B. VIRUPAKSHAIAH versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

Citation: [2016] 2 S.C.R. 675 · Decided: 12-02-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

(2016] 2 S.C.R. 675 
B. VIRUPAKSHAIAH 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 640 of2012) 
FEBRUARY 12, 2016 
[PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND R.K. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: ss.143, 147, 148, 341, 109, 120-B, 302 rlw 
s.149 - Conviction of accused persons for hatching a conspiracy 
for killing the deceased persons - Testimonies of 6 eye witnesses 
corroborated by recovery evidence and other witnesses - Acquittal 
by High Court granting benefit of doubt - Appeal by complainant 
~ Held: There was material additions/contradictions between the 
statement made to police and the one made in court by the so called 
eye witnesses - None of the witnesses could identify the accused -
· There existed no cogent evidence to prove the conspiracy - Recovery 
of weapons and other articles was not established by the prosecution 
- Therefore, interference with the order of acquittal not called for. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. The prosecution case revolves around the 
testimonies of the eye-witnesses, the existence of conspiracy and 
the recovery of the alleged weapons. The prosecution produced 
71 witnesses in total, of which 6 were stated to be eye-witnesses. 
However, on perusal of the material on record, only PW2 and 
PW3 seem to be the chance witnesses who were in close proximity 
to the place of incident due to their job. In their statements to 
the police, they deposed that four unknown persons came out of 
a big jeep, dragged and assaulted the two occupants of the lndica 
Car. However, in their statements before the Court, both made 
material additions and stated that there were eight assailants, 
but none of the witnesses could identify the accused as PW3 
claimed that he saw the assailants' from a long distance; he also 
deposed that it was a jeep. PW2 was left blind because of an eye-
surgery one year prior to his testimony and as such could not 
identify the accused. However, he did state that there were eight 
unnamed assailants which is a material addition from his statement 
before the police. PWl and PWS deposed that there was a huge 
675 
. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
676 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 
gathering of about 100-200 people and many cars had stopped 
due to the accident. PW4 and PW6 deposed in similar terms that 
about 25 people had gathered there. PW6 even stated that he 
did not know the assailants. There existed grave material 
alterations between the testimonies of these witnesses and despite 
the fact that they happened to be around police official soon after 
the incident, nothing was stated by them about the incident to 
the police. [Para 7] [679-E-H; 680-A-B] 
2. The next evidence, which is pivotal to the prosecution 
case, was the recovery of weapons and other articles. Though 
the Forensic Science Laboratory Report was to be filed, it will 
not come to the aid of the prosecution as the recovery was not 
established by the prosecution. Even the number of the assailants 
was doubtful ever since the beginning. This lacuna in the 
investigation goes on to hit the root of the prosecution case. 
PW61, PW65 and PW67, who were attesting witnesses to the 
recovery of articles, like weapons, clothes, etc., turned hostile. 
[Para 8] [680-C-E] 
3. The next aspect is the alleged conspiracy. There existed 
no cogent and positive evidence to prove the conspiracy. Proof 
of conspiracy is strictly conditional upon there being reasonable 
grounds to believe that two or more persons had conspired 
together to commit an offence. In the present case, the cultivators 
of the respondents were examined to prove that the accused 
respondents had prior plans to leave their place of cultivation. 
Other witnesses were produced to testify the meeting in which 
the conspiracy was planned, but PWl 7 and PW23 did not state 
specifically as to what conspiracy was being hatched. PW 46, PW47 
and PW48 did specify the existence of conspiracy, but in their 
cross-examination, their conduct was seriously doubted. They 
did not make any statement to the police to this effect and it was 
admitted by PW48 that the fact of conspiracy was told to him by 
G PW46 three months prior to the incident. Bot PW48 kept quiet 
even though the deceased was his uncle. However, these 
evidences fail to hold any veracity as it seems unnatural and the 
hostility of these witnesses was specifically made out in the cross-
examination. Apart from these pivotal facts, the High Court 
pointed out other 

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