ANTHONY D'SOUZA AND ORS. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 572 · Decided: 30-10-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
ANTHONY D'SOUZA AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA 
OCTOBER 30, 2002 
B 
[R.C. LAHOTI, BRIJESH KUMAR AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.] 
Evidence Act, 1872: 
Circumstantial evidence-Dacoity with Murder-Conviction based on 
C cittumstantial evidence-Appreciation of~Held, since accused denied the 
established facts and offered fake answers during their examination under 
Section 313 Cr.P.C., it could be counted as providing missing link for 
completing the chain, thus leading to the conclusion of guilt of accused-
Code of Criminal Procedure, 197 3; Section 313. 
D 
According to the Pro~ecution, the deceased, a driver and a cleaner were 
employed by a Transport Company owned by PW5 and his son PW16, for 
transportation of Urea bags. During transit they halted at a Hotel owned by 
PW12 for taking tea. There four accused-appellants and a boy boarded in the 
said lorry/truck. Subsequently, these accused persons went to Primary Health 
E Unit, and requested PW17, an employee of the Unit, for immediate medical 
help as they were injured in a lorry accident. Since one of the accused was 
seriously injured, they were directed to go to the Government General 
Hospital. Accused, with the help of PW27, engaged a taxi owned and driven 
by PW 30 and reached the hospital. Seeing the serious condition of one of 
the accused person Medical Officer, PW 28, advised them to go to the hospital 
F in city. They hired the same taxi but on the way, taxi went out of order. In lieu 
of.fare, they paid some cash and a wrist watch and hired another taxi and 
reached t~e city hospital and got treatment. On the basis of statement of 
injured accused, city Police registered a case and transferred it to the 
concerned Police Station. Owners of the lorry, PW.5 and PW16, were 
G summoned. The Juvenile offender disclosed about the commission of crime 
by the accused persons to PW 16. Next day, a dead body was found near a 
culvert and a local resident, PWI, informed the matter to the Police and a 
suo-motu case was registered and investigated by the Police. It turned out to 
be a case of murder of both the driver and cleaner of the lorry. 
H 
572 
-
ANTHONY D'SOUZA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 
573 
On the basis of circumstantial evidence, Trial Court convicted the four A 
, accused-appellants for murder and other offences and sentenced them to 
rigorous imprisonment for life and also fine. However, case of juvenile offender 
was split up. On appeal, their conviction and sentence was confirmed by the 
High Court. Hence this appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. All the prosecution witnesses were independent witnesses 
and there is no allegation of malice or rancour towards the accused. The 
witnesses were also subjected to lengthy cross-examination but their 
B 
testimony remained unimpeached. (580-FJ 
C 
J.2. The lorry carrying Urea bags met with an accident and the accused 
were injured in the same accident. This is borne out from the evidence of PW 
17, a group 'D' employee of Health Unit; PW 27, owner of a Coffee Estate; 
and PW 30, owner and driver of taxi, who were immediately approached by 
the accused after the accident and their help was sought to go to hospital. D 
The evidence of PWs. 17, 27 and 30 has been corroborated by the evidence of 
Medical Officers PWs. 28, 26 and 29. The Statement of PWl 7 is corroborated 
by the evidence of PWs. 27 and 30. As PW17 was a 'D' class employee of the 
Health Unit and was residing near the place of accident, it is quite natural 
that the accused would go to the nearest place where medical aid is available. E 
Further the evidence of PW 17 is corroborated by the evidence of PW27 which 
is further corroborated by the evidence of PW30. The accused were identified 
by PWs. 17, 27 and 30. The evidence of PW30 that he took the accused from 
the Health Unit to Hospital has been corroborated by the evidence of one of 
the Medical Officer, PW28. It is consistent that the accused were injured in 
a lorry accident and came to the Government Hospital with the help of PWs. F 
27 and 30.1580-F, G, H; 581-A, B; Fl 
1.3. The circumstantial evidence connecting with the accused is the 
evidenc.: of PW30, the taxi driver. PW30 met all the accused persons on two 
occasions. He was well acquainted with the accused and clearly recognized 
them in the Court. There is no malice or ill-feeling of PW30 towards the G 
accused. He was subjected to lengthy cross-examination but nothing could be 
elicited to discredit his testimony. The s

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.