R. PRAKASH versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation: [2004] 2 S.C.R. 281 · Decided: 11-02-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

.! 
-· 
R. PRAKASH 
A 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA 
FEBRUARY I I, 2004 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.J 
B 
Penal Code, 1860-Section 307: 
Accused persons assaulted the victim and injured him-Trial Court 
acquitted them holding prOSf!CUlion witnesses as interested witnesses and their C 
evidence not cogent and credible-High Court affirming acquittal of all except 
A-I-Convicted and sentenced him under Section 307-0n appeal, Held: 
Eyewitnesses related to deceased/injured-Raising doubts/suspicion on their 
evidence without any supporting material-Though these eyewitnesses resiled 
from evidence to some extent, their evidence does not get wiped out in toto, D 
and their evidence can not be discarded~Hence, the High Court rightly acted 
on such evidence to convict the accused 
Conviction under Section 307-Courl has to see that whether the overt 
act was committed with the intemionlknow/edge and under the circumstances 
as mentioned in the Section--Evidence clearly established commission of offence E 
uls 307-Merely because injuries inflicted on the victim were in the nature of 
simple hurt, acquittal of accused not justified. 
Accused persons quarreled with the victim, PW3. Appellant-Accused 
(A-1) brought a weapon (Machu) and assaulted him on his head. The 
victim fell down, and he was taken to a hospital. A complaint was lodged F 
and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted. Trial 
Court did not rely on the evidence of eyewitnesses on the ground that they 
were friendly with the victim, and thus interested witnesses. It also found 
their evidenc~ not very cogent and credible, and acquitted them. On 
appeal, High Court confirmed acquittal of all but A-1, and convicted and G 
sentenced him for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC .. Hence 
the present appeal. 
It was contended for the appellant-accused (A-1) that since cogent 
reasons were given to discard evidence of the injured witness/v!ctim and 
281' -
. 
H 
282 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2004] 2 S.C.R. 
A some of the eyewitnesses did not support the case of the prosecution, order 
of the Trial Court acquitting Al ought not to be interfered with by the 
High Court; that the genesis of the controversy had not been established; 
and that offence under Section 307 IPC was not made out. 
On behalf of the respondent-State, it was submitted that the High 
B Court arrived at its findings· only on the basis of cogent and credible 
evidence of the victim; that the evidence of eyewitnesses/victim was 
discarded on unsustainable grounds. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
C 
HELD: 1.1. The Trial Court referred to the evidence of the 
eyewitnesses and discarded on the ground th~t the eyewitnesses were 
friendly with PW3, the victim. Trial Court did not indicate any plausible 
reason as to how their evidence suffer from any infirmity otherwise. It is 
a fairly well settled position in law that the evidence of a witness who is 
o . related to either the deceased or the injured not to be automatically 
rejected, notwithstanding the fact th·at it is cogent, credible and 
trustworthy. The reasons indicated by the Trial Court to discard the . 
evidence have no acceptable or supportable basis. So far as genesis of 
controversy is concerned, the Trial Court itself with reference to the 
evidence came to hoid that there was exchange of hot words between the 
E accused and the victim. The Trial Court has even gone to the extent that 
there was no ostensible reason for vietim to abuse A-1 during the course 
of such occurrence. It cannot be said that genesis of the occurrence has 
not been. established. Ttie Trial Court's observation is merely a cryptic 
observation .of general f!atu're that.it appears to be suspicious, is without 
F any material t~ support the conclu.sion an~ is'lndefensible. The High Court 
has rightly acted on the evidence of victim and other eyewitnesses. Even 
though PWsl and ~ had resiled from the statements made during 
investigation to some extent, their evidence does, not ge~ wiped out in toto. 
f285-A, El 
G 
1.2. The .evidence of the eyewitnesses go _to show that they tried. to 
intervene and save the victim from being assaulted by A-1 but he.continued 
to assault him. The first blow was on a vital part, that is on the temporal 
. region. Even though other. blows \\;~re on .. non.-vital parts, that docs not 
take aw~y the rigor of Section 3.07 WC; that in spite of interference by 
five persons, tl~e accused c~nti~ued -to assault 

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