LexRAZAK JINNESAB KARAJAGI & ORS. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] S S.C.R. 422 ~ A RAZAK JINNESAB KARAJAGI & ORS. v. ST ATE OF KARNAT AKA (Criminal Appeal No. 223 of 2002) - B APRIL 1, 2009 [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA AND B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302134, 201134 and 506 - c Prosecution under - Of four accused - Prosecution case based on motive, evidence of eye-witnesses and recovery of weapon of offence at the instance of one of the accused - Acquittal by trial court discarding evidence of eye-witnesses as interested - Conviction by High Court - On appeal, held: t- D Prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused Nos. 1 and 2 - Trial court was not right in rejecting the evidence of eye-witnesses as interested - They were - truthful and natural witnesses - However, prosecution has failed to prove the case against accused Nos. 3 and 4. E Appellants-accused Nos. 1 to 4 were prosecuted ul s. 302/34 IPC and accused No. 2 was further prosecuted uls. 506 IPC. Prosecution case was based on motive for killing the deceased, two eye-witnesses to the incident F and recovery of weapon of offence and blood-stained clothes at the instance of accused No. 1. Trial court acquitted the accused disbelieving the evidence of the eye-witnesses on the ground that they were interested witnesses. High Court convicted the accused, of the offences charged under. Hence the present appeal. G Partly allowing the appeal, the Court .,....- ~ HELD:1.1. The prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt against A-1 and A-2 and the H 422 -. :. RAZAK JINNESAB KARAJAGI & ORS. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 423 High Court committed no error or perversity in interfering A with the trial court's order of acquittal of A-1 and A-2. The High Court has properly and rightly re-assessed and re- appraised the entire evidence on record. [Paras 13 and 16] [435-G, A-B] 1.2. The High Court relying upon the evidence of PWs 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8 has concluded that though the prosecution has proved that there was no strong motive attributed to A-1 to A-4, yet A-1 to A-4 had some motive B to do away with the life of the deceased who was not residing at the place of the incident and had been C cultivating his land from a far of place in the State of Maharashtra where he was living with his family members. [Para 13] [431-H; 432-A-B] 1.3. The High Court found PW-1 and PW-2 most D natural and truthful witnesses, whose testimony was not rebutted and shattered by the defence on material aspect of the matter. The trial court rejected the evidence of the eye-witnesses merely on the ground that they are the interested witnesses and their presence on the day and E at the place of the incident was held to be doubtful. The evidence of the eye-witnesses is quite natural, satisfactory and believable to prove that after the incident due to repeated threats given by A-2 to do away with their life if they dare to make noise, PW-1 and PW-2 F for about one hour remained seated by the side of the dead body of the deceased at the place of occurrence and thereafter went to the house of the deceased at Maharashtra. The eye-witnesses, under the circumstances of the case could not be expected to rush G to the Police Station immediately after the occurrence of the crime or could have first gone to the village of the accused for seeking help from the villagers. The evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 cannot be rejected on the ground that they are relations of the deceased. It is well-settled that H 424 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R. A if the eyewitness is related to the deceased, his evidence has to be accepted if found to be believable and reliable because he would inter alia be interested in ensuring that the real culprits are punished. Both the eyewitnesses have been subjected to search in cross-examination by B the defence, but nothing tangible has been extracted from their evidence to create any shadow of doubt that they are not reliable and truthful witnesses. Therefore, the finding of the trial court disbelieving and discarding the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 - eyewitnesses on the sole C ground of stamping them as interested, partisan and parrot-like witnesses, is wholly unjustified and not tangible. [Para 13] (433-F-H; 434-A-F] 1.4. It is the evidence of PW-14 that disclosure statement [Ex.-P-13] was voluntarily made by A-1 and in D pursuant thereto, weapon of offence M0-7 was recovered at the instance of A
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.