LexSTATE OF KARNATAKA versus K. YARAPPA REDDY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
STATE OF KARNATAKA A v. K. YARAPP A REDDY OCTOBER 5, 1999 [K.T. THOMAS AND A.P. MISRA, JJ.] B Penal Code, 1860-Sec. 302-Murder inside a house-Testimony of eye witness, an inmate of that house--Su"ender of chopper by accused-Convic- tion and sentence by trial court-On appeal, High Court disbelieving the eye witness and holding that injuries on the deceased could not have been caused C by chopper, acquitting the accused-Validity of-Held, the eye witness was most natural and probable witness stating the exclusive involvement of the accused in the murder-High Court not justified in disbelieving the eye witness on flimsy ground-Conviction and sentence awarded by trial court restored. Evidence Act, 1872 : Sec.J53--£xamination of a witness to impeach the credibility of another witness-Scope and requirement of Sec. 159-Refreshing the memory of a witness-Investigating of- ficer-Examination-Unable to depose without referring to the records-Per- missibility of Witness-Murder-Post event conduct of witnesses-Held, different per- sons witnessing an incident react differently-No set reaction from any eye witness can be expected. Criminal Trial : D E F lnvestigation-ll/egal and suspicious conduct of-Effect-Held Inves- tigation is not the solitary area of judicial scrntiny in a criminal trial-Rest of evidence must be scrntinised independently-Criminal justice should not G become the casuality for the wrongs committed by the investigating officer. Respondent was prosecuted for an offence under Section 302 of IPC. The prosecution case was that respondent-accused, a milk trader and 'R' had a love affair. When 'R's father came to know about the affair, he took objection and got a promise from 'R' that she will not marry against the H 359 ... 360 SUPREME COUIU REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A wishes of parents. Consequently 'R' expressed her disinclination to marry the accused. On the fateful day, accused went to the office of 'R' and took her on his motorcycle to the house of a family friend, PW-11. Accused introduced 'R' as his would be bride. PW-11 after supplying coffee to the guests went inside leaving the couple undisturbed. Respondent whipped B out a chopper from his bag and inflicted murderous blows on 'R'. On hearing her cry PW-11 rushed to the spot and found 'R' lying down bleeding. Respondent fell. on the feet of PW-11 with the blood oozing chopper and prayed to pardon him for killing 'R'. Accused then left the · house with the chopper. Later he went to the local police station and surrendered the blood stained chopper to PW-15. His statement was c recorded by PW-15, who then took him back to the house of PW-11 for showing the dead body. Post mortem was conducted by PW-4. The trial cour.t relying upon the evidence of PW-11, convicted and sentenced the accused. However, on appeal, Division Bench of High Court disbelieving the testimony of PW-11 and holding that the injuries on the deceased D could not have been caused by M.O. 16 chopper acquitted the respondent. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1. On appreciation of evidence there is no doubt that the E accused was murderer of 'R'. Thus, High Court erred in upsetting the conviction and sentence awarded by trial court. [372-E] 2.1. PW-11, the most natural and probable witness to the occurrence has stated about the role played by the accused in the murder of 'R' as F far as she has witnessed it. Her evidence admits of no other hypothesis except the exclusive involvement of the accused in the murder. The Division Bench of High Court disbelieved her on the flimsy ground that no neighbour has rushed to the scene after the ghastly murder. Whether the killer of 'R' was the accused or anybody else, when the fact is admitted that murder of 'R' took place inside the house of PW-11 and if no G neighbour had rushed to the scene that cannot be a reason to think that the murder would have been committed by somebody else. [371-F; 369-B-E] . 2.2. High Court also erred in disbelieving the evidence of PW-11 on - the ground that if she had seen the murder she would have cried out or H shouted. Criminal courts should not expect a set reaction from any eye STATE v. K.Y. REDDY 361 witness on seeing an incident like murder. If live persons witness one A incident there could be five different types of reactions from each of them. - It is neither a tutored impact nor a structured reaction which t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.