LexCHIKKARANGAIAH & ORS. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1182
A
CHIKKARANGAIAH & ORS.
+-
•
v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
(Criminal Appeal No. 634 of 2002)
SEPTEMBER 2, 2009
-:
B
[DALVEER BHANDARI AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
SHARMA, JJ.]
-+
Penal Code, 1860:
c
s.326 rlw s.149 - 8 persons allegedly chased and
assaulted PW-6 - PW-6 was grievously injured with fractures
and bed-ridden for 15 days at Hospital - Acquittal of accused
by trial court- But conviction by High Court - On appeal, held: -
D PW6 implicated the accused at the earliest opportunity when
It-
he made statement to police on the very next day and
- testified in Court to that effect - No reason to discard and
disbelieve his evidence which was corroborated by PW2 -
Common object of all accused was to cause grievous injury
E to PW-6 - Conviction under s. 326 rlw s. 149 upheld.
s.302 - Offence under- Concurrent finding of acquittal
by Courts below - Held: Did not suffer from any infinnity -
t·
Interference by Supreme Court ·not warranted in the facts and
circumstances of the case - Constitution of India, 1950 -
F
Article 136- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- ss.378 and
386 - Evidence - Re-appreciation of - Scope.
There was land dispute between PW1 and his
brother on one side and the accused persons on the
G other side. According to the prosecution, the accused
persons came armed with clubs and chopper and brutall.y
~-
assaulted PW1 's brother indiscriminately and later on the
I
same day, chased and assaulted PW-6 with a view to
H
1182
CHIKKARANGAIAH & ORS. v. STATE OF
1183
KARNATAKA
-+
prevent him from informing about the incident of assault A
on PW1 's brother to his son. PW1 's brother died while
PW6 was grievously injured.
Case was registered against the accused persons
inter alia u/ss.302 and 326 r/w s.149 IPC. The trial Court
acquitted the accused of all the charges. The High Court,
B
f.-
however, partly allowed the appeal filed by State by
convicting the accused persons for offence u/s.326 r/w
---l
s.149 of IPC while maintaining the order of acquittal u/
s.302 IPC passed by the trial court. Hence, the present c
eross-appeals.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. It is well settled that while hearing an appeal
under Article 136 of the Constitution, this Court will
D
normally not enter into reappraisal or review of evidence
unless the trial court or the High Court is shown to have
committed an error of law or procedure and the
conclusions arrived at are perverse. The Court may
interfere where on proved facts wrong inference of law
E
is shown to h~ve b~en drawn. ~Para 19] [1193-F-H]
t-
1.2. In the facts and circumstances of the present
case, there is no reason to interfere with the concurring
order of acquittal recorded by the trial Court as affirmed
F
by the High Court for the offence under s.302 IPC. [Para
29] [1202-C-D]
K. Ramakrishnan Unnithan v. State of Kera/a, (1999) 3
SCC 309; Harl Ram v. State of Rajasthan, (2000) 9 SCC 136;
State of U.P. v. Nahar Singh, (1998) 3 SCC 561; Rajender G
_,
$ingh v. State of Bihar, (2000) 4 SCC 298 and Ghurey Lal
..
v. St{Jt~ 9f U.P. (2008) 10 SCC 450 referred to.
2.1. An accused i$ P.res1Jm~~ to be innocent unless
H
1184 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A such a presumption is rebutted by the prosecution by
establishing guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt by producing the evidence to show him to be guilty
of the offence with which he is charged. Further if two
views are possible on the evidence produced in the case,
B one indicating to the guilt of the accused and the other
to his innocence, the view favourable to the accused is
to be accepted. In cases where the court entertains
reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused the
benefit of such doubt should go In favour of the accused.
c However, at the same time, the court must not reject the
evidence of the prosecution taking It as false,
untrustworthy or unreliable on fanclful or purely
Imaginary grounds or on the basis of conjectures and
surmises. The case of the prosecution must be judged
D as a whole ·having regard to the totality of the evidence.
In reaching a conclusion about the guilt of the accused,
the court has to appreciate, analyse and assess the
evidence placed before it by the yardstick of probabilities,
its intrinsic value and the animus of witnesses. Ultimately
E and finally the decision in every case depends upon the
facts of each case. [Para 30] (1202-E-H; 1Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.