LexA SHANKAR versus STATE OF KARNATAKA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011] 6 S C.R. 999 A SHANKAR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA (Criminal Appeal No. 1006 of 2007) JUNE 9, 2011 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.] A B Penal Code, 1860: ss.302 and 307, 324 - Charge-sheet filed ulss.302, 307 against appellant-accused - Acquittal by trial court on the ground that prosecution failed to prove C beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had committed murder of the brother of the complainant or made an attempt to kill the complainant - Appeal against acquittal - Conviction by High Court u/ss.302 and 324 - Justification of- Held: Not justified - Contradiction between the statement of the D complainant made in the court as compared to his statement before the police regarding the weapon. of crime demolished the prosecution version - Delay in lodging FIR was not explained - Non-production of the FSL report in the court by the prosecution was fatal as in absence thereof it was difficult E for the court to reach to the conclusion as to whether the offence was committed with scissors or knife - More so, after the incident, the /. 0. was busy in searching the brother of the appellant and he made no attempt to search the appellant - These factors clearly indicated that ·investigation was not F / conducted fairly - High Court committed an error in recording the finding of fact that prosecution succeeded in proving case beyond reasonable doubt - Conviction set aside - FIR - Evidence - Investigation. Evidence: Contradiction/discrepancies in the evidence - G Effect of - Held: In all criminal cases, normal discrepancies are bound to occur in the depositions of witnesses due to normal errors of observation, namely, errors of memory due to lapse of time or due to mental disposition such as shock 999 H 1000 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 6 S.C.R. A and horror at the time of occurrence - Where the omissions amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of the witness, such evidence cannot be safe to rely upon ..,. Penal Code, 1860. 9 Appeal: Appeal against acquittal - Acquittal by trial court - Scope of intetference by the appellate court - Held: The appellate court while reversing the judgment of acquittal must bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused. FIR: Delay in lodging FIR - Effect of- Held: In the instant C case, the alleged occurrence took place at 2.00 p.m. and the police station was hardly at a distance of 1 K. M. from the place of the occurrence and complainant had never deposed that he had become unconscious - The delay was, therefore, not explained and was fatal to the prosecution case - Penal D Code, 1860. The prosecution case was that the victim-deceased was the elder brother of the complainant-PW-8. On the fateful day, the accused-appellant came to the barber E saloon of the deceased and demanded Rs.150/- from the deceased. Since the deceased did not give the money demanded, the appellant got angry and threatened to see him later. The appellant came back at 9.30 p.m. to the shop of the deceased, sought shelter therein, had food, F and slept there with the deceased and the complainant· PW-8. At about 2 a.m., PW-8 heard sounds and woke up. He saw that the appellant was hitting the deceased with a knife on the chest and when PW·8 shouted, the appellant hit him also with the knife on the left abdomen and hands and ran away. The deceased died of assault G and PW-8 got Injured, and was taken to the hospital for treatment. The trial court held that prosecution falled to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had H committed murder of the deceased or made an attempt A SHANKAR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 1001 :~ to kill PW-8 and acquitted the appellant of the charges A~ under Sections 302 and 307 IPC. On appeal, the High Court convicted the appellant under· Section 302 and Section 324 IPC and awarded him life Imprisonment. The Instant appeal was filed challenging the order of the High Court. B Allowing the appeal, the Court HELO: 1 .. 1. White lodging the complaint, PW-8 stated that the appellant came to his brother's shop and demanded money from him and since his brother did not C give the money de.manded, the appellant got angry and threatened that he would take care of him later. However, the evidence of PW-8 in his deposition in the court did not mention about the first visit of the appellant and demand of Rs. 150/- frolll the victim. [Para 12] [1010-F-G]
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.