LexABDUL RAZAK & ORS versus THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY SHO, HUTTI PS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015]7S.C.R.1 ABDUL RAZAK & ORS. v. THE STATE OF KA'RNATAKA REP. BY SHO, HUTTI PS (Criminal Appeal No.795 of2015 etc.) MAY 15, 2015 [T. S. THAKUR, R. K. AGRAWAL AND ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.] A B Penal Code, 1860: s.304 Part II - Appeal against c conviction - Allegation against appellants that they caught hold of the victim-deceased, tied his hand behind his back and assaulted him with a club of stone resulting in injuries on his head and other parts of body leading to his death - Trial court held that the brother and mother of the deceased D claiming to be eye witnesses instead of untying the deceased who was in a seriously injured condition returned home even after the assailants had fled away from th,e spot and that such conduct was unnatural and based on such finding acquitted the appellants - High Court reversed the finding of acquittal E of trial court - On appeal, held: Conduct of prosecution witnesses did not inspire confidence not only because they did not interfere when the deceased was being assaulted but also because post the event, the witnesses did practically nothing to help the injured who was left to die with his hands F tied for over 4 hours without any succor coming from any quarter - The prosecution case that mother and brother waited for police to reach and untie the hands of deceased is also not convincing - Investigating officer admitted that the G report received by him about the incident was destroyed by him after fardbeyan of PW-1 was recorded on the spot- It is . difficult to appreciate how Investigating officer could have destroyed the original complaint given to him by PW-1 - Conclusion by trial court that the prosecution had not proved H 1 2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 7 S.C.R. A the charges against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt was correct. Allowing the appeals, the Court B HELD: 1. The trial court appraised the version given by the two witnesses but came to the conclusion that the same was unreliable. The trial court gave more than one reason for its view. In the first place, the trial court found the conduct of PWs 1 and 4 who are closely related c to the deceased unnatural. The trial court held that iftheir version that they were witnesses to the occurrence was correct, there was no reason why they would not intervene to rescue the deceased from the clutches of the assailants. More importantly, the trial court held that D PW1, brother and PW4, mother of the deceased, instead of untying the deceasect.who was in a seriously injured condition, returned home even after the assailants had fled away from the spot. What is worse is that even after returning home PWs. 1 and 4 accompanied by PW-3 who E is none other than the father of the deceased had gone back to the place of occurrence where they found the deceased in an injured condition with his hands tied behind his back, his leg broken/fractured and eyes burning with chilly powder, but made no effort to untie F his hands or rush him to the hospital for treatment. Instead PW-3 father of the deceased went to lodge a report with the police leaving the injured in a hapless condition on the spot where he was lying only to wait till 10.00 p.m. at night for the police to arrive. If the G prosecution version is correct, it is only after instructions were given by the Sub-Inspector to PW-1 to untie the hands of the deceased that he does so. The injured was then put in the police Jeep for being taken to the hospital H where he reached only after he had died. The trial court found the story, the sequence of events and the conduct ABDUL RAZAK & ORS. v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA 3 REP. BY SHO, HUTTI PS of the prosecution witnesses who claim to be eye A witnesses to the incident to be wholly unnatural and unreliable. The trial court was perfectly justified in taking that view. The High Court has made light of these aspects and thereby fallen in an error. [Para 9] [7-A-H; 8-A] B 2. PW-19 admitted that the report received by him about the incident was destroyed by him after the fardbeyan of PW-1 was recorded on the spot. This implies that the first version regarding the incident was totally obliterated by the lrivestigating Officer and Exb. C P-.1 recorded in its place. This implies that the earliest version about the incident was destroyed by PW-19 and a new story stated in the fardbeyan was tailored to suit the prosecution version. This has the effect of com
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.