LexVENKATEGOWDA AND ORS. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
VENKATEGOWDA AND ORS. A v. ST A TE OF KARNA T AKA NOVEMBER 6, 2006 [A.K. MATHUR AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] B Criminal Trial FIR-Delay in lodging FIR-Effect-Held, delay in lodging FIR not fatal in every case of ocular version of eye witnessES is reliable and C trustworthy-Prosecution explaining reason for delay and testimony of injured witnesses found credible-In the facts, held, delay in lodging FIR not fatal to prosecution case-Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 143, 148 and 326 read with Section 149. Appreciation of evidence-Discrepancies in the testimony of witness- D Witnesses examined in Court after gap of ten years from date of occurrence- Cross-examination taking place after long gap after recording of examinations- in-chief-Witnesses subjected to searching lengthy cross.-:..examination-Held, some improvements, contradictions and omissions bound to occur in such type of cross-examination-Discrepancies minor, insignificant and not of serious E nature and cannot be treated as vital and significant contradictions-In the facts, held, evidence of witnesses natural, convincing and trust-worthy and fully establishing prosecution case against some accused persons. Prosecution alleged that on 4.11.1986 when PWl, PW3, PWtO and V were returning to their village accused person A-1 who was standing in F front of his house armed with a chopper picked up a quarrel with them and accused persons A-1 to A-5 assaulted them with spear, club and chopper and caused injuries to V, PWl and PW3. PWl, PW3 and PWlO escaped leaving behind V in an injured condition. PWl got the FIR registered on the next day at 10 a.m. Police visited scene of occurrence at G 12:00 noon and found V lying injured. V was taken to hospital and he died in hospital on 4.2.1987. Accused persons A-1 to A-18 were tried for offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 on the allegations that all of them formed themselves into an unlawful assembly to cause death of V and in 373 II 374 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 8 S.C.R. A prosecution of the same, they murdered V and caused injuries to PWl and PW3. Trial Court acquitted all accused persons on the ground that there was delay in lodging FIR and that there were contradictions and improvements between the ocular evidence of PWl, PW2, PW3 and PWlO. High Court in appeal found accused persons A-1 to A-18 guilty of offences under Sections 143, 148 and 326 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and B sentenced each one of them to undergo five years imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. Hence this appeal by the accused persons. C Appellants contended that they had been falsely implicated in the case after due deliberation because of prior enmity with complainant party; that there was delay in lodging FIR with police; that FIR had come into existence after due deliberations; that there were discrepancies and improvements in the evidence of PWl, PW2 and PW3 which were sufficient to doubt correctness of prosecution case; and that PWl, PW2 D and PW3 were interested witnesses. Partly allowing the appeal, the Court. HELD: 1. On reprisal of the evidence of the injured witnesses P.W.l and P.W.3 as also the evidence of eyewitness P.W.2, it is clear that the E evidence on record fully establishes the case of the prosecution against A- l, A-2, A-3, A-4 and A-5 although, there were certain discrepancies in the testimony of the injured witnesses and eyewitness in regard to the weapons of offence individually used by A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4 and A-5 for inflicting injuries on the person of each of the injured witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.3 as also on the person of the deceased V. The discrepancies are minor and F insignificant. The witnesses were examined in the court after a gap of almost ten years. The injured witnesses were cross-examined not on the very same day when their examinations-in-chief was conducted, but their evidence was recorded after a long gap of time. Further evidence on record would show that the inured witnesses had beeh,. subjected to searching G lengthy cross-examination and questions numbering more than hundred were being put to each witness. In such type o~f cross-examination by the defence, some improvements, contradictions, and omissions are bound to occur in their evidence, but they are not of se
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.