BABU SAHEBAGOUDA RUDRAGOUDAR AND OTHERS versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation: [2024] 5 S.C.R. 174 · Decided: 19-04-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

* Author
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 174 : 2024 INSC 320
Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and Others 
v. 
State of Karnataka
Criminal Appeal No. 985 of 2010
19 April 2024
[B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in deciding the appeal as a 
first Court on independent appreciation of evidence and recording 
its own findings to hold the accused appellants (A-1, A-2 and A-3) 
guilty of charge u/s. 302 r/w. s.34 IPC.
Headnotes
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.378 – Appeal in case 
of acquittal – Scope of interference by an appellate Court for 
reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court:
Held: It is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of interference 
by an appellate Court for reversing the judgment of acquittal 
recorded by the trial Court in favour of the accused has to be 
exercised within the four corners of the following principles: (a) 
That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; (b) 
That the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider 
material evidence on record; (c) That no two reasonable views 
are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the 
accused is possible from the evidence available on record – The 
appellate Court, in order to interfere with the judgment of acquittal 
would have to record pertinent findings on the above factors if it is 
inclined to reverse the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial 
Court. [Paras 39 and 40]
Penal Code, 1860 – s. 302 r/w. s. 34 – Prosecution case that 
accused A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4 armed with weapons attacked 
victim-son of PW-1, PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5 – 
Accused belaboured son of PW-1 – As a result, he died – PW-1 
ran away hid behind the bushes – After sunset, he returned 
to his village and told them about the incident – Next day, 
in morning a written complaint filed before police station – 
Charge-sheet filed – The Trial Court discarded prosecution 
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 
175
Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and Others v. State of Karnataka
story and acquitted accused-appellants (A-1, A-2 and A-3) 
along with other accused, however, the High Court reversed 
the acquittal of A-1, A-2 and A-3 and convicted these accused 
u/s. 302 r/w. s.34 IPC – Correctness:
Held: It was alleged in the report that the complainant-PW-1 
along with PW-2, PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5 (servants, who had 
accompanied the deceased to erect a bund in their land) witnessed 
the incident wherein, however, none other than the deceased 
received a single injury in the incident – The witnesses PW-2, 
PW-6 and PW-15 admitted that it was raining incessantly in the 
village for almost three days – In such circumstances, the reason 
assigned by the complainant(PW-1) for the deceased and the 
four servants(PW-2, PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5) to have gone to the 
agricultural land, i.e., for putting up a bund is totally unacceptable 
– Testimony of PW-1 suffers from patent infirmities, contradictions 
and inherent loopholes which brings him within the category 
of wholly unreliable witness – There is a grave contradiction 
on the aspect as to whether the report was submitted by the 
complainant(PW-1) in the form of a written complaint or whether 
the oral statement of complainant(PW-1) was recorded by the 
police officials at his home leading to the registration of FIR(Exhibit 
P-10) – Further, PW-6 (who claimed to be an eye witness of the 
incident) categorically stated that it was he who had informed the 
family members, the informant PW-1 – Thus, the case set up by 
prosecution that complainant, PW-1 was an eye-witness to the 
incident, is totally contradicted by evidence of PW-6 – The conduct 
of the family members of the deceased and the other villagers in 
not taking any steps to protect the dead body for the whole night 
and instead, casually going back to their houses without giving a 
second thought as to what may happen to the mortal remains of the 
deceased, lying exposed to the elements is another circumstance 
which creates a grave doubt in the mind of the Court that no one 
had actually seen the incident and it was a case of blind murder 
which came to light much later – There is no logical explanation 
for the presence of the deceased and the servants in their field 
on the date and time of the incident – Further, the High Court 
heavily relied upon the circumstance of recoveries of weapons 
made at the instance of the accused as incriminating evidence – 
However, as was rightly pointed ou

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