BHIMAPPA CHANDAPPA HOSAMANI AND ORS. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 393 · Decided: 20-09-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. SINGH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

BHIMAPPA CHANDAPPA HOSAMANI AND ORS. 
V. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA 
SEPTEMBER 20. 2006 
[B.P. SINGH AND AL TAMAS KABIR. JJ.) 
Penal Code, 1860-,Sections 302 and 34-Accused charged for murder-
Trial Court acquitted the accused holding that PW I is not a truthful eyewitness 
A 
B 
and that PW 2 was not an eyewitness-High Court held PWs I and 2 as . C 
truthfit! eyewitnesses and convicted the accused-Correctness of-Held. on· 
re-appreciation of evidence, PW 2 cannot be said to be an eyewitness c:nd PW 
I is not a truthfirl eyeu:itness-Hence, accused are acquitted. 
Appellants were charged of the offence punishable under section 302 
read with section 34 IPC for committing murder of the deceased while he D 
·was sleeping on the katta in the outer portion of his house. • Trial Court 
acquitted the appellants holding that PW I was not a truthful witness; 
that PW 2 was not an eye witness; and that PWs. 8 and 9 turned hostile. 
The High Court, on re-appreciation of the evidence, held that PWs 1 and 
2 are truthful eye witnesses .and on the basis of thefr evidence, the 
appellants were convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 E . 
read with section 34 IPC. 
In appeal to this Court, the appellants contended that· on a. mere 
reading of his evidence, it will be for that PW 2 is not an eyewitness; that 
he was sleeping inside his house and that when he came out of the house, 
he only saw the dead body of the deceased; that PW I is not a truthful 
eyewitness; that a false case was concocted and the appellants were named 
as the assailants; and that the absence· of blood ·stains on the clothes of 
PWs I and 2 ·indicates that they had not witnessed the occurrence as they 
were inside the house and later when they came out they saw the dead 
body of the deceased with severe injuries. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. I. In PW 2's examination-in-chief, he asserted that he woke 
up early in the morning when his father and mother woke up. In his cross-
393 
G 
H 
394 
~lJl'REME COUR r REPORTS 120061 ~[;pp, h S.C.R. 
A examination, his version is to the contrary. He has stated dearly that he 
did not even know when his father left since he was sleeping and further 
that when he got up on hearing the cries of his mother, the incident was 
over and on coming out he had seen the dead body of his brother. His 
evidence leads us to suspect his assertion of PW 2 that he was eyewitness. 
Hence it must he held that PW 2 had not witnessed the occurrence and 
B his e\·idcnce cannot be relied upon. 1398-E, Fl 
1.2. In order to bring home the guilt of an accused, it is not necessary 
for the prosecution to pro'e the motive. The existence of motive is only 
one of the circumstances to be kept in mind while appreciating the evidence 
C adduced by the prosecution. If the evidence of the witnesses appears to 
be truthful and convincing, failure to, prove the motive is not fatal to the 
case of the prosecution. 1399-C, DI 
1.3. On the basis of the testimony of a single eyewitness, a conviction 
may be recorded, but it is cautioned that while doing so the Court must 
D be satisfied that the testimony of the solitary eyewitness is of such sterling 
quality that the Court finds it safe to base a conviction solely on the 
testimony of that witness. In doing so, the Court must test the credibility 
of the witness by reference to the quality of his evidence. The evidence 
must be free of any blemish or suspicion, must impress the Court as wholly 
truthful, and must appear to be natural and so convincing that the Court 
E has no hesitation in recording a conviction solely on the basis of the 
testimony of a single witness. 1403-A, Bl 
1.4. It is established that in the First Information Report, a false 
statement had been made by PW I as to the existence of the motive. In 
F her cross-examination, she had gone back on her statements made in the 
First Information Report and also in her examination-in-chief. The 
evidence of PW l is not found to be of that quality. The narration of events 
as they took place before the actual murder of her son is also shown to be 
untrue. Her evidence also leaves a lurking suspicion about her being an 
eyewitness. Having discarded the evidence of PW 2 and the other two 
G alleged eyewitnesses having turned hostile, there is no reliable 
corroboration of the testimony of PW I. 1399-F; 403-C-DI 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 367 
of 2005. 
H 
From the final Judgment and Ordt!r dated ~6.5.~

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