K.H. SHEKARAPPA & OTHERS versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation: [2010] 3 S.C.R. 883 · Decided: 03-12-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.S. BEDI · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 3 S.C.R. 883 
K.H. SHEKARAPPA & OTHERS 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 382 of 2003) 
DECEMBER 3, 2009* 
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND J.M. PANCHAL, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: 
A 
B 
ss. 304(part 11)134 and 324134 - Custodial death - Burden c 
of proof - Five persons beaten up by police officials in police 
station - Two of them died and three sustained injuries -
HELD: By ocular version and medical evidence, prosecution 
has proved its case against accused beyond reasonable 
doubt - When the deceased were brought alive to the police 0 
station but were produced dead before medical officer, it is 
for the accused-police officials to explain the circumstance in 
which the victims died -
The accused pleaded a false 
defence which reinforces their guilt -Conviction and sentence 
upheld - Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 106 - Evidence - Testimony E 
of hostile witness. 
Evidence: 
Testimony of hostile witness - HELD: Normally should 
not be considered in support of prosecution case, however, 
F 
such evidence, if corroborated by reliable independent 
witness, can be taken into consideration for determining 
whether prosecution case is proved or not. 
The appellants (A-1 to A-7 and A-9) along with 
another Police Officer (A-8) were prosecuted for causing, G 
in the police station, death of two persons and injuries 
to three others, who had been arrested in connection 
•Judgment Received on 13.4.2010. 
883 
H 
884 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[201 OJ 3 S.C.R 
A with a fight between them and some engineering 
students said to have taken place at a liquor bar. The trial 
court convicted the appellants for commission of 
offences punishable u/ss 143, 148, 326 r/w s.149, s.201/ 
149, 218/149 and 302/149 IPC on two counts. A-8 was 
B convicted u/ss 201/511 and 218/511 IPC. The accused 
filed appeals and the High Court ultimately convicted A-
1 to A-7 and A-9 u/ss 304 (part 11)/34 and 324/34 IPC. 
Aggrieved, A-1 to A-7 and A-9 filed the appeal. 
c 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. A fair reading of the testimony of PW-20, 
one of the injured witnesses, makes it abundantly clear 
that the appellants subjected the two deceased to severe 
beating because of which they died in the police station. 
D [Para 16] [909-D-E] 
1.2. The evidence of PW-5, the other injured witness, 
who was declared hostile, is also significant. Normally, 
the rule of appreciation of evidence of a hostile witness 
E is that the same should not be considered in support of 
the prosecution case. However, it is a well settled principle 
that evidence of a hostile witness can be taken into 
consideration for the purpose of determining whether 
prosecution case is proved or not, if the same is 
corroborated by reliable independent witness. In the 
F 
instant case, this Court finds that the admissions made 
by the witness in cross-examination by the prosecution 
are fully supported by medical evidence on record. 
Before the doctor, who had examined him, the witness 
had narrated history of assault on him, which was noted 
G down by the doctor on his medical papers. The assertion 
made by the witness in his cross-examination that he 
was assaulted in Police Station gets ample corroboration 
from the medical evidence and, therefore, it would be safe 
to conclude that this witness received injuries while in 
H 
K.H. SHEKARAPPA & ORS. v. STATE OF 
885 
KARNATAKA 
police custody. The evidence of this witness indicates that A 
though initially he was hesitant in admitting the assault 
upon the two deceased and the two other injured in his 
presence, he admitted in his cross-examination that he 
was taken into lock-up and assaulted and the two 
deceased and the other two injured were with him in the 8 
same lock-up. From the evidence of this witness, it 
becomes evident that he and four other persons, namely, 
the two deceased and the other two injured, were 
assaulted with sticks resulting into injuries on all over 
their person. (Para 13 and 14] [903-E-H; 904-A-D; 905-A- c 
C; H; 906-A] 
1.3. According to the Medical Officers (PW 1 and PW-
2), the cause of death of both the deceased was shock 
as a result of the multiple injuries sustained by them. The 
Medical Officers are completely corroborated by the D 
contents of Post Mortem reports produced on the record 
of the case. It was explained by the doctor that 
individually the injuries were simple, but collectively they 
could cause the death of an individual. According to the 
doctor, it was a case of rapid
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.