LexSHIVASHARANAPPA AND OTHERS versus STATE OF KARNATAKA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2013] 5 S.C.R. 1104 SHIVASHARANAPPA AND OTHERS v. STATE OF KARNATAKA (Criminal Appeal No. 1366 of 2007 etc.) MAY 7, 2013 [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860- ss. 143, 147,448,302 and 201 rlw. s. 149 - Prosecution under - Acquittal by trial court on the C ground that in view of unnatural behaviour of witnesses, it was not safe to convict the accused on the basis of their evidence - High Court convicted all the accused - Held: Trial court rightly disbelieved the evidence of the witnesses treating their conduct as unnatural - There were no compelling o circumstances requiring a reversal of judgment of acquittal - Conviction order passed by High Court set aside. Appeal - Criminal appeal - Against acquittal - Scope of - Held: Powers of the appellate court in appeal against E acquittal are extensive and plenary to review and reconsider the evidence and interfere with acquittal -But such interference should be on the basis of absolute assurance of the guilt, and not on the basis that another possible view or different view could be taken. F Witness: Child witness - reliance on - Held: Testimony of child witness, if credible, truthful and corroborated, can form basis for conviction - However, corroboration is not mandatory, but G should be followed as a rule of prudence. H Behaviour of witness - Relevance of - For reliance on the testimony of the witness - Held : Behaviour of witnesses or their reactions differ from situation to situation and individual 1104 SHIVASHARANAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 1105 to individual - But if the behaviour is absolutely unnatural, the A testimony of witness may not deserve credence and acceptance. The appellant accused were prosecuted ulss. 143, 147, 448, 302 and 201 rlw. s. 149 IPC. The prosecution 8 case was that there was dispute, regarding some land, between the deceased and her mother-in-law (accused since deceased). During night, when the deceased was sleeping with her eleven years old daughter (PW-9) in her father's C house, her mother-in-law along with appellants-accused came and forcibly took the deceased along with them and threatened PW-9. After the accused persons had gone away, PW-9 went to her maternal grandmother (PW- 7), who was living along with her another daughter at that D point of time, and informed her about the incident. PWs 7 and 9 did not tell about the incident to anyone. Dead body of the deceased was discovered in a well after two days of the incident. The trial against mother-in-law of the deceased abated due to her death. Trial court acquitted E all the accused inter a/ia holding that in view of unnatural behaviour of PW-7, in not informing about the incident to anyone, the sole testimony of the child witness (PW-9) could not be relied upon. High Court convicted them to life imprisonment. Hence, the present appeal. F Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the High Court has a duty to scrutinize the evidence and sometimes it is an obligation on the part of G the High Court to do so. The power is not curtailed by any of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. While reappreciating and reconsidering the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is based, certain other principles pertaining to other facets are to be borne in H 1106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013) 5 S.G.R. A mind. The High Court is also required to see that unless there are substantial and compelling circumstances, the order of acquittal is not required to be reversed in appeal. [Para 12] [1114-D-E; 1115-B-C] 8 Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade and Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra AIR1973 SC 2622: 1974 (1) SCR 489; Girija Prasad (dead) by LRs. vs.State of M. P. (2007) 7 SCC 625: 2007 (9) SCR 483; State of Goa vs.Sanjay Thakran ( 2007) 3 SCC 755: 2007 (3) SCR 507; Chandrappa vs. State of Kamataka (2007) 4 SCC 415: 2007 (2) SCR 630; State of C Rajasthan vs. Shera Ram@ Vishnu Dutta (2012) 1SCC602: 2011 (15) SCR 485 - relied on. 1.2. True it is, the powers of the appellate court in an appeal against acquittal are extensive and plenary in D nature to review and reconsider the evidence and interfere with the acquittal, but then the court should find an absolute assurance of the guilt on the basis of the evidence on record and not that it can take one more possible or a different view. [Para 20] [1119-E-F] E 2. In the present case, the High
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.