LexSHIVAPPA & ORS. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 5 S.C.R. 743 -r SHIVAPPA & ORS. A II. STATE OF KARNATAKA (Criminal Appeal No. 129 of 2006) MARCH 31, 2008 B [S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] ~ Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302, 148 and 149 - Murder - Several armed accused causing 20 injuries to deceased resulting in his death -Acquittal order by trial court - However, c set aside by High Court - On appeal, held: Variation between medical evidence and testimony of eye witnesses with regard to time of death not fatal -Testimonies of witnesses were wholly trustworthy- Delay in lodging FIR was sufficiently explained - No inference could be drawn that there existed a possibility of D false implication - Motive having been established and. also y injuries being 20 in number, U was sufficient to infer thatall accused formed a common object to commit the crime - Thus, interference with the judgment of High Court not called for. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s 378 - Appeal E against acquittal - Interference with - Scope of - Held: Generally acquittal order should not be interfered with as presumption of innocence of accused gets further ·strengthened by acquittal - However, there is no restriction on the appellate court to review the evidence on record and F interfere with the findings of the trial judge despite existence J,.. of compelling reasons - Therefore, interference by appellate ·court depends upon the facts of each case. According to the prosecution case, there was enmity between the appellant-accused persons and S and his G family members. On the fateful day around 8.30 P.M., eleven accused persons armed with weapons came to ,_ .... the house of S and inflicted grievous inJuries to him. S sustained as many as 20 injuries and succumbed to his 743 H 744 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 5 S.C.R. A injuries. The accused threatened the family members of -+- S who came to rescue him and as a result two family members-PW 9 and 10, fled from the place of occurrence and did not return during the night. The next day around 10 AM, the informant-sister of S along with her elder sister B lodged FIR. The family members of the deceased witnessed the incident and were examined by the prosecution, however, six villagers who were examined ... by the prosecution did not support the prosecution case. 1 The trial court acquitted the accused giving them benefit c of doubt. However, the High Court set aside the order of acquittal holding that the prosecution had proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence the present appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court D HELD: 1.1 Medical opinion is admissible in evidence like ail other types of evidences. There .is no hard and fast rule with regard to appreciation of medical evidence. It is not to be treated as sacrosanct. Indisputably, a large number of factors are responsible for drawing an E inference with regard to digestion of food. It may be difficult if not impossible to state exactly the time which would be taken for the purpose of digestion. (Paras 12 and 15) [753-C; 754~8] 1.2 PW-24-doctor, in his deposition, stated that he F received the dead body of deceased on 29.5.1994 for the. purpose of conducting the post-mortem. The autopsy was conducted on the same day between 12.30 pm and 2.30 pm. He opined that the death had occurred within 24 hours ~ of the post-mortem examination. According to him, G however, semi-digested food wa~ found in the stomach which shows that the deceased might have taken food four to five hours prior to his death. The Sessions Judge as also the appellant, laid great stress thereupon as PW- 12-sister-in-law of the deceased had deposed that food _,., ~ H had been prepared at the time when the incident took SHIVAPPA & ORS. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 745 -+ place and the deceased had taken food at about 10.00 A am. The High Court, however, opined that in view of the evidence of the doctor that the death occurred within 24 hours of the time of the post-mortem, the variation between the medical evidence and the testimony of the eye witnesses is not such which would lead to a B ... conclusion that the prosecution case was not correct, is ~ accepted. (Paras 10, 11 and 13) [752-E, F, G, H; 753-A, B, C, D] Bhimappa Jinnappa Nagan,ur v. State of Karnataka 1993 Supp. (3) SCC 449 - distinguished. c Main Pal and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Ors. 2004 (10) SCC 692; Shambhoo Missir and Anr. v. State of Bihar 1990 (4) se
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.