Karnataka High Court

Hanumantha @ Kunt Hanumantha vs State Of Karnataka on 31 January, 2025

Author: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav

Bench: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav

                                              -1-
                                                           NC: 2025:KHC-K:691-DB
                                                    CRL.A No. 200102 of 2018



                                                                          R
                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                                     KALABURAGI BENCH
                          DATED THIS THE 31ST 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.200102 OF 2018
                                   (374(Cr.PC)/415(BNSS)
                   BETWEEN:

                   HANUMANTHA @ KUNT HANUMANTHA
                   S/O SHARANAMMA
                   AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC:COOLIE,
                   R/AT: WATAGAL VILLAGE, TQ: MANVI,
                   DIST: RAICHUR.
                                                              ...APPELLANT
                   (BY SRI DASTAGIR SAB B. NADAF, AMICUS CURIAE)

                   AND:

                   STATE OF KARNATAKA
Digitally signed
by                 BY KAVITAL POLICE STATION,
BASALINGAPPA       NOW REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP
SHIVARAJ
DHUTTARGAON        HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH.
Location: HIGH                                            ...RESPONDENT
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
                   (BY SRI SIDDLING P. PATIL, ADDL. SPP)

                        THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S.374 (2) OF CR.P.C,
                   PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED
                   27.04.2018 PASSED BY THE PRL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS
                   JUDGE AT RAICHUR IN S.C. No.71/2016 CONVICTING THE
                   APPELLANT / ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 302 OF IPC.

                       THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
                   JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
                               -2-
                                        NC: 2025:KHC-K:691-DB
                                    CRL.A No. 200102 of 2018




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 is directed against the judgment of conviction

and order of sentence dated 27.04.2018 passed in Sessions

Case No.71/2016 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge at

Raichur (hereinafter referred to as the 'learned Sessions

Judge'), whereby the learned Sessions Judge convicted the

accused for the offence punishable under Sections 302 of IPC

and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life

and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default of payment of fine,

to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the

offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.

2. The abridged facts of the case are as follows:

The deceased Basappa in this case is the father of

complainant Basavaraja. As regards filing of the complaint

previously against the accused and trial ended in acquittal, the

accused bore animosity and ill-will against the deceased

Basappa. Against this backdrop, on 22.03.2016 at about 6.30

a.m., at Watagal village, the deceased visited the store of one

NC: 2025:KHC-K:691-DB

Bhogavati Basavaraj, to purchase coconut and while returning

home, on C.C road, the accused had a row with him where he

threatened the deceased saying he will not spare him and that

he would kill him. Following the row, he assaulted the deceased

with a knife on his head, left eye-brow and stomach. Owing to

this gruesome assault, his intestine popped out and the

deceased collapsed in a pool of blood. One Boost Basavaraj-

PW.8 was an eyewitness to the said incident, visited the

complainant's house to inform him about the accused stabbing

Basappa. Thereafter, the complainant along with his elder

brother, mother and other relatives made haste to the spot.

Upon their arrival the accused fled the spot along with the

knife. As Basappa had sustained bleeding injuries, PW.1 and

others called 108 for an Ambulance and shifted him to nearby

Hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries. Thereafter, the

complainant i.e., son of the deceased lodged a complaint before

PW.21 the then PSI of respondent-Police as per Ex.P1 against

the accused. On the strength of Ex.P.1, PW.21 registered an

FIR in Crime No.31/2016 dated 22.03.2016 against the accused

for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.

Thereafter, PW.21, investigated the case by drawing spot

mahazar as per Ex.P2, an inquest pachanama on the corpse of

NC: 2025:KHC-K:691-DB

the deceased was carried out as per Ex.P3 and the statements

of all witnesses were recorded. Subsequently, on 26.03.2016

he arrested the accused, based on his voluntary statement,

weapon used in the crime i.e., M.O.5 under Ex.P12 and M.O.6

i.e., shirt worn by the accused at the time of the crime under

Ex.P10 were recovered. Thereafter, on obtaining necessary

documents form the concerned authorities the charge-sheet

was laid against the accused before the committal Court for the

offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.

3. After committal of the case before the Sessions

Court, the learned Sessions Judge framed charges against the

accused for the aforementioned offence and the same was read

over verbatim to him. However, the accused denied the

charges levelled against him and claimed to be tried.

4. In order to prove the charges levelled against the

accused, the prosecution collectively examined 22 witnesses as

PW.1 to PW.22, marked 25 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P25 and

identified 06 material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.6.

5. On completion of the prosecution evidence, the

learned Sessions Judge read over the incriminating evidence of

NC: 2025:KHC-K:691-DB

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. Following the assessment of oral and documentary

evidence placed before the Sessions Court, the learned

Sessions Judge convicted the appellant/accused for the charges

levelled against him and sentenced him as stated supra. The

said judgment of conviction and order of sentence is challenged

in this appeal.

7. We have heard the learned Amicus Curiae

Sri. Dastagir Sab B. Nadaf, for the appellant and the learned

Addl. State Public Prosecutor Sri. Siddaling P. Patil for the

respondent-State. We have also perused the records made

available before us.

8. The primary contention of the learned counsel for

the appellant 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

NC: 2025:KHC-K:691-DB

evidence and documents placed before him. According to him,

though the prosecution relied on the evidence of PWs.1, 9, 10,

11, 15, 17 and 18, they are not the eye-witnesses to the

incident and according to their evidence, PW.8 informed them

about the incident and when they reached the spot, the

deceased was in a pool of blood and the accused was spotted at

the place of incident holding M.O.5-knife. Since they did not

witness the incident of actual assault, much credence cannot be

attached to their evidence. He further contended that PW.8 the

actual eye-witness to the incident, turned hostile to the case of

the prosecution. As such, the evidence of PWs.1, 9, 10, 11, 15,

17 and 18, are rendered uncredible. He further contended that

the recovery of the knife MO.5 and shirt of the accused MO.6

under Exs.P12 and 10 respectively are not within the ambit of

Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. As such the said

circumstances also remains unproved by the prosecution.

PWs.1, 9, 10, 11, 15, 17 and 18 are the close relatives of the

deceased who are the partisan witnesses, as such their

evidence cannot be relied upon to prove and establish the guilt

of accused. Additionally, he submitted that there are material

contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witness which

goes to the root of the case of the prosecution. As such, the

NC: 2025:KHC-K:691-DB

learned Sessions Judge erred by not appreciating these aspects

in right perspective and passed the impugned judgment which

is liable to be set-aside. Accordingly, he prays to allow the

appeal.

9. Per contra, the learned Addl. State Public

Prosecutor for the respondent-State contended that, judgment

under this appeal neither suffers from perversity nor illegality

as the learned Sessions Judge has meticulously examined the

evidence on record and passed a well-reasoned judgment which

does not call for any interference. He submitted that PW.1 who

is none other than the son of the deceased, lodged the

complaint i.e., Ex.P1 forthwith following the incident by stating

that PW.8 informed him regarding the incident; PW.8 along

with PWs.1, 9, 10, 11, 15, 17 and 18 rushed to the spot and

witnessed the deceased lying in a pool of blood and the accused

was in the spot holding MO.5-knife. Thereafter he fled the spot.

PW.1, has categorically deposed this in his evidence and PWs.9,

10, 11, 15, 17 and 18 have also deposed similarly in their

evidence. In such circumstances, the prosecution has proved

that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime. Nevertheless,

the prosecution also proved the motive for committing the

NC: 2025:KHC-K:691-DB

crime and recovered MO.5-knife and MO.6-shirt at the behest

of the accused under Exs.P12 and 10 respectively. Additionally,

the oral testimony of the above witnesses unambivalently

corroborates with the medical evidence of the doctor who

conducted autopsy on the corpse of the deceased. As such, the

prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond all

reasonable doubt and the learned Sessions Judge has rightly

convicted the accused for the charges levelled against him. In

such circumstances, there is no reason to interfere with the

impugned judgment. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the

appeal.

10. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective

parties and also on perusing the entire evidence on record

including the impugned judgment, the following points surface

for our consideration.

1. Whether the judgment under this appeal suffers from either perversity or illegality?

2. Whether the learned Sessions Judge is justified in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC?

11. In the instant case, albeit the prosecution examined

22 witnesses to prove the charges levelled against the accused,

NC: 2025:KHC-K:691-DB

however, it is redundant to delve into the nitty gritty of

individual evidence of all witnesses.

12. In order to prove the homicidal death of the

deceased, the prosecution predominantly relied on the evidence

of PW.12-Doctor who conducted the autopsy on the corpse of

the deceased by issuing postmortem report as per Ex.P17 and

also opinion on the weapon used in the crime as per Ex.P18. On

careful perusal of Ex.P17, stipulates the following four injuries:

"1. A lacerated wound seen on left zygometric temporal region of skull measuring 4 x 1 x 5 cm fresh wound.

2. A lacerated wound on left forearm 2 in number measuring 7 cm x 1 cm x 5 cm, other one 4 x 1 cm x 5cm in the middle of left forearm, one after another.

3. A stab wound in the left middle side of the abdomen above 4 cm from umbilicus intestine were outside the body. Blood was oozing from open wound."

13. Further he opined that the cause of death is due to

'shock and haemorrhage' as a result of stabbed injuries to the

abdomen sustained. Aside from that, he has stated that all the

injuries sustained by the deceased are anti-mortem in nature.

Further, the prosecution also relied on Ex.P3-inquest

panchanama, drawn by PW.21-Investigating Officer and PW.22

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:691-DB

is the witness for the same. Both these witnesses identified the

injures on the corpse while drawing Ex.P3. Hence, on perusal of

Ex.P17, the evidence of Doctor-PW.12 i.e., Ex.P3 and the

evidence of PW.21 and 22, we are of the view that the

prosecution has proved the homicidal death of the deceased.

Even otherwise, the defence has not seriously disputed the

homicidal death of the deceased.

14. To connect the accused with the homicidal death of

the deceased, the prosecution significantly relied on the

evidence of PWs.1, 9, 10, 11, 15, 17 and 18. On careful perusal

of the evidence of these witnesses, PW.1-son of the deceased

Basappa set the criminal law into motion by lodging

complaint-Ex.P1. By reiterating the contents of Ex.P1, P.W.1

deposed that the accused bore animosity and ill-will against the

deceased for previously lodging a complaint and filing a

criminal case against the accused, albeit the trial ended in

acquittal. As such, on 22.03.2016 at about 6.30 a.m., when the

deceased was out purchasing coconut at Bhogavati

Basavaraja's store the accused picked a row with him and

assaulted him with M.O.5-knife causing grievous bleeding

injuries. Owing to the assault the deceased succumbed

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:691-DB

forthwith. According to this witness, one Boost Basavarja-P.W.8

informed him about the incident. Immediately, he made haste

to the spot along with PWs.9, 10, 11, 15, 17 and 18 and

witnessed his father lying in a pool of blood due to the injuries

sustained and the accused was spotted holding MO.5-knife. On

spotting them, the accused fled the spot along with MO.5.

Thereafter, PW.1 called 108 ambulance and shifted him to a

nearby Hospital, where he was declared brought dead. PW.1

also identified MO.5-knife used by the accused. The evidence of

PW.1 clearly corroborates with the contents of his complaint

i.e., Ex.P1. All witnesses have identified M.O.5 i.e., the weapon

used in the crime. Albeit these witnesses were cross-examined

by the defence at length, however, nothing worthwhile was

elicited from them to discard their testimony.

15. PW.12 the doctor who conducted the autopsy

opined as per Ex.P18 that the injuries found on the corpse of

the deceased could have been inflicted by M.O.5-knife.

Further, the prosecution has placed the evidence of PW.7 and

PW.8 the witnesses for the recovery mahazar of M.O.5-knife

seized under Ex.P.12 and M.O.6 shirt of the accused worn at

the time of crime under Ex.P.10. Both PWs.7 and 8 the witness

- 12 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:691-DB

for recovery of M.Os.5 and 6 have categorically stated that

based on the voluntary statement of accused i.e., as per

Ex.P20, the accused led them along with police on 26.03.2016

and at his behest, the police recovered M.Os.5 and 6 under

Ex.P12 and 10 respectively. Apart from this evidence, PW.20-

the Investigating Officer also deposed backing the evidence.

Hence, the prosecution proved the recovery of the weapon

used by the accused in the crime. Although minor

contradictions are forthcoming in the evidence of these

witnesses, the same does not go to the root of the case of the

prosecution.

16. It is also pertinent to note that the Investigating

Officer sent the weapon and shirt of the accused M.Os.5 and 6

along with the clothes of the deceased i.e., M.Os.1 to 4 for FSL

examination and the scientific officer-PW.5 examined the same

and issued a certificate as per Ex.P7 opining that human blood

stains of B blood group was found on all the M.Os. As such,

M.O.5 i.e., the weapon used by the accused in the crime as

deposed by PWs.1, 9, 10, 11, 15, 17, 18 and the doctor's

opinion establish that the injuries sustained were caused using

M.O.5. Besides M.O.5 was recovered at the behest of the

- 13 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:691-DB

accused and the blood stains found on M.O.5 matches with the

blood stains found on the clothes worn by the deceased. Thus,

it is categorically established that the accused used M.O.5 to

murder the deceased Basappa on the fateful day.

17. No doubt, the sole eye-witness to the incident,

PW.8-Boost Basavaraja turned hostile to the prosecution case.

However, it is pertinent to observe that the place of incident is

situated within 150 feet away from the residence of PWs.9, 10,

11, 15, 17 and 18. This was proved by the evidence of PW.4-

Assistant Executive Engineer, who prepared a spot sketch-

Ex.P6. As discussed supra, it is the specific case of PWs.1, 9,

10, 11, 15, 17 and 18 that immediately after the incident PW.1

informed them and they all rushed to the spot, at that time, the

accused was standing on the spot by holding MO.5-knife and

they got to know that the accused is perpetrator of the crime.

The evidence of these material witnesses reads as under:

(i) PW.1-Basavaraj has stated that 'he along with

PWs.9, 10, 11, 15, 17 and 18 visited the spot at the time of

incident' they collectively witnessed the deceased bleeding

owing to the injuries he sustained, the accused immediately

fled the spot with an iron knife.

- 14 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:691-DB

(ii) PW.10-Holiyama deposed that, 'she along with her

sister and others visited the spot and on seeing them, the

accused fled the spot with the knife in his hand'.

(iii) PW.11-Somamma deposed that 'ahead of them

reaching the spot the accused on seeing them fled the spot

holding MO.5-knife.'

(iv) PW.15-Mounesh deposed that 'PW.8 informed them

about the incident, she along with others made haste to the

spot and witnessed her father lying in a pool of blood upon

being grievously injured and on seeing them the accused fled

from the spot'.

18. Hence, the evidence of these witnesses

categorically establishes that the accused assaulted the

deceased using M.O.5-knife and that he was spotted at the

place of incident holding M.O.5-knife and on seeing these

witnesses, he fled the spot with the weapon in hand.

19. In such circumstances, credibility has to be given to

the evidence of PWs.1, 9, 10, 11, 15, 17 and 18, albeit they did

not witness the accused perpetrating the crime, however, their

evidence falls well within the ambit of Section 6 of the Indian

- 15 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:691-DB

Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 4 of the Bharatiya Sakshya

Adhiniyam 2023, making these witnesses res gestae witnesses

to the prosecution case. Section 6 and illustration A to Section

6 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is extracted for the ready

reference here under:

6. Relevancy of facts forming part of same transaction.- Facts which, though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction, are relevant, whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times and places.

Illustrations

(a) A is accused of the murder of B by beating him. Whatever was said or done by A or B or the by-standers at the beating, or so shortly before or after it as to form part of the transaction, is a relevant fact.

20. Whereas, Section 4 of the Bharatiya Sakshya

Adhiniyam 2023 also reads as above with regard to relevancy

of facts i.e., Chapter II. Both Section 6 of the Indian Evidence

Act, 1872 and Section 4 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam

2023 describes the relevancy of "closely connected facts".

Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Balu Sudam

Khalde and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in

2023 SCC Online SC 355, in paragraphs No.46 to 49, it is

observed as under;

"46. We have also taken notice of one another aspect of the matter emerging from the evidence on record. PW 3 Nasir Rajjak Khan in his oral testimony (Ext. 10) has deposed that at around

- 16 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:691-DB

11.30 pm in the night, he saw 10-15 boys quarrelling with each other in front of a shop by name "Sai Car Auto Consultant". He has further deposed that at that time PW 1 Asgar Shaikh came and conveyed to him that he had suffered injuries on his head and hands. Asgar Shaikh also informed Nasir that he along with Firoz (PW 2) was going to the police station. Asgar further informed Nasir that Abbas Baig was seriously injured. PW 3 Nasir, on hearing the aforesaid from Asgar, reached the spot where Abbas Baig (deceased) was lying in an injured condition. It is pertinent to note that in the cross-examination of the PW 3 Nasir a suggestion was put to him that he had inquired with PW 1 Asgar Shaikh as to what had happened and Asgar Shaikh in turn narrated the incident to Nasir. This suggestion put by the defence counsel to the PW 3 Nasir was answered in the affirmative. This part of the evidence of the PW 3 Nasir is corroborated by the evidence of the PW 1 Asgar Shaikh.

47. The reason for referring to the aforesaid a piece of evidence is that the PW 3 Nasir Rajjak Khan (Ext. 10) could be termed as a res gestae witness. This principle of res gestae is embodied in Section 6 of the Act 1872:

"6. Relevancy of facts forming part of same transaction.--Facts which, though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction, are relevant, whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times and places."

48. In the case of Sukhar Vs. State of U.P. reported in (1999) 9 SCC 507, this Court noticed the position of law with regard to Sections 6 & 7 respectively of the Act 1872 thus:--

"6. Section 6 of the Evidence Act is an exception to the general rule whereunder the

- 17 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:691-DB

hearsay evidence becomes admissible. But for bringing such hearsay evidence within the provisions of Section 6, what is required to be established is that it must be almost contemporaneous with the acts and there should not be an interval which would allow fabrication. The statements sought to be admitted, therefore, as forming part of res gestae, must have been made contemporaneously with the acts or immediately thereafter. The aforesaid rule as it is stated in Wigmore's Evidence Act reads thus:--

"Under the present exception [to hearsay] an utterance is by hypothesis, offered as an assertion to evidence the fact asserted (for example that a car-brake was set or not set), and the only condition is that it shall have been made spontaneously, i.e. as the natural effusion of a state of excitement.

Now this state of excitement may well continue to exist after the exciting fact has ended. The declaration, therefore, may be admissible even though subsequent to the occurrence, provided, it is near enough in time to allow the assumption that the exciting influence continued."

7. Sarkar on Evidence (Fifteenth Edition) summaries the law relating to applicability of Section 6 of the Act 1872 thus:--

"1. The declarations (oral or written) must relate to the act which is in issue or relevant thereto; they are not admissible merely because they accompany an act. Moreover the declarations must relate to and explain the fact they accompany, and not independent facts previous or subsequent thereto unless such facts are part of a transaction which is continuous.

- 18 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:691-DB

2. The declarations must be substantially contemporaneous with the fact and not merely the narrative of a past.

3. The declaration and the act may be by the same person, or they may be by different persons, e.g., the declarations of the victim, assailant and bystanders. In conspiracy, riot, the declarations of all concerned in the common object are admissible.

4. Though admissible to explain or corroborate, or to understand the significance of the act, declarations are not evidence of the truth of the matters stated."

49. The rule embodied in Section 6 is usually known as the rule of res gestae. What it means is that a fact which, though not in issue, is so connected with the fact in issue "as to form part of the same transaction" becomes relevant by itself. To form particular statement as part of the same transaction utterances must be simultaneous with the incident or substantial contemporaneous that is made either during or immediately before or after its occurrence."

21. Applying the guidelines of the Hon'ble Apex Court to

the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view

that evidence of PWs.1, 9, 10, 11, 15, 17 and 18, carries

evidentiary value equal to that of eye-witnesses, although they

did not witness the incident. All these witnesses were well

acquainted with the animosity between the accused and the

deceased owing a previous criminal case. Additionally, the

- 19 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:691-DB

accused has failed to provide prudent explanation regarding his

presence in the scene who was spotted wielding a weapon.

Therefore, the evidence of the above witnesses can be relied

upon as per Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, as their

presence in the scene of occurrence and witnessing the accused

in the scene wielding the weapon connects the accused with the

crime. It is incorrect to hold that the charges levelled against

the accused have not been proved for the reasons that the sole

eyewitness to the crime turned hostile, when there are cogent

evidence of other material witnesses placed by the prosecution

to prove and establish the involvement of the accused in the

alleged crime.

22. As the case on hand, rests on the evidence of

eyewitnesses to the incident, the prosecution is necessarily not

duty bound to prove the Mens Rea for the incident,

nevertheless, through the evidence of PWs.1, 9, 10, 11, 15, 17

and 18, the prosecution has proved and established that owing

an earlier animosity the accused bore ill-will against the

deceased and this drove him to commit the crime.

23. It is contended by the learned counsel for the

appellant that there are contradictions in the evidence of

- 20 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:691-DB

material witnesses i.e., PWs.1, 9, 10, 11, 15, 17 and 18. It is a

settled position of law, minor contradiction in the evidence of

material witnesses do not go to the root of the prosecution

case. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mallikarjun v.

State of Karnataka reported in (2019) 8 SCC 359, held in

paragraph No.13 as under:

"13. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be to assess whether the evidence of a witness read as a whole appears to be truthful. Once the impression is formed, it is necessary for the court to evaluate the evidence and the alleged discrepancies and then, to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the prosecution case. If the evidence of eyewitness is found to be credible and trustworthy, minor discrepancies which do not affect the core of the prosecution case, cannot be made a ground to doubt the trustworthiness of the witness."

24. It is also argued by the learned counsel for the

appellant that PWs.1, 9, 10 and 11 are the relatives of the

deceased and that they are the partisan witnesses to the

incident as such their evidence cannot be considered. The

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ravasahebgouda Alias

Ravasahebgouda v. State of Karnataka reported in (2023)

5 SCC 391, held in Paragraph No.17 as under:

- 21 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:691-DB

"17. "It is clear that it is the quality and not the quantity of the witnesses that matters.

Further in Paragraph No.25 of the said judgment, it is stated that "a witness being a close relative is not a ground enough to reject his/her testimony. Mechanical rejection of an even "partisan" or "interested" witness may lead to failure of justice. The principle of "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" is not one of the general applications".

25. Applying the above findings in the judgment of the

Hon'ble Apex Court to the instant case, the evidence of PWs.1,

9, 10 and 11 cannot be discarded merely for the reason that

they are the family members of the deceased. On the

comprehensive re-appreciation of the collective evidence on

record, we are of the considered view that the learned Sessions

Judge has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and has

passed a well-reasoned judgment. Therefore, the same does

not call for any interference.

26. With this, we answer Point No.1 in the negative and

Point No.2 in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

i. Criminal Appeal No.200102/2018 filed by the appellant/accused is dismissed being devoid of merits.

- 22 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:691-DB

ii. Consequently, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence 27.04.2018 passed in Sessions Case No.71/2016 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge at Raichur is affirmed.

Though the learned counsel Sri. Shambuling S. Salimath

was appointed as a counsel by the Legal Services Authority, he

expressed his inability to be present before this Court on the

date of hearing, as such we appointed Sri. Dastagir Sab B.

Nadaf as Amicus Curiae to render his assistance to the case.