LexM. G. ESHWARAPPA AND OTHERS versus STATE OF KARNATAKA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D [2017] 3 S.C.R. 574 M. G. ESHWARAPPA AND OTHERS v. STATE OF KARNATAKA (Criminal Appeal No. 435 of2006) MARCH 02, 2017 [N. V. RAMANA AND PRAI•'ULLA C. PANT, JJ.) Penal Code, 1860: ss.506, 354 and 302 rlw. s. 34 - Prosecution under - Of four accused - One eye-witness (injured) - Acquilla! by trial court 011 the ground that charges not proved beyond reasonable doubt - High Court convicted the accused - On appeal, held view taken by trial court is perverse and against the evidence on record - Trial court wrongly disbelieved the evidence of injured eye-witness - The statement of the injured eye-witness is corroborated by the evidence of three witnesses as well as by medical evidence - FIR is prompt and sent to the Magistrate without any delay - Conviction order affirmed. FIR: E Evidentiary value of - FIR is not an encyclopaedia - If F G 1-:1 necessary details are there, on its basis detailed narration by the witnesses cannot be doubted. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The trial court committed grave error by accepting the defence case that the deceased might have died of the injuries suffered in an accident, as the possibility was not ruled out by PW-2, the doctor. PW-2 has stated in the cross- examination is "such injuries can be caused to a person if he meets .accident". There is no suggestion of the fact that at the place of incident any vehicle had passed through at the time of the incident. The trial court appears to have taken support of conjectures and surmises. In the circumstances, the High Court _has correctly held that the view taken by the trial court is perverse and against the evidence on record. [Para 16) [583-1<'-G) 2. The trial court has disbelieved the evidence of injured 574 M. G. ESHWARAPPA AND OTHERS v. STATE OF KARNATAKA eye-witness PW-1 observing that the same is not corroborated by other witnesses of fact who have turned hostile or partly hostile. The trial court has committed grave error in ignoring the fact that such witnesses were not witnesses of the incident. The prosecution case is that they reached the spot subsequently. [Para 15][583-C-D] 3. The statement of PW-1 (injured) is corroborated not only from the statements of PW-16, PW-29 and PW-30 but also from the medical evidence on record. Therefore, it cannot be said that the evidence of the sole injured eye-witness should not be accepted without corroboration and caution. The .First Information Report in the present case is prompt and copy of the same appears to have been sent on the very next day to the Magistrate without delay. On behalf of the State, it is pointed out that from the record it is clear that all the three appellants were absconding from the village after the incident, and could be arrested only on 10.03.1998. Also, there is mention in the Wound Certificate (Ext. P-4(b)), issued by PW-3 regarding history of assault. [Paras 17, 24][583-G-H; 584-A-B] Joseph v. Stute of Kera/a (2003) 1 SCC 465 : (2002] 4 Suppl. SCR 439 - distinguished. 4. On carefully going through the flrst Information Report, it is found that all necessary facts are narrated and only the details like from which side particular accused came are not stated. It is . settled law that the flrst Information Report is not an encyclopaedia, and if the necessary details are there, on its basis, detailed narration by the witnesses cannot be doubted. [Para 19] [584-G-II; 58~-Al 5. There is no material contradiction· between the Wound Certificate and the Post Mortem Rqwrt for the reason that PW- 3 (the doctor) has proved Ext. P-4(b) wherein it has been mentioned that the patient needed immediate treatment, as such, only gross injuries were entered in the register (not the minor injuries) and the patient was shifted to emergency ward. In the cross-examination, he has clearly stated that the (deceased) was unconscious. In the circumstances, addition of stitched wounds in post mortem report (Ext. P-2) does not create doubt regarding the incident in question. [Para 2011585-CI 575 A B c D E F G H 576 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 3 S.C.R. A 6. The accused were close relatives living in the house of the witness (PWl) as such, it cannot be said that it was difficult at all for her to recognize them when they assaulted her brother at 7.30 p.rn. [Para 21][585-D-E] 7. It is' not correct to say that not recording of dying B declaration of the deceased is a material f
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.