LexM. SARVANA @ K.D. SARAVANA versus STATE OF KARNATAKA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2012) 6 S.C.R. 592 M. SARVANA @ K.D. SARAVANA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA (Criminal Appeal No. 79 of 2010) JULY 24, 2012 [SWATANTER KUMAR AND FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.) PENAL CODE, 1860: s. 302 - Murder - Conviction and sentence of life imprisonment awarded by courts below - Held: The dying declaration made by the deceased, the evidence of the eye- witness, the recovery of the knife at the instance of the 0 accused, the serological report, the evidence of the father of the deceased that there was previous animosity between the deceased and the accused, make a complete chain of events, pointing unexceptionally towards the guilt of the accused - Prosecution has proved its case beyond any reasonable doubt - There is no reason to interfere with the E concurrent judgments of conviction and order of sentence passed by the courts below. EVIDENCE ACT, 1872: F s. 32(1) - Dying declaration recorded by police - Evidentiary value of - Explained - Held: In the instant case, the dying declaration was made after due certification of fitness by the doctor and was recorded by a police officer in discharge of his normal functions - The statement was made G by the deceased voluntarily and was a truthful description of the events - His version is fully supported by the witness who had accompanied him at all relevant times, right from inflicting of the injuries till the time of his death. H 592 M. SARVANA @ K.D. SARAVANA v. STATE OF 593 KARNATAKA EVIDENCE: A Hostile witness - Evidentiary value of - Held: Court can even take into consideration the part of the statement of a hostile witness which supports the case of the prosecution. FIR Lodging of FIR - Held: It is not necessary that an eye witness alone can lode the FIR - It can be lodged by any person and even by telephonic information - In the instant case, there was no inordinate delay in lodging the FIR.· The appellant was prosecuted for committing the murder of one 'K'. The prosecution case, as disclosed in B c the statement of the deceased recorded by the Head Constable (PW-2) in the hospital, was that the appellant- 0 accused had enmity with him; that at 7.45 P.M. on 14.2.2003, when PW-3 and he were proceeding to have . meals, the appellant met them on the way and, stating that he would do away with the deceased, stabbed him with the knife on his stomach; that when he fell down, the accused further assaulted him with a glass bottle on his head and face; that PW-3 got him admitted in the hospital. The victim died the following morning at 7.00 A.M. The trial court convicted the accused u/s 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The High Court confirmed the conviction and the sentence. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 There was no inordinate delay in lodging E F the FIR. The incident occurred at 7.45 p.m. on 14.2.2003. People had gathered at the place of the incident and G PW3, who was accompanying the deceased at the relevant time, had taken him to the hospital. The doctor on duty, after having seen the injured, reported the matter to the police and then the FIR was lodged at 11.30 p.m. H 594 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 6 S.C.R. A on the same day. The conduct of both the doctor on duty and PW3 was very normal. They had cared first to take steps to give medical aid to the injured and make every effort to save the deceased. [para 8] [601-A-D] 8 1.2 It is a settled principle of law that an FIR can be lodged by any person, even by telephonic information. It is not necessary that an eye-witness alone can lodge the FIR. [para 8] [601-E-F] 2.1 The mere fact that one of the witnesses produced C by the prosecution had been declared hostile and did not support its case would not be fatal to the case of the prosecution, particularly when the prosecution has been able to prove its case by other cogent and reliable evidence. In the instant case, the prosecution has not D only proved its case by independent witnesses, eye- witnesses, medical evidence and the report of the FSL, but has also established its case beyond reasonable doubt on the strength of the dying declaration. [para 9] [601-G-H; 602-A-B] E F Atmaram & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2012) 5 SCC 738; Jodhraj Singh v. State of Rajasthan 2007 (5) SCR 850 = (2007) 15 SCC 294; and Sambhu Das @ Bijoy Das & Anr. v. State of Assam 2010 (11) SCR 493 = (2010) 10 SCC 37 4 - referred to 2.2 The court can
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.