LexBANNAREDDY & ORS. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
623
BANNAREDDY & ORS.
v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 382 of 2018)
MARCH 12, 2018
[N. V. RAMANA AND S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – ss.148, 341, 504, 326 r/w.149 –
Prosecution case that accused No.2 picked up quarrel with P.W-2,
thereafter on same day, the accused-appellants armed with weapons
attacked P.W-2, P.W.-3 and P.W-5 – Certain witnesses intervened
and rescued the complainant-P.W-5 and other victims – Police
registered complaint u/ss.143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 341, 307, 504,
506 r/w. 149 filed by P.W-5 – Trial Court held that prosecution failed
to prove the alleged offences against the accused beyond reasonable
doubt and acquitted the accused persons – However, High Court
reversed the order of acquittal and convicted the accused u/
ss.148,341,504, 326 r/w. 149 – On appeal, held: Order passed by
the trial Court reaffirmed – High Court should not have re-
appreciated the evidence in its entirety, especially when there existed
no grave infirmity in the findings of the trial Court – Prosecution
case suffers from several contradictions and infirmities e.g. the trial
Court rightly pointed out the contradictions in the statements given
by P.Ws-1,2 and P.Ws-3,5 regarding the incident of assault and the
participation of the accused persons – These contradictions were
material ones and cannot be overlooked – No specific assertions
could be proved regarding the role and involvement of the accused
persons – Further, certain actions of the victim-respondents
themselves were dubious, for instance admitting themselves later in
a Multi-speciality hospital from a reputed hospital without proper
cause – No documents were produced to clarify the same – Medical
evidences produced by the victims prove that, they had not sustained
any fatal injuries – Prosecution was not able to establish the guilt
of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The trial court has rightly pointed out the
contradictions in the statements given by P.W.1 and P.W.2
[2018] 4 S.C.R. 623
623
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
624
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 4 S.C.R.
regarding the incident of assault and the participation of the
accused persons. These contradictions are material ones and
cannot be overlooked. [Para 17] [630-D-E]
2. Similarly, after the perusal of the statements of P.W.3
and P.W.5, there exist contradictions with regard to the incident
and the role played by the different accused persons. The trial
court has correctly arrived at a conclusion on this aspect. Further,
it is to be noted that, although the above witnesses have stated
that there were several eye witnesses to the above incident who
intervened to stop the assault, except P.W.1 and P.W.13, other
witnesses have turned hostile. Apart from the other victims, P.W.1
remains the sole witness to the said incident, but it is to be noted
that the statements given by all of them are not in conformity
with each other, rather differ on material points regarding the
commission of the act itself. In the light of this, it is not appropriate
to place reliance on these statements. [Para 18] [630-E-G]
3. Another major contradiction in the prosecution’s version,
as rightly noted by the trial court, is the statement of P.W.14,
who according to the eye witnesses had intervened in the said
fight, as it was happening in the vicinity of his house. But, in clear
contravention to the above version, P.W.14 states that he was
out of station on the said date and on returning back to the village
at night around 11.00 pm he came to know about the said incident.
[Para 19] [630-H; 631-A]
4. It is to be noted that certain actions of the victims were
inexplicable drawing our suspicion specifically the behavior of
the victim after the incident. It is an admitted fact that after the
said incident the victims were taken to the Government Hospital.
As P.W.5 sustained simple injuries on his right shoulders thereby
he was not referred for any further treatment. P.W.2 and P.W.3
having sustained injuries in their head were referred to the KIMS
Hospital for further treatment. But the trial court noted that no
documents or certificate regarding the admission or treatment
of the victims to this effect were placed on record. The trial court
rightly pointed out that P.W.19 who treated the victims both in
the well reputed KIMS Hospital and later in Multi Speciality
Hospital, admitted that KIMS Hospital is well eExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.