LexSANGAPPA SANGANABASAPPA M. & ORS. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 11 S.C.R. 459
SANGAPPA SANGANABASAPPA M. & ORS.
A
v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 436 of 2006)
SEPTEMBER 13, 2010
[B. SUDERSHAN REDDY AND SURINDER SINGH
NIJJAR, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860:
s. 302134 - Double murder - Seven persons prosecuted
for commission of offences punishable u/s 3021149 -
Acquittal by trial court - Conviction by High Court of 3 of the
accused u/s 302134 - HELD: High Court is perfectly justified
B
c
in reversing the order of acquittal passed by trial court which
0
totally misread the evidence of eye-witnesses - Trial court
committed serious error in rejecting evidence of the eye-
witnesses only on the basis that they were related to
deceased - High Court rightly held that their evidence, read
as a whole, ignoring minor contradictions and inconsistencies,
E
inspires confidence - Evidence -
Testimony of related
witnesses.
The accused-appellants (A-1, A-2 and A-4) alongwith
four others were prosecuted for commission of offences
punishable ulss. 148, 302 and 506(2) read with s.149 IPC.
F
The prosecution case was that on 29.5.1995, when PW
10, the daughter of PW 8, was returning home, A-1
attempted to outrage her modesty, but she was rescued
with the intervention of PWs 4 and 7. She complained of
the incident to her uncle {deceased 'Ir'), who chastised
G
A-1. Upon this, A-1 assaulted 'lr"s son (PW 15) on
2.6.1999. PW-15 reported the incident to 'Ir', the same day,
whereupon both 'Ir' and his brother 'K' (the other
deceased) went to A-1 in order to inquire about the
459
H
460
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010] 11 S.C.R.
A assault on PW 15. There all the accused armed with axes,
'jambiya' and stick, attacked 'Ir' and 'K'. A-1 inflicted
'jambiya' injury on the abdomen of 'Ir', while A -2 inflicted
axe injury on his head. In the meantime, A-3, A-5 and A-6
were stated to have overpowered 'K' and A-1 inflicted
B 'jambiya' injury on his abdomen. A-4 also assaulted 'Ir'
and shouted that he should be finished. Meanwhile, PW8
and PW 9, who followed 'Ir' and 'K' on coming to know
that they were going to A-1, reached the place of incident
and tried to intervene, but the accused threatened them
c with dire consequences. 'Ir' died at the spot and 'K' in the
hospital. All the accused were acquitted by the trial court.
However, the High Court convicted and sentenced A-1,
A-2 and A-4 u/s.302 with the aid of s.34 IPC. Aggrieved,
the three convicts filed the appeal.
D
Dismissing the appeal, the Court,
HELD: 1.1 The High Court is perfectly justified in
reversing the order of acquittal passed by the trial court
which totally misread the evidence of eye-witnesses and
E disbelieved them on fanciful grounds. The trial court was
carried away with the minor inconsistencies in the
evidence of prosecution witnesses for rejecting the
prosecution case. The trial court committed serious error
in rejecting the evidence of PW-8 and PW-9 only on the
F basis that they are related to the deceased. Their
relationship with the deceased per se would not be a
ground to reject their evidence. It is true the evidence of
interested witnesses has to be properly assessed and
carefully scrutinized which the High Court did in exercise
G of its appellate jurisdiction. [Para 12-13) [472-C-E]
1.2 In order to ascertain as to who caused the death
of 'Ir' and 'K', the sequence of events as is evident from
the evidence of PW-8, PW-9, PW-10, PW-11 and PW-15
has to be properly evaluated. There is nothing unnatural
H that 'Ir' and his brother 'K' proceeded to the land of A-1
SANGAPPA SANGANABASAPPA M. v. STATE OF
461
)"' .
KARNATAKA
,.
to question him as to why PW-15 was assaulted. by him.
A
There is enough material available on record to establish
that there was deep rooted enmity between the appellants
and the deceased. The origin of the whole sequence of
events is the incident of 29.5.1995 when PW-10, the
daughter of PW-8, was subjected to an attempt to outrage
B
her modesty by A-1. This incident is followed by the
incident of assault by A-1 on PW-15, the son of deceased
'Ir'. The events took place in quick succession. There is
nothing on record to disbelieve the evidence of PW-15 as
regards the incident that had taken place on the fateful c
day before noon which led to the assault on both the
deceased in the afternoon. [Para 11] [469-F; 469-H; 470-
A-B]
1.3 Since PWs 1 to 4 and 7 have been declared.
hostile, the entire prosecution story restsExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.