MALLAPPA versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation: [2021] 5 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 07-05-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
   [2021] 5 S.C.R. 1
1
MALLAPPA
v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
(Criminal Appeal No. 1993 of 2010)
MAY 07, 2021
[N. V. RAMANA, CJI, SURYA KANT AND
ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 – Murder – Deceased was allegedly
assaulted with a club – Prosecution case primarily based on evidence
of PW5 (deceased’s wife) – Trial court acquitted accused-appellant
as well as the co-accused – Acquittal of appellant reversed by High
Court – Conviction of appellant challenged – Held: On facts,
evidence of PW5 cannot be accepted in full – There were
contradictions in PW5’s deposition as regards her having seen
appellant at the spot of occurrence – PW5 was not a witness to
actual act of assault – As a witness, she did not inspire confidence
– No cogent evidence demonstrating that the club seized was used
to assault the deceased – Proof of commission of offence by
circumstantial evidence of discovery of club- the weapon of assault,
not acceptable – Even if prosecution case that accused persons
were seen by PWs is accepted, that would be too thin a piece of
evidence to convict appellant u/s.302 IPC applying the principle of
‘res gestae’ – The first court of facts (trial court) on appreciation of
evidence had acquitted the appellant – No major lacuna in its
reasoning which would have warranted interference by the Appeal
Court (High Court) for reversing such finding into that of guilt –
Acquittal of appellant by trial court accordingly sustained.
Evidence – Possible visibility of accused – Relevance of –
Murder case – Three PWs deposed to have seen the accused persons
at the same location while running away from the place of
occurrence – Held: Evidence on whether that location was visible
from the spots PWs were at the material point of time, cannot be
discarded as being irrelevant.
Evidence – Res Gestae – Murder case – Three PWs deposed
to have seen accused-appellant and the co-accused at the same
location while running away from the place of occurrence – Held:
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
2
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 5 S.C.R.
On facts, even if the two accused persons were so seen by the PWs,
that would be too thin a piece of evidence to convict appellant u/
s.302 IPC applying the principle of ‘res gestae’ – Doctrines /
Principles – Principle of ‘res gestae’ – IPC – s.302.
Evidence – Circumstantial Evidence – Discovery of weapon
of assault – Murder – Death allegedly caused due to assault with a
club – Seizure of club – Effect and relevance of – Held: Club is a
common implement which can be found at random in rural
households – On facts, there was absence of cogent evidence
demonstrating that the club seized was used to assault the deceased
– Thus, prosecution story, seeking to establish commission of offence
by circumstantial evidence of discovery of club - the weapon of
assault, not acceptable.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. The evidence of PW-5, the deceased’s wife,
cannot be accepted in full. There are contradictions in PW-5’s
deposition as regards her having seen the Appellant at the spot
of occurrence. She stated in her cross-examination that by the
time she saw the accused persons, they were in front of the house
of Devendrappa. That was the evidence of PW-3 and also PW-6.
PW-5’s contradictory statements as regards when and where she
saw the appellant and as to whether she saw him committing the
act of assault was of significance. In her examination in chief, she
deposed that when she opened her eyes on hearing the sound
“dhup”, she saw the appellant with a club assaulting on the head
of her husband, whereas son of the appellant was standing beside
him. But she stated in her cross-examination that by the time
she woke up, injury had been caused. She claimed to have had
seen the accused in front of Devendrappa’s house. This part of
her deposition in her cross-examination was otherwise compatible
with rest of her statements made in cross-examination. In this
perspective, only one conclusion was possible that she was not a
witness to actual act of assault. She is the widow of the deceased
victim and deserves to be considered with an element of
compassion. But as a witness, she did not inspire confidence.
[Para 9][8-E-H; 9-A-B]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
3
MALLAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
2. The Trial Court had found, dealing with evidence of PW-
5 that from her house, the houses of Hussainamma and
Devendrappa were invisible. This was a finding of fact about
possible visibility of the appellant, who, as per prosecution version
was r

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