SRIPATHI & ORS. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation: [2009] 5 S.C.R. 309 · Decided: 04-03-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

'j 
[2009] 5 S.C.R. 309 
SRIPATHI & ORS. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 418 of 2002) 
_\ 
MARCH 4, 2009 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND 
ASOK KUMAR GANGUL Y, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 304 (Part II) r/w s. 34 - Deceased c 
succumbed to stab injuries inflicted by accused on account 
of quarrel - Co-accused had caught hold of deceased -
Conviction by High Court uls.304 (Part II) rlw s.34 -
Justification of- Held: Evidence of eye witnesses cogent and 
-7" 
trustworthy - Ocular evidence not at variance with medical 
evidence - Conviction of main accused does not call for D 
interference - However, evidence not specific as regard role 
played by other accused - Conviction of other accused by 
application of s. 34 not correct. 
The question which arose for consideration in this 
E 
appeal was whether the High Court was justified in· 
convicting the appellants for offence punishable u/s. 304 
(Part II) read with s. 34 IPC. 
- -) 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
. . 
F 
HELD: 1.1 As regard the plea about variance between 
medical evidence and ocular evidence, even on an 
casual reading of the evidence it cannot be said that the 
ocular evidence was at variance with the medical 
evidence. The High Court analyzed the medical evidence G 
and the ocular evidence to conclude that the evidence of 
-,I 
the eye witnesses was cogent and trustworthy. On going 
through the evidence it is satisfied that the conclusion of 
the High Court does not suffer from any infirmity. [Paras 
309 
H 
310 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 5 S.C.R. 
A 6 and 7) [312-A-C] 
1.2. As regard the plea of applicability of s.34 IPC, the 
evidence is not very specific as regards the role played 
by A.1, A.2 and A.3. It is the prosecution version that A.4 
8 
had the knife in his pocket which he suddenly brought 
out and stabbed the deceased. The conviction of the 
appellant nos. 1, 2 and 3 by application of s.34 IPC not 
correct. However, the conviction as regard A.4 is well 
founded and no interference is called for. [Paras 8 and 
C 11) [312, 313-G-H; 314-A-B] 
D 
Ashok Kumar vs. State of Punjab AIR 1977 SC 109 and 
Ch. Pu/la Reddy and Ors. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 
1993 SC 1899, referred to. 
Case Law References: 
AIR 1977 SC 109 
AIR 1993 SC 1899 
Referred to. 
Referred to. 
Para 8 
P.ara 9 
E 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 418 of 2002. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 30.8.2001 of the High 
Court of Karnataka in Criminal Appeal No. 326/1996. 
F 
Shanth Kr. Mahale, Harisha S.R. Hebbar and Rajesh 
Mahale for the Appellant. 
S.R. Hegde, A. Rohen Singh, Vikrant Yadav, Amit Kr. 
Chawla and Nishant Mishra for the Respondents. 
G 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the 
appellant and learned counsel for the State. 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the 
H Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court upsetting the 
' •. 
--
SRIPATHI & ORS. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 
311 
~( 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 
judgment of acquittal recorded by learned Sessions Judge, 
A 
l 
Bidar in SC No. 8/93. Each of the appellants was convicted 
for offence punishable under Sec.302 read with Sec.34 of the 
Indian Penal Code (in short the 'IPC'). 
-
3. The prosecution version, as unfolded during the trial, is 
) 
that on 22/9/1992 at about 8.15 p.m., in the course of an 
B 
altercation, Pandit (A.4) inflicted a stab injury on the abdomen 
of one Jagannath (hereinafter referred to as the deceased). The 
other three accused persons caught hold of different parts of 
-4 
the body of the deceased on being told to do so by the accused c 
No.4 Pandit. The First Information Report was lodged at 
about 11.30 p.m. The trial Court, on consideration of the 
evidence of the witnesses came to hold that the prosecution 
has not been able to establish the accusations. The State 
preferred an appeal after obtaining leave in terms of Sec.378 
D 
"" 
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code'). 
The High Court noticed that there were five eye witnesses to 
the occurrence, namely, PW.1, PW.5, PW.6, PW. 7 and PW.8. 
The last named witness was the widow of the deceased. The 
High Court on analyzing the evidence came to hold that the 
.. , 
acquittal as recorded was unsustainable and accordingly 
E 
allowed the State's appeal and convicted each of the accused 
persons in terms of Sec.304 Part II read with Sec.34 IPC. 
Accordingly each of the accused was se
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.