PANDAPPA HANUMAPPA HANAMAR AND ANR. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation: [1997] 2 S.C.R. 529 · Decided: 28-02-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.K. MUKHERJEE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

PANDAPPA HANUMAPPA HANAMAR AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA 
FEBRUARY 28, 1997 
(M.K. MUKHERJEE AND S.P. KURDUKAR, JJ.] 
Indian Penal Code, 1860/Criminal Procedure Code, 197~Sections 302 
and 34-Sections 378, 386-Appellant charged with having caused death of 
B 
the deceased with common intention-Trial Court acquitted disbelieving C 
evidence on record-Reversal of acquittal by the High Court-On ap-
peal-Held : Findings of trial Court patently perverse-High Court fully jus-
tified in reversing the same-Conviction can be based on testimony of single 
eye witness if found credible-Hostile witness can not be discredited entire-
ly-No legal bar in believing testimony of hostile witness if co"oborated by 
other reliable evidence-Independent witnesses can not be discarded on the D 
basis of insignificant contradictions when nothing was brought out in cross-
examination that they were interested in the prosecution case or that they 
deposed inimically-Entertainment of doubt regarding actual time of occur-
rence on the basis of the time mentioned in the charge-Held : I"elevant and 
improper-Mentioning of time in the charge not necessary--Consistent deposi-
E 
tion of witness regarding time of actual occu"ence relevant and should be 
relied upon----Failure to explain minor injuries on the person of the ac-
cused-Does not affect the prosecution case-Prosecution owes no duty to 
explain on the facts and circumstances of the case-When it was proved that 
the deceased was unanned and the accused attacked him fully anned, minor 
injuries might have caused in the process. 
F 
As per the prosecution, the appellants had grudge against the 
deceased as he deserted their sister, who was his wife but was living with 
another woman. In order to take revenge, they alongwith another, attacked 
him at about 10 A.M. in the morning on December 16, 1986, when he was 
shelling ground nuts in his field in company of P.W. 1 and 2. They started G 
assaulting him with axe, knife and 'rimpage'. P.W. 2 snatched the axe from 
the hands of A. 2 and threw it away. But they continued the assault. Raising 
hue and cry P.Ws. 1 and 2 ran towards the village, to inform the other 
villagers. On their way they met P.W. 3 and informed him of the incident. 
A little later they found the appellants coming behind them with Al carry- H 
529 
530 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1997] 2 S.C.R. 
A ing the severed head of the deceased in his hand. PWs. 4, 5, 6, 8and11 also 
saw the appellants carrying the severed head a'ong the village road and 
then tying it to the village gate. P.W. 6 informed the police over phone about 
the incident. Police arrived at the spot, took photographs of the severed 
head and the torso, recorded the statement of P.W. 1 and treating the same 
B 
as FIR started investigation. After inquest the deadbody was sent for 
postmortem. The accused were arrested on the same night and pursuant to 
·their statement the weapons used for committing the crime were.recovered. 
After usual investigation the accused were chargesheeted under Section 302 
read with Section 34 of the India Penal CoJe and were sent for trial. The 
trial Court acquitted them disbelieving the evidence on record, entertaining 
C doubt regarding the actual time of occurrence and also considering the 
failure of the prosecution to explain the minor injuries on the persons of 
the accused to be against the prosecution. On appeal, the High Court 
reversed the order of acquittal holding that the findings of the trial Court 
were patently perverse. Being aggrieved, the appellants filed the present 
appeal. 
D 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The evidence on record condusively proves that the find· 
ings recorded by the trial Court in favour of the appellants are patently 
perverse and the High Court was fully justified in reversing the same . 
.E: 
[536-EJ 
F 
2.1. The trial Court was ~Tong in disbelieving the evidence of the eye 
witness, P.W. 2, who was a natural and probable witness and the defence 
failed to shake her credibility inspite of lengthy cross-examination. The 
trial Court discarded the testimony of P .W. 2 holding that there were 
discrepancies between the evidence of P.W. 2 and other witnesses. The 
discrepancies referred to are so insignificant and inconsequential that they 
should not have been considered at all as they no way impaired the prosecu· 
tion case. [539-A·B] 
G 
2.2. Another reason advanced by the trial Court for discarding the 
evidence of P.W. 2 

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