LexSHIVRAJ BAPURAY JADHAV AND ORS. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
SHIVRAJ BAPURA Y JADHA V AND ORS. A v. STATE OF KARNATAKA JULY 15, 2003 [DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASA Y AT, JJ.] B Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Appeal against acquittal-Interference by High Court-Victim assaulted C by accused with lathis, axe and iron pipe-Death of victim at the spot-Trial court finding discrepancies in evidence of eye witnesses and acquitting the accused-High Court on re-appreciation of evidence, convicting accused under ss. 302134 and 324 /PC-Held, the High Court having regard to the superficial manner in which the evidence was discussed, analysed and considered in a perfanctory manner by the &ssions Judge was very well D justified in undertaking the reconsideration of the evidence in their proper perspective in order to ensure that no miscarriage of justice resulted in the matter-Nothing substantial seems to turn out of the so called discrepancies, as were pointed out by the Sessions Judge, which appear to be merely trivial, not undermining the credibility or truthfulness of the evidence of the E witnesses-Defence could not succeed in pointing out any single discrepancy on any material aspect, which could be said to be either to belie or undermine credibility of the eye-witnesses-There are patent errors in the judgment of the trial judge as regards appreciation of evidence-This justified interference with the judgment of the tri'll court in the hands of the High Court-There is no reason to interfere with the judgment of the High Court-Penal Code, F 1860-ss. 302134 and 324. Criminal law: Motive-Jn a case which turns on direct evidence, the motive element G does not play such an important role as to cast any doubt on the credibility of prosecution witnesses even if there be any doubts raised in this regard. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 805 of 2002. 539 H 540 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003J SUPP. I S.C.R. A From the Judgment and Order dated 27.5.2002 of the Karnataka High B Court in Crl. A. No. 80 of 1997. Ms. Anu Mohla, for the Appellants. Siddharth Dave, Satya Mitra and Sanjay R. Hegde for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered : The above appeal has been filed against the judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court ofKamataka dated 27.05.2002 in Criminal Appeal No. 80 of 1997 where under the order of the learned Session Judge, acquitting the C appellants, came to be set aside and the appellants were convicted for offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 !PC, in addition to accused No.2 being convicted for an offence under Section 324 IPC and imposed the sentence of life imprisonment, with a fine of Rs. 2, 000 with usual default clause. The case of the prosecution was that there were some misunderstandings D and enmity between the family of the deceased and the accused on the question of sharing the ancestral residential house, that as the sequel to the same, on 27.05.1995, when the deceased Krishna Jadhav was returning to his house at about 11.00 PM, the Inmates of the house of the deceased heard the barking of the dog of accused No. I and when PW- I came out to find E out whether it was her husband, accused No.4 came out of her hut holding a stick and battery and started abusing the deceased. Thereafter, when the deceased told that he was not a thief entering the hut and why she had brought the torch and the stick, accused A-4 assaulted the deceased with a stick abusing him and she was followed by the other accused who w~re holding an axe, an iron pipe and sticks and all the accused started F indiscriminately assaulting the deceased with the respective weapons in their hands as a result of which the deceased fell on the ground in front of the house of the accused and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. The sub- Inspector of Police, PW-12, on receiving a telephonic message at about 12.30 PM on the following day recorded the information about incident in question, G visited the spot and after conducting an enquiry to ascertain the place of actual occurrence and visiting the same as well as collecting the other details returned to the police station, registered a Criminal Case being Crime No. 54 of 1995 at about 2.30 PM and submitted a FIR to the Jurisdictional Magistrate through PW-9 which reached the Magistrate at 1.00 PM. On receipt of the information of registration of the case by PW-13 the Circle Inspector of Police H Athani, he proceeded to the Jurisdicti
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.