RAVASAHEB @ RAVASAHEBGOUDA ETC. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation: [2023] 2 S.C.R. 965 · Decided: 16-03-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 13 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
965
RAVASAHEB @ RAVASAHEBGOUDA ETC.
v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 1109-1110 of 2010)
MARCH 16, 2023
[B. R. GAVAI, VIKRAM NATH AND SANJAY KAROL, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 – Victim was murdered – The trial
court and the High Court, despite most of the prosecution witnesses
turning hostile, found the prosecution case to be established beyond
reasonable doubt through the unrefuted testimony of PW-1 and
convicted the accused persons – The only point for consideration
on appeal was, whether eight men can be convicted based on the
testimony of a solitary witness, who was the only eyewitness to the
crime – Held: Presence of the accused on the spot is not disputed
by anyone – Witness, despite being cross-examined extensively, is
consistent in his testimony to the effect that the accused caught
hold of the deceased and inflicted serious injuries upon his person
– Though, the witness is not clear as to which one of the accused
had assaulted the deceased after he fell down, but then he is
categorical with regard to the role played by each one of them –
Testimony of the sole eyewitness PW-1 is worthy of credence,
trustworthy, truthful and believable and the prosecution had
established its case beyond reasonable doubt against all accused
persons – The findings of the trial court and the High Court upheld.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The presence of the accused on the spot is not
disputed by anyone of them. This Court may say so not only from
the line of their cross-examination of the witnesses but also it is
noticed hereinafter, to have come on record through the
testimonies of the witnesses, who despite not having supported
the prosecution on the issue of the accused having assaulted the
deceased, have supported on this count. Perusal of cross-
examination part of the testimony of PW-1 unrefutedly reveals
all the accused hiding in bushes at the spot. This witness, despite
being cross-examined extensively, is consistent in his testimony
to the effect that the accused caught hold of the deceased and
[2023] 2 S.C.R. 965
965
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
966
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
inflicted serious injuries upon his person. The accused had used
chilli powder as a weapon to stop him from fleeing away and pushed
him to the ground. Though, the witness is not clear as to which
one of the accused had assaulted the deceased after he fell down,
but then he is categorical with regard to the role played by each
one of them. The questions in respect of the testimony of the
sole eye-witness PW-1 being worthy of credence, trust-worthy,
truthful and believable are answered in the affirmative. [Paras 12
and 14][973-B-G]
2. Merely because no recovery was made from anyone apart
from accused Nos.2 and 4 would not mean that others were not
present at the scene of the crime; simply because a number of
witnesses had turned hostile, does not on its own give a ground
to reject the evidence of PW-1; and that PW-1 being the brother
of the deceased and therefore, is an interested as well a chance
witness, are untenable submissions. It is in the backdrop this
Court does not find favour with the submissions of senior counsel
appearing for the appellants that the conviction of eight persons
based on solitary evidence is not justified, particularly when there
is no vagueness in his testimony with respect to the role ascribed
to each one of the accused. [Para 21][978-F-H]
3. The role of PW-24 in drafting the complaint cannot be
taken as negative simply because he was an advocate and so he
paid attention to detail. PW-1 has stated in his complaint that he
does not know how to read and write. The person to whom the
role of summoning PW-24 to write the complaint may be attributed
or the discrepancy in drafting either on the instructions of PW-1
or on the basis of the notes prepared by the police is not so stark,
keeping in view the limited span of time within which all these
activities took place for it to lend credence to the grounds urged
in these appeals by special leave petitions with respect to the
approach of the Sessions Judge being entirely erroneous or illegal.
The genesis of the prosecution case cannot be said to have been
shaken or rendered doubtful. The complaint was alleged to have
been drafted by an advocate (PW-24), and not by the petitioner
with the help of the police personnel. Does it cast doubt on the
prosecution case? In this Court’s considered view, none. For, as
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
967
this Court ha

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