THE STATE OF KARNATAKA versus MOIN PATAL AND OTHERS

Citation: [1996] 2 S.C.R. 919 · Decided: 22-02-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.K. MUKHERJEE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

1 
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA 
v. 
MOIN PATAL AND OTHERS 
FEBRUARY 22, 1996 
[M.K. MUKHERJE AND B.N. KIRPAL, JJ.] 
Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 302/34/324-Murder--Conviction by 
Trial Court-Acquittal on re-evaluation and re-appreciation of the evidence 
A 
B 
by High Court-On appeal held : High Court order suff eling from glaring and 
severe e1Tors, based on conjectures and sunnises--Hence, set aside-Long C 
interval between acquittal by High Court and hearing by Supreme Court-No 
ground for not inte1f e1ing. 
Criminal Pi·ocedure Code, 1973-Section 157-F.I.R.-Delay in 
despatch or in its receipt by Magistrate-Prosecution case would not get 
thereby tainted when FIR was promptly lodged and investigation started on D 
that basis. 
Evidence Act, 1872-Section 114 III (gHailure to produce mate1ial 
witnesses--No satisfact01y explanation for non-examination-Held, entire 
prosecution case cannot be thrown out on the ground that there are other E 
independent witnesses whose evidence is reliable and tntstworthy. 
According to the prosecution, the two deceased, D-1 and D-2 were 
brothers and were closely related to the respondents. Their families were 
having disputes over some properties. On 25.06.1978, at or about 8.00 P.M. 
the four respondents went the shop of PW-14, where D-1 was setting and F 
assaulted him with axe and sickle resulting in his instantaneous death. 
Thereafter they went to the house of PW. 16 situated nearby the shop of 
PW-14 and similarly did away with D-2. 
PW-14, accompanied by PW-12 and others, went to the police station, 
18 kms away and lodged the FIR at or about 1.00 A.M. PW-23(PSI) G 
registered the case and sent a report to the Judicial Magistrate. He then 
held the inquest on the dead body and sent it for post mortem examination 
and also recorded and statements of some the witnesses U/S 161 Cr.P.C. 
The respondents were arrested and in course of search of their persons, 
two keys were recovered from R-2. Pursuant to the statements of R-1 and H 
919 
920 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
R-2, PW-24 (Circle Inspector) went to R-2's house and with the help of the 
keys opened the rooms, from where sickle, axe and some clothes, all of 
them were having blood stain, were recovered. On completion of the 
investigation, PW-24 submitted a charge-sheet before the Court of Session. 
B 
Relying primarily upon the ocular version of P.Ws. 14, 15, 16, & 17 
and the recoveries of blood-stained weapons and clothes pursuant to the 
statements and at the instance of R-1 & R- 2, the Trial Court came to the 
conclusion that the charges leveled against all the four respondents were 
made out by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly 
convicted them U/s 302/34 I.P.C. (on two counts) and also U/S 324 I.P.C. 
C against respondent No. 2. 
The accused preferred an appeal before the High Court, which on 
re-evaluation and re-appreciation. of the evidence, concluded that the 
prosecution had failed to establish its case and set-aside the conviction. 
D 
In appeal to this Court, the State contended that the impugned order 
E 
F 
of acquittal was based on misreading of the evidence, reliance on minor 
contradictions and injudicious reasonings. On behalf of the respondents, it 
was contended that the view taken by the High Court, of the evidence, could 
not be said to be unreasonable one because a different view could be taken 
and the reasonings given in support of it, collectively justified the order. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The judgment of the High Court, acquitting the accused 
from charge of committing murder was not reasonable but was laboured 
one. '.Material evidence had been ignored, unimpeachable evidence had 
been rejected on surmises and conjectures, undue importance had been 
given to and emphasis laid on trivial and ignorable contradiction and some 
conclusions had been drawn which were self contradictory. [928-A-B] 
1.2. The approach of the High Court was wholly against the weight 
G of the evidence. On the face of the evidence of the. witnesses PWs 12, 14, 23 
& 6 undue reliance on the contradictory statements to brush aside the 
prosecution story regarding lodging of the FIR, was completely unjustified. 
[930-F-G] 
1.3. Where the FIR was promptly lodged and investigation thereof 
H started promptly, a mere delay in despatch of the FIR and for that matter 
-
STATEv. MOIN PATAL 
921 
in receipt thereof by the Magistrate would not make i.he prosecution case A 
t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.