LexRAJENDRA @ RAJAPPA AND ORS. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 293 [2021] 2 S.C.R. 293 293 RAJENDRA @ RAJAPPA AND ORS. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA (Criminal Appeal No. 1438 of 2011) MARCH 26, 2021 [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 – s. 302 r/w 149 – Murder pursuant to armed assault – Deceased was assaulted with axe, stick, pickaxe and stone when he was coming back from work alongwith his wife (PW1) and elder brother (PW2) – Six accused – A-1 died – Trial court acquitted A-2 to A-6 – High Court reversed acquittal of A-2 to A-5 and convicted them u/s.302 r/w s.149, however, confirmed acquittal of A-6 – On appeal by A-2 to A-5 (appellants), held: Trial court erred in disbelieving the evidence of PWs-1 to 3 only on the ground that they were relatives of the deceased, forgetting that PW- 1 was daughter of A-1 and PW-3 was A-1’s wife – No reason for PW-3 to depose against her own husband making such serious allegations – Depositions of PW-1 to PW-3 when considered alongwith the documentary evidence on record and medical evidence of PWs-10 and 14, made it clear that their evidence was natural, trustworthy and acceptable – Injuries found in the post-mortem report were attributable to overt acts of A-2 to 5, as stated in the complaint – Contradictory portion of the statement of PW-14 not significant to discard the total evidence on record – As the view taken by the trial court was not at all a possible view and the findings ran contrary to the evidence on record, the High Court rightly reversed the judgment of the trial court by convicting A-2 to A-5 – From the evidence on record, it is clear that the assault was intentional which resulted in the death of deceased, and A-2 to A-5 had a common object, as such the High Court rightly convicted them u/s.302/149, IPC etc. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.378 – Scope of – Appeal against acquittal recorded by trial court – Held: Unless the view taken by the trial court is not a possible view, normally the High Court should not interfere with the acquittal recorded by the trial court. A B C D E F G H 294 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 2 S.C.R. Evidence – Witness – Credibility of – Held: Only contradictions in material particulars and not minor contradictions can be a ground to discredit the testimony of the witnesses. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD:1. In various authoritative pronouncements, this Court has circumscribed the scope of appeal under Section 378 CrPC, in cases where appeal is preferred against acquittal recorded by the trial court. Further, it is a settled proposition that unless the view taken by the trial court is not a possible view, normally the High Court should not interfere with the acquittal recorded by the trial court. There cannot be any straight- jacket formula to apply readily for the cases in appeals arising out of acquittal recorded by the trial court. Whether the view taken by the trial court is a possible view or not; whether the findings recorded by the trial court are in conformity with the evidence or not; are the matters which depend upon facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence on record. By re- appreciating evidence on record if appellate court comes to conclusion that findings recorded by the trial court are erroneous and contrary to law, it is always open for the appellate court, by recording good and compelling reasons for interference and overturn the judgment of acquittal by converting the same to that of conviction. [Para 10][303-G-H; 304-A-C] 2. In this case, the deceased; PWs-1 to 3; and accused were closely related. The trial court disbelieved the evidence of PWs- 1 to 3 only on the ground that they are relatives of the deceased, forgetting the fact that PW-1 is the daughter of A-1 and PW-3 is no other than the wife of A-1. In Ex.P-1 itself PW-1 has stated that there was dispute between her deceased husband and his elder brother (PW-2) on one side and her father (A-1) and his brothers on other side in respect of sharing of tapping of toddy trees. Further, PW-1 who was accompanying the deceased at the time of the incident, has stated in her evidence that at about 06:00 a.m. she, her deceased husband and also PW-2, together went to attend coolie work and when they were returning to their house, at about 11:30 a.m. assault was made near the hostel. It is quite A B C D E F G H 295 natural that in rural areas, going to work in early hours and coming back to their home around 11-11:30 a.m. to have their food. She has also clearly stated in her d
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.