MANJUNATH & ORS. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation: [2023] 14 S.C.R. 727 · Decided: 06-11-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY S. OKA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 18 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 14 S.C.R. 727 : 2023 INSC 978
727
 CASE DETAILS
MANJUNATH & ORS.
v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
(Criminal Appeal No. 866 of 2011)
NOVEMBER 06, 2023
[ABHAY S. OKA AND SANJAY KAROL, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: In a case primarily involving a dying 
declaration in addition to the ocular and circumstantial evidence, the Trial 
Court acquitted the appellants-accused along with other accused persons, 
whether the High Court was justifi ed in overturning the same in respect of 
the appellants.
Evidence – Dying declaration – Reliance upon in addition to the 
ocular and circumstantial evidence – Legality:
Held: The dying declaration, although undoubtedly a substantive 
piece of evidence upon which reliance can be placed, in the present facts is 
rendered nugatory as the person who took down such declaration was not 
examined, nor did the police offi  cer (PW19) endorse the said document with 
details of who took down the declaration – Examination of the person who 
reduced into writing, the dying declaration, is essential – Particularly, in 
the absence of any explanation forthcoming for the production of evidence 
– Given the nature of a dying declaration, it is required that such statement 
be free from tutoring, prompting, or not be a product of imagination – But 
it has emanated from the statement of the Doctor, PW1, that at the time of 
the dying declaration being made, there were numerous people present near 
him – It is also not clear as to in front of which of the relatives of deceased 
was the same taken down – Further, the circumstantial evidence present 
on record also does not point to the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused 
persons – None of the eyewitnesses-PWs 2, 3, 15, as referred to by the 
trial court succeeded in attributing a particular role to any of the accused 
728 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
persons and equally so, to the appellants, whose acquittals were overturned 
by the High Court – View taken by the Trial Court was a possible view and 
there being no error in appreciation of evidence as also application of law; 
the High Court without assigning any cogent reasons ought not to have 
interfered with such fi ndings – Impugned judgment set aside – Acquittal 
restored – However, since the sentence awarded by the High Court u/s.304 
Part II was for 4 years, and the application of exemption from surrender 
was disallowed by this Court in 2010, the Appellants appear to have already 
served the sentence awarded to them – Fine made payable by each of the 
accused, as a result of the impugned judgment be refunded – Bail bonds 
discharged – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.143, 144, 146, 147, 148, 304 Part II, 
324, 326, 447, 504 and 506 r/w s.149. [Paras 11.10, 20, 29.1-29.3, 30, 31]
Evidence – Ocular evidence:
Held: Ocular evidence fares better than other kinds of evidence and 
is considered evidence of a strong nature – The principle is that if the 
eyewitness testimony is “wholly reliable”, then the court can base conviction 
thereupon – This applies even in cases where there is a sole eyewitness – In 
the present case, the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are found to 
be unreliable, unworthy of credence – The testimonies diff er on essential 
material facts, such as the number of persons, how the accused came to lay 
where he did, when discovered etc. – None of these witnesses, eye-witnesses 
as they may be, to have established beyond reasonable doubt, the guilt of 
the accused persons – There is a contradiction in testimonies in regard 
to the number of persons who formed part of the unlawful assembly – A 
testimony cannot be given value, in isolation – For an eye-witness to be 
believed, his evidence should be of sterling quality – It should be capable 
of being taken at face value – Numerous contradictions and inconsistencies 
have borne from record, rendering prosecution witnesses to be unreliable 
and undependable so as to place reliance on the same to hold the accused 
persons guilty of having committed an off ence. [Paras 12, 21.8, 21.12, 22]
Evidence – Dying declaration – Principles in regard to – Discussed.
Evidence Act, 1872 – s.27:
Held: Discovery made, to be one satisfying the requirements of s.27, 
must be a fact that is discovered as a consequence of information received 
729
MANJUNATH & ORS. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
from a person in custody – In the present case, the Trial Court held, given 
that the discoveries made were either from a public place or from an area 
where ot

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