reliance atthe Bar on this principle no submission has been made to show prejudicehaving been caused to the accused. Statements sans adequate backingcannot sway the Court. Even the delay in the receipt of the FIR with theEconcerned Magistrate cannot be a reason to disbelieve the prosecutioncase. It is not a case of non-compliance of provisions equally the delayis not inordinate so as to cast any doubt. For an FIR registered on13.08.2004 at 4.45 p.m. was immediately forwarded and received at1.15 a.m.F21. Merely because no recovery was made from anyone apartfrom accused Nos.2 and 4 would not mean that others were not presentat the scene of the crime; simply because a number of witnesses hadturned hostile, does not on its own give a ground to reject the evidenceof PW-1; and that PW-1 being the brother of the deceased and therefore,is an interested as well a chance witness, are untenable submissions. ItGis in the backdrop that we do not find favour with the submissions of Mr.Nagamuthu S., and Dr. K. Radhakrishnan, learned senior counselappearing for the appellants that the conviction of eight persons basedon solitary evidence is not justified, particularly when there is no vaguenessin his testimony with respect to the role ascribed to each one of theaccused.H

22. The role of PW-24 in drafting the complaint cannot be takenas negative simply because he was an advocate and so he paid attentionto detail. PW-1 has stated in his complaint that he does not know how toread and write. The person to whom the role of summoning PW-24 towrite the complaint may be attributed or the discrepancy in draftingeither on the instructions of PW-1 or on the basis of the notes preparedby the police is not so stark, keeping in view the limited span of timewithin which all these activities took place for it to lend credence to thegrounds urged in these appeals by special leave petitions with respect tothe approach of the learned Sessions Judge being entirely erroneous orillegal. The genesis of the prosecution case cannot be said to have beenshaken or rendered doubtful. The complaint was alleged to have beendrafted by an advocate (PW-24), and not by the petitioner with the helpof the police personnel. Does it cast doubt on the prosecution case? Inour considered view, none. For, as we have noticed the defence to haveadmitted their presence on the spot and the independent witnesses ascribeda specific role to each of the accused.

That a murder has been committed, has been unequivocally andconcurrently held by both the courts below. It is then for the appellantsbefore us to establish the existence of special circumstances or anyequally probable version of facts opposite to the one taken by the courts,they seek to challenge.

23. The primary submission led was that reliance on a solitarywitness to convict as many as eight people (now six, with proceedingsagainst two having abated on their death) is excessive. On a specificquery by the Court as to what the learned counsel can point to, to impeachthe veracity of PW-1’s testimony the answer was to say that looking ata number of external factors as also the testimonies of other witnesses,the elements to demolish the credibility are present – which to our minddoes not merit interference. For the heightened scrutiny requirement, asobserved by this Court in Jagdish Vs. State of Haryana [(2019) 7SCC 711] to be held as unsatisfied, the surrounding evidence wouldhave to be called into credible question, which it was not. The admissionsmade by PW-7 in his examination in chief have not been disputed andneither has, as already observed earlier, the presence of any of theaccused been disputed. Keeping in view the principles noted in MrinalDas (supra), Rohtash Kumar (supra), Karan Singh (supra) andKarunakaran (supra), the testimony of PW-1 can undoubtedly formthe basis of conviction of the accused persons.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

24. We have also noticed the holding in the landmark Masalti(supra), where four learned judges have held that the prosecution neednot prove specific acts to specific persons. With neither the number northe presence of the accused being disputed, we cannot, within law, holdthat the accused have been wrongly convicted by the courts below.

A

B25. PW-1 is an interested witness, being the brother of thedeceased; as also he being the solitary witness upon which reliance isplaced by the learned Trial Court is put forward as a ground before us toquestion the verdicts. The position of law as held in Harbans Kaur Vs.State of Haryana [(2005) 9 SCC 195] is clear in stating that there isno proposition of law which doubts the statement of a close relativeCsimply for that reason. There is a note of caution sounded in BhaskarraoVs. State of Maharashtra [(2018) 6 SCC 591] which is undoubtedlyon point but we may also note the observation of this Court in RajeshYadav Vs. State of U.P. [2022 SCC OnLine 150] wherein it hasbeen observed:D

“30. Once again, we reiterate with a word of caution, the trialcourt is the best court to decide on the aforesaid aspect as nomathematical calculation or straightjacket formula can be madeon the assessment of a witness, as the journey towards the truthcan be seen better through the eyes of the trial judge. In fact, thisEis the real objective behind the enactment itself which extends themaximum discretion to the court.”

26. The courts below, as we have already observed, have foundno reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW-1. In fact, to the exactopposite it has relied on it. Keeping in view the holdings in BhagwanFJagannath Markad (supra), State of Rajasthan Vs. Madan [(2019)13 SCC 653], we cannot find ourselves in agreement with the learnedcounsel for the appellant in this regard.

27. In view of the aforesaid background, submissions advanced,law appreciated and analysed we find the present appeals to be lackingGin merit and therefore, the same are dismissed. Accused, if on bail, aredirected to immediately surrender before the Court concerned.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.

Ankit GyanH(Assisted by : Aarsh Choudhary, LCRA)