Karnataka High Court
Shivayya And Ors vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 January, 2025
Author: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:622-DB
CRL.A No. 200063 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 200063 OF 2020
(374(Cr.PC)/415(BNSS)-)
BETWEEN:
1. SHIVAYYA S/O RAMAYYAKALAL
AGED ABOUT: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
2. LACHAMAYYA S/O SHIVAYYAKALAL
AGED ABOUT: 27 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
Digitally signed
by RAMESH 3. RAMAYYA S/O SHIVAYYAKALAL
MATHAPATI
Location: HIGH
AGED ABOUT: 26 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
4. SHARANAYYA S/O SHIVAYYAKALAL
AGED ABOUT: 23 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
ALL RESIDENTS OF BOMMASHETTI HALLI,
TQ: YADGIRI, DSIT: YADGIR - 585201.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI ARUNA SHYAM, SR. ADV.(VC) A/W
SRI GANESH NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH
RURAL POLICE STATION, YADGIRI
TQ: YADGIRI, DIST: YADGIRI
REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENCH AT KALABURAGI - 585107
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SIDDALING P. PATIL, ADDL. SPP)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:622-DB
CRL.A No. 200063 of 2020
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S.374 (2) OF CR.P.C,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT OF
CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 11.02.2020 & 15.02.2022
PASSED BY THE SESSIONS JUDGE AT YADGIRI IN SC
NO.17/2016 CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS FOR LIFE FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC.302, 120(b) R/W 34 IPSAND
IMPOSED FINE OF RS.50,000/- EACH AND IN DEFAULT TO
UNDERGO FURTHER RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR A PEROD
OF FIVE YEARS, AND ACQUIT THE APPELLANTS OF ALL
CHARGES.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV
AND
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K.,)
This appeal by the convicted accused Nos.1 to 4 is
directed against the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 11.02.2020 passed by the Sessions Judge at
Yadgiri (hereinafter referred to as the 'learned Sessions Judge')
in S.C.No.17/2016, whereby the learned Sessions Judge
convicted accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offences punishable under
Sections 302, 504 and 120B r/w Section 34 of IPC and
sentenced them to undergo rigorous-imprisonment for life and
to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- each, in default of payment of fine,
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of
NC: 2025:KHC-K:622-DB
five years for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and
120B r/w Section 34 of IPC. Further, it was directed that the
substantive sentences shall run concurrently.
2. The abridged facts of the prosecution case are as
follows:
The deceased Nagayya Kalal is the uncle of PW.1
Devendrappa. The accused No.1 Shivayya Kalal is the senior
uncle of PW.1. Over several years, there existed a dispute
between the deceased-Nagayya Kalal and the accused No.1-
Shivayya Kalal regarding bund existing in the landed property.
A panchayat was conveyed six months prior to the incident in
that regard. Against this backdrop, on 14.09.2015 at about
11.30 a.m., PW.1 was returning home, at that time, deceased
Nagayya Kalal had laid the raw green gram on the courtyard of
his house for drying. The accused No.4 Sharanayya Kalal came
riding a bullock cart, the cart passed over the said raw green
gram while one of the cows dropped dung on the raw green
gram, following which the deceased-Nagayya Kalal advised the
accused No.4 Sharanayya Kalal to warily take out his cart.
Enraged by this unsolicited advice, the accused No.4
Sharanayya Kalal picked a row with the deceased and assaulted
NC: 2025:KHC-K:622-DB
him. Thereafter, PW.1 intervened and consoled both the
accused No.4 and the deceased and sent them away from the
spot. Later, the deceased-Nagayya and his daughter P.W.3-
Yankamma informed PW.1 that the accused No.1 Shivayya and
his children i.e., accused No.2 Lachamayya, accused No.3
Ramayya and accused No.4 Sharanayya i.e., were searching for
the deceased to assault him. PW.1 advised deceased-Nagayya
to stay home. It was raining, as the roof had leakages, PW.1
while on his terrace attempting to stop the leakage witnessed
the deceased-Nagayya walking towards his house from the bus
stop. At this time the accused Nos.1 to 4 wrongfully restrained
the deceased-Nagayya Kalal and picked a row with him and
assaulted him. PW.1 forthwith on witnessing the incident
rushed to the spot along with his daughter-P.W.3 and his wife.
In the said skirmish, the accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 restrained the
deceased-Nagayya Kalal while accused No.3-Ramayya Kalal
stabbed the deceased's abdomen, chest and right portion of his
neck and cheek with M.O.5-knife thereby causing profuse
bleeding injury. Owing to the assault, the deceased collapsed
and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. Thereafter, all the
accused collectively fled the spot. Subsequently, P.W.1 lodged
a complaint before the respondent-Police on 14.09.2015 at
NC: 2025:KHC-K:622-DB
about 02:30 p.m. as per Ex.P1. On the strength of Ex.P1,
P.W.20-the then ASI of the respondent-Police registered an FIR
in crime No.218/2015 dated 14.09.2015 against the
appellants/accused for the offence punishable under Section
302 r/w Section 34 of IPC as per Ex.P18. Subsequently,
P.W.21-Investigating Officer conducted the investigation by
drawing inquest panchanama-Ex.P4 and spot mahazar-Ex.P5.
On obtaining the necessary documents from the concerned
authorities and recording the statement of the witnesses,
PW.21 laid the charge-sheet against the appellants/accused for
the offences punishable under Sections 302, 504 and 120-B of
IPC before the committal Court.
3. After committal of the case before the Sessions
Court, the learned Sessions Judge framed the charges against
the appellants/accused for the aforementioned offences and the
same was read over verbatim to them. However, the accused
denied the charges leveled against them and claimed to be
tried.
4. In order to prove the charges leveled against the
accused, the prosecution collectively examined 22 witnesses as
NC: 2025:KHC-K:622-DB
PW.1 to PW.22, marked 29 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P29 and
identified 5 material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.5.
5. On completion of the prosecution evidence, the
learned Sessions Judge read over the incriminating evidence of
material witnesses to the accused as stipulated in Section 313
of Cr.P.C. However, the accused denied the same. The defence
of the accused is of absolute denial and that of false
implication.
6. Post assessment of oral and documentary evidence
placed before the Sessions Court, the learned Sessions Judge
acquitted the appellants/accused for the offence punishable
under Section 504 r/w Section 34 of IPC, however, they were
convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120-
B r/w Section 34 of IPC and were sentenced stated supra. The
said judgment of conviction and order of sentence is challenged
in this appeal by the appellants/accused.
7. We have heard the learned Senior counsel Sri.
Aruna Shyam appearing on behalf of Sri. Ganesh Naik for the
appellants and the learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor Sri.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:622-DB
Siddaling P. Patil for the respondent-State, also we have
perused the records made available before us.
8. The primary contention of the learned Senior
counsel for the appellants is that the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence passed by the Sessions Court suffers
from perversity and illegality. The learned Sessions Judge has
grossly erred while convicting the appellant without duly
appreciating the evidence and documents placed before him.
He contended that the learned Sessions Judge failed to
appreciate the evidence of eyewitnesses i.e., PWs.1, 3 and 11
in right perspective. According to the learned Senior counsel,
their evidence suffers from severe infirmities. By elucidating
his submission, he pointed out that PWs.1 and 3 in their cross-
examination have categorically admitted that they have not
witnessed the incident and they reached the spot after the
incident. Moreover, P.W.11 one more witness to the incident
also admitted in his cross examination that PWs.1 and 3
informed him about the incident. In such circumstances, much
credence cannot be attached to the evidence of these
witnesses. He further contended that, PWs.8 and 9 are the
hearsay witnesses, before whom P.W.1 narrated the incident.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:622-DB
He also contended that the independent eyewitnesses i.e.,
PWs.4, 5 and 6 have collectively turned hostile to the
prosecution case. Further, the prosecution also failed to prove
the recovery of weapon-M.O.5 used by the accused No.3 while
perpetrating the crime as the witnesses for Ex.P21 i.e., the
recovery mahazar, PWs.17 and 18 turned hostile to the
prosecution case. In such circumstances, the learned Sessions
Judge by relying on the uncorroborated testimony of
eyewitnesses i.e., PWs.1, 3 and 11, convicted the accused,
thereby rendering the impugned judgment unsustainable under
law. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal by setting aside
the impugned judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge.
9. In order to buttress to his argument, he relied on
the following judgments:
i. Pradeep Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2023) 5
SCC 350
ii. Chunthuram v. State of Chhattisgarh (2020) 10
SCC 733
iii. Nand Lal and Others v. State of Chhattisgarh
(2023) 10 SCC 470
iv. Jabbar Ali and Others v. State of Assam (2022)
SCC OnLine SC 1440
NC: 2025:KHC-K:622-DB
v. Ramanand @ Nandlal v. State of Uttar Pradesh
(2022) SCC OnLine SC 1396
vi. Mr. K.R.Pushpesh @ Puppi v. State of Karnataka
in Crl.A.No.879/2016; DD 21.07.2023
vii. Nagaraja P.M. v. State of Karnataka in
Crl.A.No.348/2015; DD 05.01.2019
viii. Pradeep Narayan Madgaonkar and Others v.
State of Maharashtra (1995) 4 SCC 255
ix. Pulen Phukan and Others v. State of Assam
(2023) SCC OnLine SC 350
x. Khokan @ Khokhan Vishwas v. State of
Chhattisgarh (2021) 3 SCC 365
xi. N.Ramkumar v. State Rep. by Inspector of Police
(2023) SCC OnLine SC 1129
xii. Gurmukh Singh v. State of Haryana (2009) 15
SCC 635
xiii. State of Rajasthan v. Teja Singh and Others
(2001) 3 SCC 147
10. Refuting the above submissions made by the
learned Senior counsel, the learned Addl. SPP for the
respondent-State vehemently contended that the judgment
challenged under this appeal neither suffers from perversity nor
illegality since the learned Sessions Judge convicted the
appellants/accused relying on the evidence of material
witnesses i.e., PWs.1, 3 and 11-eyewitnesses to the incident.
All these witnesses have categorically deposed that, on the
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:622-DB
date of incident the accused had a row with the deceased and
that the accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 restrained the deceased while
accused No.3 stabbed him. The evidence of these three
witnesses clearly corroborates with the medical evidence i.e.,
testimony of Doctor-P.W.10 who conducted the autopsy on the
corpse of the deceased as per Ex.P10. The said Doctor also
rendered his final opinion as per Ex.P11 regarding the weapon
used in the crime. He further contended that albeit PWs.8 and 9
did not witness the incident, nevertheless they visited the spot
soon after the incident and PWs.1, 3 and 11 informed them
about the same. In such circumstances, evidentiary value can
be attached to their testimony. In such circumstances, the
prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all
reasonable doubt and the learned Sessions Judge has rightly
convicted the accused for the charges levelled against them.
Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal by confirming the
impugned judgment.
11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and also upon comprehensive perusal of the evidence on
record, the points that surface for our consideration are:
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:622-DB
(i) "Whether the judgment under this appeal
suffers from perversity or illegality?
(ii) Whether the learned Sessions Judge is
justified in convicting the accused for the
offences punishable under Sections 302 and
120-B of IPC?"
12. In the instant case, albeit the prosecution examined
22 witnesses to prove the charges levelled against the accused,
it is redundant to delve into the nitty gritty of individual
evidence of all witnesses, it is sufficient to appreciate the
evidence of material witnesses.
13. In order to prove the homicidal death of the
deceased, the prosecution predominantly relied on the evidence
of P.W.10-Doctor who conducted the autopsy on the corpse of
the deceased as per Ex.P10. On perusal of Ex.P10, the Doctor
has opined that the cause of death is due to 'multiple injuries
causing bleeding and Cardio Respiratory failure'. The Doctor
further opined that the injuries caused to the deceased are
anti-mortem in nature. Nevertheless, the prosecution also
placed the inquest panchanama conducted on the corpse of the
deceased as per Ex.P4 by P.W.21-Investigating Officer. P.W.2 is
the witness for the said panchanama. PWs.2 and 21 identified
the injuries on the corpse of the deceased. As such, a conjoint
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:622-DB
reading of the evidence of P.Ws.10, 21 and 2 i.e., the Doctor,
Investigating Officer and panch witness for Ex.P4 respectively
along with Exs.P10 and P4, we are of the considered view that
the prosecution has proved the homicidal death of the deceased
beyond reasonable doubts.
14. To connect the accused with the homicidal death of
the deceased, the prosecution has significantly relied on the
evidence of eyewitnesses-PWs.1, 3 and 11. On careful
examination of the evidence of these witnesses, among them
P.W.1 the son of deceased's elder brother set the criminal law
into motion by lodging Ex.P1, alleging that on the date of
incident i.e., 14.09.2015 at about 01:30 p.m., the accused
Nos.1 to 4 had a row with the deceased and the accused Nos.1,
2 and 4 restrained the deceased by facilitating the accused
No.3 to stab him. Accordingly, the accused No.3 stabbed the
deceased with M.O.5-knife on his person. Owing to the assault,
the deceased collapsed and succumbed to the injuries.
Thereafter, all the accused fled the spot. Albeit P.W.1 reiterated
the contents of Ex.P1-complaint in his evidence, on perusal of
his cross-examination he has categorically admitted that when
he reached the spot of incident, the deceased was already
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:622-DB
laying on the ground injured. This witness also admitted in his
cross-examination, that when he reached the spot, the accused
fled. The one more eyewitness to the incident i.e., P.W.3 the
daughter of the deceased deposed verbatim as that of P.W.1
and admitted in her cross-examination that the alleged incident
took place when she reached the spot. Hence, there is a clear
contradiction in the testimony of PWs.1 and 3 so also to the
contents enumerated in Ex.P1. Nevertheless, P.W.11 another
eyewitness to the incident also admitted in his cross-
examination, that he reached the spot after the incident and
PWs.1 and 3 have narrated the incident thereafter. Hence,
there is no corroboration in the testimony of eyewitnesses. On
careful perusal, there creates doubt in the mind of this Court
regarding their presence in the scene of occurrence at the time
of incident. Though P.W.1 lodged the complaint immediately
after the incident at about 2:30 p.m. on 14.09.2015 and there
upon the FIR was registered immediately, however, the same
reached the jurisdictional Magistrate at about 09:30 p.m. on
that day. P.W.15-Head Constable deposed that the distance
between the Police Station and the office of the Magistrate is
merely 2 kilometers. Further the column No.13 of the FIR
depicts that the FIR was sent to the Magistrate at about 03:30
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:622-DB
p.m. on that day. There is no explanation forthcoming for the
inordinate delay of 6 hours for the FIR to reach the Magistrate.
As such, as rightly argued by the learned Senior counsel, there
arises doubt arise on the genesis of the crime.
15. Further, though the prosecution has examined
PWs.4, 5, 6 and 9, the independent eyewitnesses to the
incident, however, all these witnesses have collectively turned
hostile to the prosecution case. PW.8 is a hearsay witness to
the incident. In the instant case, as discussed supra, the
evidence of PWs.1, 3 and 11-eyewitnesses to the incident are
untrustworthy eyewitnesses, as such even the evidence of
PW.8 cannot be relied to prove and establish the guilt of the
accused.
16. The prosecution also failed to prove the recovery of
M.O.5-knife used in crime at the instance of accused under
Ex.P21, since the mahazar witnesses for the same i.e., PWs.17
and 18 collectively turned hostile to the prosecution case. On
careful perusal of Ex.P21 and Ex.P22, it can be learnt that
these recoveries were conducted not within the ambit of
Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:622-DB
17. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Subramanya
v. State of Karnataka reported in (2023) 11 SCC 255 held
in paragraph No.78 as under:
"78. If, it is say of the investigating officer that
the appellant-accused while in custody on his own
free will and volition made a statement that he
would lead to the place where he had hidden the
weapon of offence, the site of burial of the dead
body, clothes, etc. then the first thing that the
investigating officer should have done was to call for
two independent witnesses at the police station
itself. Once the two independent witnesses would
arrive at the police station thereafter in their
presence the accused should be asked to make an
appropriate statement as he may desire in regard to
pointing out the place where he is said to have
hidden the weapon of offence, etc. When the
accused while in custody makes such statement
before the two independent witnesses (panch
witnesses) the exact statement or rather the exact
words uttered by the accused should be
incorporated in the first part of the panchnama that
the investigating officer may draw in accordance
with law. This first part of the panchnama for the
purpose of Section 27 of the Evidence Act is always
drawn at the police station in the presence of the
independent witnesses so as to lend credence that a
particular statement was made by the accused
expressing his willingness on his own free will and
volition to point out the place where the weapon of
offence or any other article used in the commission
of the offence had been hidden. Once the first part
of the panchnama is completed thereafter the police
party along with the accused and the two
independent witnesses (panch witnesses) would
proceed to the particular place as may be led by the
accused. If from that particular place anything like
the weapon of offence or bloodstained clothes or
any other article is discovered then that part of the
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:622-DB
entire process would form the second part of the
panchnama. This is how the law expects the
investigating officer to draw the discovery
panchnama as contemplated under Section 27 of
the Evidence Act. If we read the entire oral evidence
of the investigating officer then it is clear that the
same is deficient in all the aforesaid relevant
aspects of the matter.
18. Though this case is based on the evidence of
eyewitnesses and the motive does not play pivotal role in
proving the charges levelled against the accused, nevertheless,
the prosecution also failed to prove the motive for the incident
by placing sufficient and relevant evidence. The motive
projected by the prosecution in this case is that the bullock-cart
passed the courtyard of the deceased and owing to cow passing
faeces, the entire incident occurred. However, on perusal of the
evidence of P.W.1, the said incident occurred at about 11:30
a.m. on 14.09.2015 and the deceased was murdered in the
afternoon at about 02:30 p.m. Further, Ex.P1 enumerates that
there was a civil dispute pending between the complainants and
accused No.1's family regarding bund in their landed property.
In such circumstances, the prosecution failed to place cogent
evidence to prove the motive per contra, the defence taken by
the accused that owing to the civil dispute they have been
falsely implicated in the crime cannot be ruled out.
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:622-DB
19. It is the vehement contention of the learned Addl.
SPP that the evidence of PWs.1, 3 and 11 cannot be discarded
for the reason that they are the partisan witnesses and the
minor contradictions in their evidence does not go the root of
the prosecution case.
20. The Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Darya Singh
v. State of Punjab reported in 1963 SCC OnLine SC 123,
held in paragraph No.6 as under:
"6. There can be no doubt that in a murder
case when evidence is given by near relatives of
the victim and the murder is alleged to have
been committed by the enemy of the family,
criminal courts must examine the evidence of the
interested witnesses, like the relatives of the
victim, very carefully. But a person may be
interested in the victim, being his relation or
otherwise, and may not necessarily be hostile to
the accused. In that case, the fact that the
witness was related to the victim or was his
friend, may not necessarily introduce any
infirmity in his evidence. But where the witness
is a close relation of the victim and is shown to
share the victim's hostility to his assailant, that
naturally makes it necessary for the criminal
courts examine the evidence given by such
witness very carefully and scrutinise all the
infirmities in that evidence before deciding to act
upon it. In dealing with such evidence. Courts
naturally begin with the enquiry as to whether
the said witnesses were chance-witnesses or
whether they were really present on the scene of
the offence. If the offence has taken place, as in
the present case, in front of the house of the
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:622-DB
victim, the fact that on hearing his shouts, his
relations rushed out of the house cannot be ruled
out as being improbable, and so, the presence of
the three eyewitnesses cannot be properly
characterised as unlikely. If the criminal court is
satisfied that the witness who is related to the
victim was not a chance-witness, then his
evidence has to the examined from the point of
view of probabilities and the account given by
him as to the assault has to be carefully
scrutinised. In doing so, it may be relevant to
remember that though the witness is hostile to
the assailant, it is not likely that he would
deliberately omit to name the real assailant and
substitute in his place the name of the enemy of
the family out of malice. The desire to punish the
victim would be so powerful in his mind that he
would unhesitatingly name the real assailant and
would not think of substituting in his place the
enemy of the family though he was not
concerned with the assault. It is not improbable
that in giving evidence, such a witness may
name the real assailant and may add other
persons out of malice and enmity and that is a
factor which has to be borne in mind in
appreciating the evidence of interested
witnesses. On principle, however, it is difficult to
accept the plea that if a witness is shown to be a
relative of the deceased and it is also shown that
he shared the hostility of the victim towards the
assailant, his evidence can never be accepted
unless it is corroborated on material particulars.
We do not think it would be possible to hold that
such witnesses are no better than accomplices
and that their evidence, as a matter of law, must
receive corroboration before it is accepted. That
is not to say that the evidence of such witnesses
should be accepted light-heartedly without very
close and careful examination; and so, we
cannot accept Mr Bhasin's argument that the
High Court committed an error of law in
accepting the evidence of the three eye
witnesses without corroboration."
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:622-DB
21. Applying the guidelines of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the above case to the facts and circumstances of this case, as
discussed supra, the evidence of PWs.1, 3 and 11, create
doubts regarding their presence in the scene of occurrence at
the time of incident as they admitted in the cross-examination
that they reached the spot after the incident and that the
deceased was laying on the spot when they arrived. Hence, we
are unable to accept their testimony. It is a cardinal rule of
criminal jurisprudence that the burden in the web of proof of an
offence invariably lies on the prosecution to prove all the facts
constituting the ingredients beyond reasonable doubts. If there
is any reasonable doubts, the accused are entitled to the
benefit of reasonable doubts. At no stage of the prosecution
case, the burden to disprove the fact would rest on the
defence.
22. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mousam
Singha Roy v. State of W.B. reported in (2003) 12 SCC 377
has made an observation in respect of moral conviction that,
wandering on strong suspicion is not an option to decide a case
by the Sessions Court and held in paragraph No.27 as under:
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:622-DB
"27. Before we conclude, we must place on
record the fact that we are not unaware of the
degree of agony and frustration that may be
caused to the society in general and the families
of the victims in particular, by the fact that a
heinous crime like this goes unpunished, but
then the law does not permit the courts to
punish the accused on the basis of moral
conviction or on suspicion alone. The burden of
proof in a criminal trial never shifts, and it is
always the burden of the prosecution to prove
its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis
of acceptable evidence. In a similar
circumstance this Court in the case of Sarwan
Singh Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR
1957 SC 637 : 1957 Cri LJ 1014] stated thus:
(AIR p. 645, para 12)
It is no doubt a matter of regret
that a foul cold-blooded and cruel
murder should go unpunished. There
may also be an element of truth in the
prosecution story against the accused.
Considered as a whole, the prosecution
story may be true; but between 'may
be true' and 'must be true' there is
inevitably a long distance to travel and
the whole of this distance must be
covered by the prosecution by legal,
reliable and unimpeachable evidence
before an accused can be convicted."
23. The golden thread which runs through the web of
administration of justice in criminal cases is that, if binary
views are held on the evidence adduced in any case i.e., one
pointing out the guilt of the accused and the other to his
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:622-DB
innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should
be adopted.
24. Placing reliance on the above judgments discussed
above so also on meticulous examination of the evidence
comprehensively placed on record, we are of the considered
view that the learned Sessions Judge has erred while convicting
the accused for the charges levelled against them. Hence,
interference is required in the impugned judgment passed by
the Sessions Court. In that view of the matter, the appeal
succeeds and accordingly, we answer point No.1 in affirmative,
point No.2 in negative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i. The Criminal Appeal No.200063/2020 is
allowed.
ii. The judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 11.02.2020 passed in
S.C.No.17/2016 by the Court of Sessions Judge,
Yadgiri, is set-aside.
iii. The appellants/accused Nos.1 to 4 are acquitted
for the offences punishable under Sections 302
and 120-B r/w Section 34 of IPC.
iv. The concerned Jail Authority is directed to
release the appellant/accused No.3-Ramayya
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:622-DB
forthwith, if he is not required in any other
cases.
v. The bail bond executed by appellants/accused
Nos.1, 2 and 4 shall stand cancelled.
vi. The fine amount, if any, deposited by
appellants/accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 shall be
refunded to them on due identification.
Registry is directed to communicate this order to
the Jail Authorities concerned.
Sd/-
(S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
VGR,HKV
CT: PS
