KRISHNEGOWDA & ORS. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ARKALGUD POLICE

Citation: [2017] 4 S.C.R. 934 · Decided: 28-03-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2017] 4 S.C.R. 934 
KRISHNEGOWDA & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ARKALGUD POLICE 
1 •· 
(Criminal Appeal No. 635 of 2006) 
MARCH 28, 2017 
[N. V. RAMANA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.J 
; '. 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss.34, 149, 302, 323 and 324 - Enmity 
between two groups - Unlawful assembly formed by accused persons 
attac.';ed victim party - Death of one 'C' (father of PW2) - Trial 
court acquitted accused persons on the basis of inconsistent evidence 
of prosecution witnesses with that of medical evidence and other 
probable circumstances, holding that prosecution could not prove 
the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt - Appeal by 
respondent-State, High Court reversed acquittal and convicted 
D accused persons - On appeal, held: The basic principle of criminal 
jurisprudence is that the accused is presumed innocent until his 
guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt - In the instant case, at 
each and every stage of trial, there were lapses on part of 
investigating agency - Evidence of eyewitnesses was only consistent 
E on the aspect of injuries inflicted on the deceased but on all other 
factors there were lot of discrepancies - The contradictions went 
into the root of the matter and thus were not trustworthy to form 
basis for conviction - Judgment of High Court set aside and order 
of acquittal passed by Trial Court, affirmed. 
F 
Witness: 
Eyewitnesses - Evidence of - Discrepancies in - Appreciation 
of - Held: Generally in criminal cases, discrepancies in the evidence 
of witness is bound to happen as there is considerable gap between 
the date of incident and the time of deposing evidence before Court 
- But, if these contradictions create serious doubts in the mind of 
G Court about the truthfulness of witnesses and it appears that there 
is clear improvement, then it is not safe to rely on such evidence . 
H 
. Related witnesses - Corroboration of - When needed - Held: 
There· is no absolute rule that the evidence of related witnesses has 
to be corroborated by independnet witnesses - However, it would 
934 
KRISHNEGOWDA & ORS. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY 
935 
ARKALGUD POLICE 
be trite in law to have independent witnesses when the evidence of A 
related eyewitnesses is found incredible and not trustworthy. 
FIR - Contents of - Name of two accused missing in FIR -
Effect of - Held: It is true that FIR need not be an encyclopedia 
and it need not contain all the details - However, in the instant case 
when prosecution witnesses consistently deposed that A2 and A5 B 
had inflicted major injuries causing death of the deceased, then 
non-mentioning of their names in FIR casts a doubt on the whole 
episode - High Court erred in holding that non-mentioning of their 
names in FIR was not fatal to prosecutions case. 
· 
Criminal Trial: 
Laches in investigation- Held: Mere /aches on the part of 
Investigating Officer itself cannot be a ground for acquitting the 
accused- Courts have to independently deal with the case and 
should arrive at a just conclusion beyond reasonable doubt basing 
c 
on the evidence on record- However, in the present case, there were D 
clear /aches in investigation in which case benefit of doubt has to 
go to the accused persons. 
Duty of Court - Held: Court should always make an endeavor 
to find the truth - A criminal offence is not only an offence against 
an individual but also against the society - Court should be able to 
E 
perceive both sides i.e. the prosecution as well as the defence - It 
would be failure of justice if an innocent man is punished. 
Evidence - Medical evidence and ocular evidence -
Contradictions between - Effect of - Held: Once there is a clear 
contradiction between the medical and ocular evidence coupled F 
with severe contradictions in the oral evidence, the benefit of doubt 
has to go to the accused - On the basis of material on record, finding 
of High Court wrong that o.cular evidence and medical evidence 
are in conformity with the case of prosecution to convict the accused 
persons - High Court wrongly brushed aside the vital defects in the 
prosecution case. 
G 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 Oral Evidence: (i) PW 1 to 3 are sons of the 
deceased. Their evidence is consistent about one aspect that is 
with regard to the injuries sustained by the deceased at the hands H 
936 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 4 S.C.R. 
A of accused, but the evidence on record makes it clear that there 
are several contradictions in the evidence of witnes
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.