RANGAIAH versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation: [2008] 17 S.C.R. 396 · Decided: 12-12-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2008] 17 S.C.R. 396 
RANGAIAH 
II. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 992 of 2005) 
DECEMBER 
112, 2008 
[5.8. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 378 - Appeal 
against acquittal- Reversal of judgment of acquittal by-High 
c Court- Sustainability of - Held: Not sustainable - Judgment 
of acquittal should not be interfered with, if two views are 
possible - On facts, High Cou1 did not apply the right tesf 
for reversing the judgment~of acquittal - Findings of trial court 
were probable - It cannot be said to be wholly unacceptable 
o - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302 and 324 - Criminal Law -
Administration of justice. 
I 
According to the prosecution case, a quarrel took 
place between two groups of people of the same village. 
M had gone out of his house to take a cup of tea. During 
E the quarrel, the appellant stabbed M with knife. M was 
sitting near gymnasium. PW-6 t~ied to intervene .. , Appellant 
inflicted injuries to PW-6. M was taken to.the·'hospital and 
he died the next day. PW-6, PW-1-son of dece~sed and 
others witnessed the incident. FIR was lodged. Witnesses 
F were examined. Dying dedlaration was recorded. 
Appellant.was charged uls. 362 and 324 IPC. Trial court 
found that there were material discrepancies in the 
evidence of the prosecution witnesses, dying d_e~claration 1 
and FIR; ·and acquitted the appellant. However, t~e 'liigh ·· 
G Court holding that the findings of the trial court were 
perverse, set aside the order of acquittal. Hence the 
.present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
H 
396 
v 
... 
t-· 
RANGAIAH v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 
397 
ta. 
HELD: 1.1. A judgment of acquittal passed should 
A 
: 
not be interfered vvi!.h when two views are possible. 
..... 
Therefore, it is to. be considered as to whether the view .. 
~ 
taken by the Sessioris judge was a probable one; The 
fact that the incident fook place Is not in dispute. What is 
in dispute is the manner in whic.h the same took place 
B 
and whether the appellant had participated therein. It was 
not the prosecution case that the appellant was on 
inimical terms with the deceased or his family. Two 
.... 
~ 
·groups of residents of the same village had been 
quarrelling with each other. An incident took place within c 
a day prior to the date of occurrence. Police personnel 
were posted. A police van was also stationed. If the 
prosecution case is to be believed, two constables were 
standing near the place of occurrence. It is beyond 
anybody's comprehension as to why when one group of D 
people were chasing another group of people they did 
not intervene and why despite a police van being 
stationed, ~he deceased should have been shifted in the 
) 
hospital in an auto rickshaw. The place of occurrence also 
is not fixed. According to the prosecution witness, E 
deceased had gone out of his house to take a cup of tea 
near the hotel of P.W. 13. However, P.W.13 stated that he 
closed his shop at 7.00 a.m. Why more than two hours' 
time was taken for getting a cup of tea for the deceased 
is again beyond anybody's comprehension. Whereas 
F 
according to the dying declaration the deceased was 
sitting on a pial of his house, where the incident is said 
to have taken place; according to P.Ws 1 and 6, the place 
of occurrence was near the 'Garadimane'. [Para 17] [410-
C-H; 411-A] 
G 
1.2. Both in the FIR as also in the-dying declaration,. 
the name of R was already stated but no charge sheet 
was filed against him. No explanation has been offered 
CJS to why he was. not charge-sheeted. No explanation 
has also been offered as to why the dying declaration 
H 
could not be recorded by a judicial officer. The doctor on 
398 
SUPREME COURT REP;ORTS 
[2008] 17 S.C.R. 
A the basis of whose certificate, P.W. 23-lnvestigating Officer 
recorded the dying declaration, was not examined. At the 
time of recording of the dying declaration, the deceased 
was surrounded by his own people. Therefore, the 
veracity of the said statement cannot be said to be 
B completely beyond doubt. [Para 18] [411-A-C] 
1.3. The prosecution version is totally different from 
the dying declaration. The alleged participation of R had 
been totally ignored by the High Court. It could not have 
been done for the purpose of judging the truthfulness or 
c otherwise of the dying declaration. The statement of the 
deceased made in his dying declaration was required to 
be considered from the said perspective. (Para 19] [413-
E-F]

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