MALLAPPA SIDDAPPA ALAKANUR & ORS. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation: [2009] 10 S.C.R. 196 · Decided: 07-07-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.S. SIRPURKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 10 S.C.R. 196 
A 
MALLAPPA SIDDAPPA ALAKANUR & ORS. 
B 
V. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1055 of 2002) 
JULY 7, 2009 
[V.S. SIRPURKAR AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302, 504, 148 rlw s, 149 -
Prosecution under - Of six persons - Eye-witnesses to the 
C incident a child - One ef the witness, who was told about the 
incident by the child witness, declared hostile - Other witness 
see1n the accused running away with the blood-stained 
weapons of offence - Acquittal of all the accused by trial court 
- Conviction of 4 of the accused by High Court - One of the 
o convicted accused died, hence - On appeal, by the rest of 
the convicted accused, Held: Conviction by High Court of the 
four accused justified - Their offence proved - Appreciation 
of evidence by the trial court was faulty. 
E 
Evidence - Oral evidence vis-a-vis medical evidence. 
Criminal Law - Doubt on veracity of evidence of 
witnesses - By criminal court- Held: the doubt should be 
reasonable, real and tangible. 
F 
Appeal - Appeal against acquittal - Interference with - -
scope of. 
Appellants along with four accused (in all six 
accused) were prosecuted u/ss. 148, 302, 504 r/w. s. 149 
IPC for having killed one person. The incident was seen 
G by PW-7 (a child witness), who was accompanying the 
deceased. PW 5 (first informant) had reached the scene 
of occurrence and seen there accused persons, and was 
told about the incident by PW-7. PW-6 had seen the 
H 
1 (;6 
MALLAPPA SIDOAPPA ALAKANUR & ORS. v. 
197 
,,_, 
STATE OF KARNATAKA 
.. 
accused persons going towards the scene of occurrence 
A 
had also identified the blood-stained weapons of offence 
and the clothes of the accused. During trial, PW5 was 
declared hostile. Trial Court acquitted all the accused. 
High Court convicted four of the accused. In the 
meantime, one of the convicted accused died. Thus, the 
B 
case against him abated. Hence, the present appeal by 
the other accused. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. In an appeal against the acquittal, the High c 
Court has same powers which the Trial Court has in 
examining the evidence and if it comes to the conclusion 
that the view taken by the trial court was unreasonable 
or against the weight of evidence, it could reject the 
• 
finding recorded by the Trial Court. In the instant case, 
0 
the High Court has not rejected the findings by the trial 
court, merely because it could come to the other findings. 
The High Court has given adequate reasons in coming 
to the findings that it did. [Para 20] [214-E-F] 
Di/a and Anr. vs. State of U.P. 2002 (7) SCC 450; 
E 
Bhagwan Singh and Ors. vs. State of M.P. 2002(4) SCC 85, 
relied on. 
Ramesh S/o Laxman Gawli vs. State of M.P. and Ors. 
Etc. 2000 (1) SCC 243 Allarakha K. Mansuri v. State of F 
Gujarat 2002 (3) SCC 57, referred to. 
1.2. It is not arid can never be that the High Court is 
bound by the finding of the Sessions Judge and cannot 
re-appreciate the evidence. The only requirement of law G 
J 
is that the High Court should be sufficiently mindful of 
the presumption of innocence of the accused which 
presumption is reiterated by the finding of acquittal 
recorded by the Trial Court. The High Court, therefore, 
must come to the conclusion that the finding of acquittal 
H 
196 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 10 S.C.R. 
A by the trial court is totally unsustainable and further that 
the1 appreciation of the evidence of the trial court tends 
to be perverse and as such cannot be supported. If the 
High court comes to these conclusions, then the whole 
appeal is open to the High Court and the High Court is 
B justified in re-appreciating the evidence and also to come 
to a different finding. [Para 11] [207-8-E] 
2.1. A doubt by the criminal Court should not be that 
of doubting Thomas, it should be a real and tangible 
C doubt. A doubt regarding the veracity of the evidence of 
the witness should be a reasonable doubt and the 
evidence cannot be simply brushed aside on such minor 
aspects, as h~s been done by the trial court. (Para 15] 
[2110-B] 
D 
2.2. The Trial Court started with an expression of 
doubt, holding that the evidence of PW7, appears to be 
unnatural. There was nothing unnatural in the evidence. 
His presence at the spot was well explained. The story 
that he went alongwith the deceased to take bath after 
E the work at the jaggery plant, also remained unshaken 
and ultimately his story as to how the attack occurred has 
also remained u

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.