LexBIRAPPA & ANR. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 9 S.C.R. 205 BIRAPPA & ANR. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA (Criminal Appeal No. 682 of 2006) JULY 28, 2010 [HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND C.K. PRASAD, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: A B s.302 - Murder - Evidence of a single witness - Three c accused prosecuted for murder - Conviction by trial court of A-1 and acquittal of the other two ....: High Court dismissing appeal of A-1 and allowing appeal of State qua A-2 and also convicting him in terms similar to A-1 - HELD: It is now well settled that where the prosecution story rests only on·a single 0 witness the evidence of such a witness must inspire full confidence - In the instant case, the conduct of PW. 1 was clearly unnatural which makes his evidence extremely suspicious - As per the prosecution story he had seen his brother being cut up at about 6.00 p.m. at a place half a E kilometer away from the village near a temple and in an area which was heavily populated and he had rushed home at 6.00 p.m. and then returned at 8.00 p.m. to look for his brother - In his evidence he did not utter a single word as to the places he had visited while in search or the inquiries he had made F from the neighbourhood which had several shops and residential houses along a very busy road - Therefore, PW. 1 was perhaps not an eye-witness and he lodged the FIR only after the dead body had been discovered - This explains the delay in lodging the FIR - It has come in the evidence of PW 1 that he had rushed to the police station at 9. 00 a.m - G Curiously enough, however, the FIR was recorded at 2.00 p.m - The High court has glossed over this glaring flaw by observing that it was a mistake on the part of the police officer to have recorded the FIR belatedly - However, the special 205 H 206 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 9 S.C.R. A report was delivered at 5.55 p.m. at the Magistrate's residence which was only half a kilometre away - Therefore, it appears that the FIR was recorded at about 5.30 or 5.45 p.m., that is, at the time when the dead body had been received in the hospital - CW 6, though cited as a witness, was not produced B as a PW - PW-11, the wife of the deceased, supported the prosecution story in the examination-in-chief but when she was called for further cross-examination after a few days she disowned her earlier statements - It is true that this witness was declared hostile, but this casts a doubt on the prosecution c story- On a cumulative reading of these factors, the judgment of the High Court cannot be maintained - Accordingly. the conviction of the appellants is set aside - Evidence - Testimony of single witness. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal D No. 682 of 2006. E From the Judgment & Order dated 05.12.2005 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No. 123 of 2004 C/w Criminal Appeal No. 1332 of 2003. Rajesh Mahale for the Appellants. Sanjay R. Hegde, Ramesh Kr. Mishra, K. Joshi for the Respondent. F The following order of the Court was delivered ORDER This appeal arises out of the following facts: G Gulappa deceased was the younger brother of Kareppa Gadad (PW.1) and Ramappa Gadad (CW-6). They resided separately in their garden near village Koonur, Jamkhandi Taluk. About four months prior to August 2002 Kareppa Rangappa Kote, the father of A.1 Birappa, was found dead in H a well in the village Koonur and it was not known as to whether BIRAPPA & ANR. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 207 it was an accidental death or a murder, but rumour had it that A he had been murdered by Gulappa, the deceased in the present matter. This rumour caused a great deal of ill will between Birappa, appellant No.1, and the deceased on which the appellant threatened that he would kill him one day. On 8th August 2002, which happened to be the Arnavas day, the B deceased went to the Kali Devi temple at about 4.00 p.m. to make his offerings and as he came out from the temple and sat down at a nearby tea shop to take tea he was attacked by Birappa, his cousin Kareppa A.2 and Muttappa A.3. Mutappa also made an exhortation than as it was Amavas day and a c sacrifice had to be offered to the Goddess, Gulappa ought to be that sacrifice. This created a fear in the mind of Kareppa (PW.1) and Gulappa and they attempted to escape from the place by rushing towards the Hulyal road. They were however chased by the accused and whereas Kareppa caught hold of 0 the deceased Birappa caused him several injur
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.