MALLIKARJUN AND OTHERS versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation: [2019] 11 S.C.R. 609 · Decided: 08-08-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R. BANUMATHI · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
609
MALLIKARJUN AND OTHERS
v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
(Criminal Appeal No.1066 of 2009)
AUGUST 08, 2019
[R. BANUMATHI AND A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.]
Evidence – Of eye-witness – Appreciation of – As per the
prosecution on 14.06.02, PW-7-brother of ‘B’ went to the fields for
ploughing in the early morning, at about 09.00am, ‘B’ went outside
to attend the call of nature and when he was returning towards his
house, accused no.1, 2 & 4(appellants) along with accused no.3
(absconding) arrived there with weapons– Accused persons
threatened ‘B’ while chasing him saying that they would finish him
off as he continues illicit relationship with the wife of accused No.4/
mother of accused Nos.1-3– ‘B’ came into his house, went to the
kitchen and closed the door –Accused persons started pushing the
kitchen door and then ‘B’ came outside –Accused No.2 caught the
head of ‘B’ whereas accused nos.3 and 4 caught his both the legs
and accused no.1 cut the neck of ‘B’ with MO-1-dagger– PW-5,
mother of the deceased ‘B’ raised alarm crying for help –Appellants
convicted u/s.448 r/w s.34 as also u/s.302 r/w s.34 – On appeal,
held: While appreciating the evidence of witness, the approach must
be to assess whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole
appears to be truthful – If the evidence of eye witness is found to be
credible and trustworthy, minor discrepancies not affecting the core
of the prosecution case, cannot be made ground to doubt the
trustworthiness of the witness – In the instant case, no doubt there
are slight variations in the statement of PW-5 as to when and how
her statement was recorded by the police, but PW-5 is an ordinary
home maker and an illiterate woman– Courts are not to judge the
evidence of ruralites by the same standard and exactitude like any
other witness– Alleged variations in the statement of PW-5 do not
affect the trustworthiness of PW-5 – PW-5 has no reason to falsely
implicate the accused– Further, based on the disclosure statement
of accused no.1, MO-1-dagger had been seized in the presence of
panch witnesses –No merit in the contention that merely because
   [2019] 11 S.C.R. 609
   [2019] 11 S.C.R. 609
609
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
610
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 11 S.C.R.
the panch witnesses turned hostile, the recovery of the weapon would
stand vitiated– Evidence of the I.O can be relied upon to prove the
recovery even when the panch witnesses turned hostile – From the
evidence of PW-5 and PW-7, the prosecution has proved the overt
act of accused nos.1, 2 and the same is corroborated by the
corresponding injuries as spoken by PW-12-doctor – However,
serious doubts arise as to the presence of accused no.4 – Benefit of
doubt given to him and his conviction is set aside – Conviction of
accused nos.1 & 2 is confirmed  while that of accused No.4 is set
aside – Penal Code, 1860 – s. 448, 302 r/w s.34 IPC .
Evidence – Of Expert – Evidentiary value of – Held: Expert
is not a witness of fact – Opinionative evidence of the doctor is
primarily an evidence of opinion and not of fact – It is only a
corroborative piece of evidence as to the possibility that the injuries
could have been caused in the manner alleged by the prosecution –
Unless the medical evidence rules out such possibility of injury being
caused in the manner alleged by the prosecution version, the
testimony of the eye witness cannot be doubted on the ground of its
inconsistency with medical evidence.
Criminal Trial – FIR – Delay in registration of – When not
fatal – Discussed.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 While appreciating the evidence of a witness,
the approach must be to assess whether the evidence of a witness
read as a whole appears to be truthful. Once the impression is
formed, it is necessary for the court to evaluate the evidence and
the alleged discrepancies and then, to find out whether it is against
the general tenor of the prosecution case. If the evidence of eye
witness is found to be credible and trustworthy, minor
discrepancies which do not affect the core of the prosecution case,
cannot be made a ground to doubt the trustworthiness of the
witness. Minor discrepancies and inconsistent version do not
necessarily demolish the prosecution case if it is otherwise found
to be creditworthy. No doubt, there are slight variations in the
statement of PW-5 as to when and how her statement was
recorded by the police. At one place, PW-5 states that the police
came to the village at 11.00 am and took her complaint by
A
B
C
D
E
F
G

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