LexNOUSHAD@ NOUSHAD PASHAAND OTHERS versus STATE OF KARNATAKA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2014] 14 S.C.R. 499 NOUSHAD@ NOUSHAD PASHAAND OTHERS A v. STATE OF KARNATAKA (Criminal Appeal No.119 of 2013) • DECEMBER 03, 2014 B [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.) Penal Code, 1860- ss. 143, 14 7, 148, 448 and 302 rlw/ s. 149 - Prosecution under.,.. Of the appellants-accused (A- C 1, A-2 and A-3) alongwith 40 others- Conviction of 6 accused including the appellants-accused by trial court while rest of the accused acquitted - High Court confirmed conviction of the appellants-accused while acquitting the three accused - On appeal, held: In view of the conclusion by the trial court in D respect of the eye-witnesses that they were unreliable and unbelievable, it would be unsafe to-rely on them to confirm the conviction of appellants-accused - The High Court without assigning any reason perfunctorily held that they were believable, trustworthy and natural witnesses - Since the vel)I version of the eye-witnesses resulted in acquittal of all the E accused, for the vel)I same reasoning, conviction of the appellants-accused also cannot stand- Conviction set aside. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The High Court has totally omitted to note F relevant findings of the trial Court as regards the evidence of PWs-14, 15, 19, 24, 30, 43 and 44 by stating that there was no reason to disbelieve their evidence except that it suffered from little variations. The High Court without assigning any reason perfunctorily held G that except minor variations those witnesses were eye witnesses and that their version was believable, trustworthy, natural which finding was not supported by any convincing reason. Thus, with reference to the so- called star witness PW-11 and the other so-called eye- H 499 500 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 14 S.C.R. A witnesses with reference to whom the trial Court has m·ade it clear that they were all unreliable and unbelievable, it will be wholly unsafe to rely on. such evidence in order to confirm the conviction imposed on A-1 to A-3. [Paras 36 and 37][S18-D-H; 519-A-B] B 2. Keeping in view the various factors stated by PW- 1.1 (the star witness) and also as noted in the Exhibit P- 18, the complaint, the mahazar as well as P-55 sketch ·read along with the version of PW-15, the evidence of PW-11 could not have been believed insofar as it related C to the actual occurrence, which admittedly was taking place inside his banana shop, the length and breadth of it being 11 ft. x 8 ft. which place was admittedly surrounded by nearly 30 persons while 15 persons were stated to be inside the said shop of small size. It would D have been next to impossible for PW-11 to have witnessed the actual occurrence that was taking place inside such a small place which was already occupied by 15 persons and surrounded by 30 others outside the shop, taking note of the fact that he was located in a E place away from the shop. PW-11 was also not consistent · with reference to the weapo·n stated to have been found in the possession of A-2 and A-3. A cumulative consideration of his version discloses that PW-11 could not have witnessed the occurrence as spoken to by him. F Therefore, the evidence of PW-11 was full of inconsistencies and the trial Court as well as the High Court completely ignored s~ch inconsistencies while holding the appellants guilty of the offence alleged against them. [Paras 32 and. 35][516-C-F; 518-B-D] G 3. Though the very version spoken to by the said H witnesses persuaded the trial Court to acquit all other accused, except A-1 to A-5 and A-29 and the High Court to acquitA-4, A-5 and A-29, for the very same reasoning, . '· NOUSHAD@NOUSHAD PASHA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 501 the conviction of A-1 to A-3 cannot also stand. A Consequently, the conviction and the sentence imposed on the appellants are set aside. [Para 38)(519-C-O] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No(s). 119 of 2013. From the Judgment and Order dated 01.03.2012 of the B High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No. . 787 of2007. Altaf Ahmad, Sr. Adv., E. C. Vidya Sagar, Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, Ms. Jennifer John, Ms. Kheyali Sarkar,Advs. for the c Appellants. · Parikshit Angadi, V. N. Raghupathy, Adv$. for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J. 1. This appeal, at the instance of accused Nos.1to3 is directed against the judgment of the Division Be
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.