STATE OF KARNATAKA versus PANCHAKSHARI GURUPADAYYA HIRAMATH

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 705 · Decided: 20-12-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

.r 
\ ,. 
·~ / 
STATE OF KARNATAKA 
A 
v. 
PANCHAKSHARI GURUPADA YYA HIRAMATH 
DECEMBER 20, 2002 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND P. VENKATARAMA REDD! JJ.] 
B 
Penal Code, 1860; Section 302/Evidence Act, 1872: 
Murder-Conviction by trial Court-Acquilla/ by High Court doubting 
evidence of the eye-witness-Correctness of-Held, Since there are no material C 
contradictions or inherent improbabilities in the evidence of such witness, 
doubt raised by High Court is not reasonable-Conviction and sentence of 
trial Court confirmed 
Murder-Recording of two complaints-one by Police Officer and another D 
by Prosecution witness-Effect on the prosecution case-Held, on the facts 
and circumstances of the case, it is not reasonable to draw inference Ji-om the 
statement of prosecution witness that first report was withheld and another 
with different version was made out-Hence it does not demolish the case of 
prosecution. 
Discovery of weapon used in crime on the basis of statement of accused-
Evidence of prosecution witness-Effect on-Discussed 
E 
According to the prosecution, there was a land dispute between the 
deceased, and his brother. Though land dispute was settled, his nephew 
alienated the land to which deceased objected and there was a quarrel F 
between them. On the fateful night, when the deceased along with his 
friend, PW3 went for a walk and did not return till late night, PWI, son 
of the deceased, along with PW4 went for searching his father and noticed 
that accused attacked the deceased with a sickle and fled away. PWI, 3 
& 4 carried the injured to a nearby dispensary, and on the advice of the G 
Medical Officer when they proceeded to a major Hospital, and on the way 
the deceased succumbed to his injuries. PWI lodged a complaint in the 
Police Station and PW7, who conducted post-mortem of the dead body, 
opined that one of the injuries inflicted on the deceased was sufficient to 
cause death. Trial Court convicted accused-respondent under Section 302 
705 
H 
706 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A IPC. High Court acquitted the accused giving him benefit of doubt. Hence 
this appeal by the State. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. It transpires from the evidence of PWs. 3 and 9 (Panch 
B witness) that there were blood stain marks at three or four places on the 
walls of the houses and the prosecution could not explain the same. The 
High Court had taken a view that if this material was taken into account 
the version of eye-witness becomes doubtful. The doubt entertained by the 
High Court in this behalf is not reasonable doubt but a far fetched one. 
C As the scene of offence as well as the house where the victim's body was 
laid was too close to the said houses, there was every possibility of someone 
who touched or carried the deceased coming into contact with blood and 
thereafter touching the walls. From the mere fact that no one was able to 
pinpoint the particular person who rubbed his hands on the adjacent walls, 
it cannot be inferred that the entire prosecution case falls to the ground. 
D In fact it is PW3-the independent w'itness :who showed the blood stained 
marks on the walls of these houses to the investigating officer. If PW3 
wanted to give a distorted version of the incident, he would have refrained 
from showing those blood stained marks to the Police Officers. 1709-B-E) 
1.2. True, there is variation in the version given by PW4 and PW18 
E to some extent. PW4 deposed that he saw PWIS recording the facts that 
were being stated by PWI for about 15 minutes and then he came out of 
the police station. He further deposed that PWI was in the police station 
for nearly two hours. However, from the deposition, it does not follow nor 
can it be reasonably inferred that in the first instance, PWI gave a 
p different version of the incident to the police officer. It may be that _in the 
first instance PWi would have narrated the details of incident to PW18 
and he would have started noting the same for some time but that does 
not necessarily mean that there were two complaints. It is not possible to 
infer from the deposition of PW4 that the first report was withheld and 
another report with a different version was made out. 1710-A-Dl 
G 
1.3. PW3, an independent witness, would not like to involve the 
brother of the deceased wantonly. There are no material contradictions 
or inherent improbabilities in the evidence of PW3. The trial Court had 
rightly believed the evidence, but the H

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.