[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Nagaraja Reddy vs State Of Karnataka on 27 February, 2026
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2119/2018
BETWEEN:
NAGARAJA REDDY,
S/O LATE MUNI REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/O MUDENAHALLY VILLAGE,
HAROHALLI HOBLI,
KANAKAPURA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562117. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. HASHMATH PASHA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. KARIAPPA N.A., ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY HAROHALLY POLICE STATION,
KANAKAPURA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562117,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,
BENGALURU-560001. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP)
2
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2)
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER
OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 04.10.2018 PASSED BY
THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
RAMANAGARA TO SIT AT KANAKAPURA IN S.C.NO.39/2012 -
CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302 OF IPC.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 21.02.2026 THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)
This appeal is filed questioning the judgment of conviction
and sentence dated 04.10.2018 passed by the Trial Court in
S.C.No.39/2012, on the file of the II Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Ramanagar sitting at Kanakapura and praying
this Court to acquit the accused for the offence punishable under
Section 302 of IPC.
2. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is
that there was quarrel between the deceased and the accused in
respect of taking of excess land in ancestral property by the
deceased Kunna Reddy and the same was questioned by the
accused. That on 22.11.2011, in connection with cutting of Bage
tree, there was a quarrel and when the same was questioned by
the said Kunna Reddy, the accused having ill-will, with a motive
to commit the murder, at 6.40 p.m. when the deceased was
coming in his bullock cart near the land of Mariyappa situated at
Mudenahalli, inflicted injury with the machete on his head, nose,
left thigh, left ear, left elbow, right hand fingers. As a result, he
died at the spot and case has been registered on the complaint
of P.W.1 and registered Crime No.414/2011. Thereafter, the
accused was arrested and spot mahazar was conducted and
recovery was made at the instance of the accused i.e.,
bloodstained chopper and also recovered the cloth in the
presence of the panch witnesses. The body was subjected to
inquest and post mortem and then recorded the statement of the
witnesses and having completed the investigation, filed the
charge-sheet.
3. The Trial Judge having received the charge-sheet,
took the cognizance and thereafter, secured the accused and
framed the charges. The accused did not plead guilty and
claimed trial and hence, the prosecution relied upon the evidence
of P.W.1 to P.W.16 to substantiate their case and also relied
upon the documents at Exs.P.1 to 17 and M.O.1 to M.O.12. On
the closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the accused was
subjected to 313 statement and the accused did not choose to
lead any defence evidence. The Trial Judge having considered
both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, comes to
the conclusion that the accused only committed the murder and
convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section
302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for life and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default of
payment of fine amount, to further undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of one year. The Trial Judge also
gave the benefit under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. for the days
undergone by him in judicial custody in this case.
4. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and
sentence, the present appeal is filed before this Court.
5. The main contention urged in the appeal memo is
that though P.W.1 is examined as an eyewitness, she is not an
eyewitness to the incident of murder. In the complaint it is
stated that her husband was murdered under suspicious
circumstances. It is specifically mentioned that she has
suspected, but not witnessed the incident of murder and hence,
she cannot be termed as an eyewitness to the incident. It is also
contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that it is
evident that the deceased Kunna Reddy had fallen from the
running bullock cart and sustained injuries. But the same has
not been considered by the Trial Court though the evidence of
P.W.4 doctor supports the defence of the accused. A careful
reading of the post mortem report Ex.P.5 and also the evidence
of P.W.4 doctor shows the death of Kunna Reddy not being
homicidal death. The motive alleged is too innocuous and it is
the case of the prosecution that quarrels were taking place
between the deceased and the accused in respect of the
ancestral property and hence, there was a motive. The Trial
Court committed an error in coming to the conclusion that there
was a motive for committing the murder. The learned counsel
would submit that P.W.1 categorically admits in her cross-
examination that Ramesh Reddy had taken her to the place of
occurrence and the dead body of her husband had fallen down
on the ridge gourd plants and there was bullock cart and
bullocks and the same has not received due attention of the Trial
Court. The Trial Judge gravely erred in placing reliance upon
Ex.P.9. In this case of circumstantial evidence, conviction is
based on the point of motive. The Trial Court has thought that
proof of motive would be enough for conviction. The Hon'ble
Apex Court has over and again laid down that motive is double
edged weapon and proof of motive is not sufficient to convict a
person for murder.
6. The learned counsel in his arguments would
vehemently contend that though P.W.2 was examined, his
evidence was not completed and hence, it cannot be relied upon.
P.W.3 is only a hearsay witness. P.W.5 is the Village Accountant
and P.W.6 is the Engineer, who prepared the sketch. P.W.7 is
the PSI, who received the complaint as per Ex.P.1. P.W.8 is the
inquest witness and witness for seizure of the cloth of the
deceased. P.W.9 and P.W.10 are the spot mahazar witness and
seizure mahazar witness at the instance of the accused and
recovery of machete and cloth of the accused and these two
witnesses' evidence is not tenable and both of them are relatives
of P.W.1. P.W.11 is the neighbour and his evidence is not
material. P.W.12 is the FSL Officer in respect of Ex.P.11.
P.W.13 is the Head Constable, who carried the FIR. P.W.14 is
the Head Constable, who carried the seized articles to the FSL.
P.W.15 and P.W.16 are the Investigating Officers, who
conducted the further investigation in the matter and speaks
about drawing of mahazar in terms of Ex.P.10 i.e., seizure of
cloth and weapon and also recording of voluntary statement of
accused in terms of Ex.P.14. The learned counsel would
vehemently contend that the admission on the part of P.W.1
takes away the case of the prosecution that she was not an
eyewitness to the incident. The recovery witnesses P.W.9 and
P.W.10 though supported the case of the prosecution, their
evidence cannot be believed. Though FSL report supports the
case of the prosecution with regard to the machete was stained
with blood, but clothes were not stained with blood and the
report is also negative. The learned counsel submits that FIR
reached the Court at 10.45 a.m. and there was no any
explanation for delay and with due deliberation fixed the
accused. The very foundation itself is very weak. The evidence
of P.W.1 is contrary to Ex.P.1 and the recovery is also not a
substantive piece of evidence.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant in support of
his arguments relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of NARSINBHAI HARIBHAI PRAJAPATI
ETC. v. CHHATRASINH AND OTHERS reported in AIR 1977
SC 1753 and brought to the notice of this Court paragraph No.2
of the judgment, wherein it is discussed with regard to the
bloodstained shirt and dhoti were seized from the person of
respondent No.1 and dharias were seized from the house of
respondent Nos.1 and 3. But those circumstances are in our
opinion wholly insufficient for sustaining the charge of murder of
which the respondents are accused.
8. The learned counsel also relies upon the judgment of
the Honb'le Apex Court in the case of MEHARAJ SINGH v.
STATE OF U.P. reported in (1994) 5 SCC 188 and brought to
the notice of this Court the discussion made in paragraph No.12
with regard to the FIR is concerned and the object of insisting
upon prompt lodging of the FIR is to obtain the earliest
information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was
committed.
9. The learned counsel also relies upon the judgment of
the Honb'le Apex Court in the case of KANSA BEHERA v.
STATE OF ORISSA reported in (1987) 3 SCC 480 and brought
to the notice of this Court paragraph Nos.12 and 13, wherein
discussion was made that the evidence about the blood group is
only conclusive to connect the bloodstains with the deceased.
That evidence is absent and in this view of the matter, in our
opinion, even this is not a circumstance on the basis of which
any inference could be drawn. It is a settled rule of
circumstantial evidence that each one of the circumstances have
to be established beyond doubt and all the circumstances put
together must lead to only one inference and that is of the guilt
of the accused. No such circumstances is warranted in the case
on hand.
10. The learned counsel also relies upon the judgment of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of BABUDAS v. STATE OF
M.P. reported in (2003) 9 SCC 86 and brought to the notice of
this Court the discussion made in paragraph No.4, wherein it is
held that the manner in which the alleged recovery is made also
creates a lot of doubt in our mind. It is seen from the evidence
led by the prosecution that at every place where the accused
took the panchayatdars and the police, according to the
prosecution witnesses themselves, there were thousands of
people present witnessing the recovery. The learned counsel
referring this judgment would vehemently contend that P.W.9
and P.W.10 are the relative witnesses of P.W.1 and hence,
recovery will not come to the aid of the prosecution.
11. Per contra, the learned Additional SPP appearing for
the respondent/State would vehemently contend that the
prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.9,
P.W.10, P.W.12 and so also the medical evidence of doctor
P.W.4. The doctor categorically says that the chopper was used
to commit the crime and the nature of injuries mentioned in
Ex.P.5 post mortem report is very clear that there were 13 chop
wound injuries. The recovery is made in the presence of P.W.9
and P.W.10 and though they are the relatives of P.W.1, the
same cannot be a ground to disbelieve their evidence and the
Court has to take note of whether the evidence of these two
witnesses are consistent or not. The Investigating Officer, who
conducted the recovery also clearly deposes before the Court
that it is based on the voluntary statement of the accused in
terms of Ex.P.14. The panch witnesses P.W.9 and P.W.10 were
secured and the accused only led them to the spot and produced
the machete and bloodstained cloth from the bush. No doubt,
FSL report is negative in respect of shirt and pant since,
immediately after the incident he washed his cloth and kept the
bloodstained machete and the said cloth concealing the same in
a bush and hence, the Court cannot expect the FSL report to be
positive in respect of shirt and pant.
12. The learned Additional SPP would vehemently
contend that the motive for committing the murder is that there
was a dispute in respect of unequal partition in respect of the
ancestral properties and defence was taken that the deceased
fell down from the running bullock cart, but the injuries are chop
wound injuries. The doctor's evidence is very clear that the
injuries found in the post mortem report could be caused by
using the said machete. The learned counsel also contend that
the FSL report supports the case of the prosecution that weapon
which was used to commit the murder was stained with blood.
The evidence of the Investigating Officer P.W.16 also
corroborates the evidence of P.W.9 and P.W.10. The learned
counsel would contend that there was no any delay in sending
the FIR and FIR was given to P.W.13 on the night itself. But he
carried the FIR in the morning, since there was no any mode of
transport in the night and the same has been explained by
examining P.W.13. Though P.W.3 is a hearsay witness, but his
evidence is very clear that on coming to know about the
incident, he rushed to the spot and came to know that the
accused only committed the murder. P.W.1 identifies her
signature in Ex.P.1, photographs Exs.P.2 and 3 and Ex.P.4 spot
mahazar and M.O.1 to M.O.6 are marked through this witness.
The evidence available before the Court completely points out
the role of the accused and the same is considered by the Trial
Court. M.O.8 machete was seized and mahazar was drawn in
terms of Ex.P.10 and M.O.8 was stained with blood and no
explanation is given by the accused in his 313 statement and
hence, the judgment of conviction and sentence does not require
any interference.
13. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant
and the learned Additional SPP appearing for the
respondent/State and also considering both oral and
documentary evidence placed on record, the points that would
arise for the consideration of this Court are:
(i) Whether the Trial Court committed an error in
convicting the accused for the offence
punishable under Section 302 of IPC and
sentencing him for rigorous imprisonment and
whether it requires interference of this Court?
(ii) What order?
Point No.(i):
14. We have perused both oral and documentary
evidence available on record. The law is set in motion based on
the complaint Ex.P.1, which was given by the wife of the
deceased. In the complaint, she categorically stated that there
was a dispute between the deceased and the accused regarding
the property and that they were frequently quarreling with each
other. That on 22.11.2011, in the morning the galata was taken
place between them. On the very same day, when her husband
was proceeding in the bullock cart, the accused committed his
murder. No doubt, on perusal of this complaint, a suspicion was
raised and in the complaint it is pointed out that there was ill-will
between both of them. Based on this complaint, case was
registered by P.W.7 and he categorically says that he has
received the complaint in terms of Ex.P.1 and sent the FIR as
per Ex.P.8. The law was set in motion by registering the case by
P.W.7 and he conducted spot panchanama in terms of Ex.P.4
and photos were taken. No doubt, in the cross-examination, it is
elicited that complaint was given on suspicion, but it is
specifically mentioned that the accused only committed the
murder with regard to the dispute between them in respect of
ancestral property.
15. Now this Court has to take note of the evidence of
P.W.13, who carried the FIR to the Court. His evidence is very
clear that he received the FIR at 11.50 p.m. and it was late night
and hence, he could not proceed in the night itself and next
morning at 10.00 a.m., he went and gave the same to the
Magistrate. When this witness was subjected to cross-
examination, he categorically says that the distance between
Harohalli Police Station and Court is 16 to 17 kms. He
categorically deposes that there was no bus convenience after
11 o'clock in the night. He is staying in Harohalli quarters. If he
had vehicle, he could reach the Court within 15 minutes. The
very contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the
delay was not explained, cannot be accepted. No doubt, the FIR
reached the Police Station on the next day at 10.45 a.m. and the
same is explained that he was not having any mode of transport
in the late night. On perusal of Ex.P.8, it is very clear that the
incident was taken place at 6.40 p.m. and complaint was given
in the late night and the same was registered and dispatched at
11.50 p.m. The evidence of P.W.13 is very clear and column
No.13 of Ex.P.8 also shows that it was dispatched in the
midnight through PC-185. The very contention that there was a
delay in handing over the FIR and due deliberation, cannot be
accepted and even the accused details are also given in column
No.6.
16. Having perused Ex.P.1, it is very clear that there was
an incident on the very same day prior to this incident. The
same has been mentioned in the complaint itself and complaint
was given at 11.50 p.m. Insofar as the genesis of crime is
concerned, the incident was taken place at 6.40 p.m. and
thereafter, the relatives gathered and then the body was shifted
to the house. Later went to the police station and gave the
complaint at around 11.50 p.m. and FIR was dispatched at 12.30
a.m. and the same was midnight and there was no any mode of
transport. Hence, P.W.13 went and gave the same on the next
day at 10.45 a.m. and distance between the Court and Harohalli
Police Station is about 16 to 17 kms. and when such delay is
explained, this Court cannot find fault with the same.
17. Now this Court has to examine the evidence of
P.W.1, who claims to be an eyewitness to the incident. Having
perused Ex.P.1 complaint, which was given at 11.50 p.m., it was
only a suspicion against the accused. But there was a reference
in the complaint itself that on the very same day there was a
galata between the deceased and the accused in connection with
cutting of the tree. Though P.W.1 claims that she is an
eyewitness to the incident, her evidence cannot be accepted as
an eyewitness. In the cross-examination, it is categorically
elicited that she went to the spot with Ramesh Reddy, who is the
brother of her husband. She says that he came and informed
about the incident at around 6.30 p.m. to 6.40 p.m. and the said
Ramesh Reddy only took her to the spot. Though she claims that
she witnessed the incident having heard the hue and cry sound,
but the evidence of P.W.1 as an eyewitness cannot be accepted.
However, her evidence can be considered only in respect of
dispute between her husband and the accused in connection with
ancestral property. In the chief evidence, she categorically says
that on the same day afternoon, there was a quarrel between
the accused and the deceased. No doubt, in the cross-
examination, it is suggested that no such incident was taken
place. But she categorically deposes that there was a galata and
at that time, herself, her son, her husband and the accused were
there. She categorically says that no complaint was given in
respect of that incident. When a suggestion was made that with
regard to that incident, nothing is mentioned in Ex.P.1 and the
witness says that whether she has mentioned or not, she cannot
tell as the same was written by her son-in-law i.e., P.W.3. She
says that she was in grief and hence, she cannot tell what has
been stated. On perusal of Ex.P.1, there is a reference of an
incident prior to the committal of murder and also it is very clear
that there was a dispute between the deceased and the accused
in connection with the ancestral property. The evidence of P.W.1
only with regard to the motive and previous incident could be
considered and not as an eyewitness.
18. The other witness P.W.3 is the son-in-law of P.W.1.
He deposes before the Court that there was a galata between
the accused and the deceased in connection with cutting of tree
on 22.11.2011. But this witness is a hearsay witness and
deposes before the Court that the same was revealed by P.W.1.
The fact that there was a galata on that day was spoken by
P.W.1. The evidence of P.W.3 could be considered only to the
extent that there was a galata prior to the incident. P.W.3
evidence will not come to the aid of the prosecution other than
this evidence.
19. The other witness is P.W.4 doctor, who conducted
the post mortem. P.W.4 deposes before the Court that he
conducted the post mortem and gave the post mortem report in
terms of Ex.P.5 and clothes were seized and given to the police
and he identifies M.O.1 to M.O.4. In the cross-examination, it is
elicited that if a person falls from the bullock cart on a sharp
edge of a stone, injury No.10 mentioned in the post mortem
report could be caused and the other injuries mentioned in the
post mortem report could not be caused. He says that the police
have not given any weapon for taking his opinion. He
categorically deposes that if a person is inflicted injury with a
heavy and sharp-edged weapon, these types of injury could be
caused and the same may be a long, machete, axe or sword.
Having considered this evidence, it is very clear that it is a case
of homicide and not accidental injuries. The doctor's evidence is
also very clear that only injured No.10 could be caused, but not
other injuries and all the injuries are chop wound injuries.
Having considered the post mortem report, which is marked as
Ex.P.5, it is very clear that there were 13 chop wound injuries.
Almost all are chop wound injuries and in injury No.10 only 2
abrasions were found. The evidence of the doctor is also very
clear that this injury could be caused only if a person falls on the
sharp edged stone, but not other injuries and each and every
injuries are sharp wound injuries including bone deep sharp
wound. Hence, it is clear that these injuries are chop wound
injuries and machete M.O.8 is chopper. Hence, it is a case of
homicide.
20. Having considered Ex.P.1, it is categorically stated
with regard to the previous incident on the very same day and
the evidence of P.W.1 is very clear with regard to the motive is
concerned, that there was a ill-will between the deceased and
the accused in connection with property dispute. Having
considered the evidence of P.W.1, though she claimed to be an
eyewitness to the incident, but this Court accepted her evidence
only in respect of motive is concerned and that there was a ill-
will between the deceased and the accused.
21. Now this Court has to consider the other
circumstances available before the Court, since eyewitness
evidence is ruled out and she only speaks about the previous
incident on the very same day and this Court has considered the
same. Now with regard to recovery is concerned, this Court has
to consider the evidence of P.W.16 Investigating Officer. P.W.16
in his evidence categorically says that they conducted the
inquest as per Ex.P.13 and so also recorded the voluntary
statement of the accused in terms of Ex.P.14. The accused made
the statement that if he is taken to the spot where he committed
the murder, he will produce the weapon and also the
bloodstained clothes. Having recorded the voluntary statement,
the accused led him and the panch witnesses to the spot and
produced M.O.1, M.O.2 and M.O.8 i.e., shirt, lungi and the
weapon. He says that all of them were stained with blood. He
speaks about other procedures that he conducted. In the cross-
examination, a suggestion was made that the accused did not
give any voluntary statement that he will lead to the spot as well
as produce the weapons, but the same was denied. Nothing is
elicited with regard to the non-conducting of the mahazar at the
spot.
22. Now this Court has to consider the evidence of
P.W.9, who is the panch witness to spot mahazar Ex.P.10. He
categorically says that mahazar was conducted in terms of
Ex.P.9 at the spot. His evidence is clear that the accused led all
of them and so also led himself and P.W.10 to the spot where
the accused had concealed the weapon, shirt and lungi and the
same were there in the bush and the same were not visible. But
he put his hand and took out the same and the same were
seized. He identifies M.O.1, M.O.2 and M.O.8. This witness was
subjected to cross-examination. In the cross-examination, it is
elicited that P.W.1 is his sister and P.W.3 is his brother. Hence,
it is clear that P.W.9 is the relative of P.W.1. When a suggestion
was made that no such mahazar was conducted at the spot and
also recovery, the same was denied. It is suggested that both
the mahazars were drawn before going to the spot and the same
was categorically denied saying that after they went to the spot
only prepared the same. A suggestion was made that the police
only showed M.O.1, M.O.2 and M.O.8 in the police station and
the same was denied. The witness voluntarily says that the
accused only showed the same at the spot where the same was
seized i.e., M.O.1, M.O.2 and M.O.8. Having considered this
evidence, his evidence is consistent with regard to the accused
leading the police as well as the other panch witnesses to the
spot. A suggestion was made that the accused did not produce
M.O.1, M.O.2 and M.O.8 from the bush and the same is denied.
The evidence of P.W.9 is credible and reliable and nothing is
elicited in the cross-examination. When a suggestion was made
that mahazar was not drawn at the spot, the witness specifically
deposed that it was drawn at the spot only. No doubt, P.W.9
may be a distant relative of P.W.1, but the same cannot be a
ground to discard the evidence of P.W.9 and his evidence is
consistent and reliable.
23. Now this Court has to consider the evidence of
P.W.10 and P.W.10 reiterates the evidence of P.W.9 that spot
mahazar was conducted at 5.30 p.m. He says that he was asked
to come on the next day and accordingly on the next day he
went to the police station at 7.00 a.m. and thereafter, the
accused led them near Mudenahalli tank and there was a bush
and the accused put his hand and removed the shirt, lungi and
machete and the same were bloodstained. He identifies his
signature in Ex.P.10 and also identifies M.O.1, M.O.2 and M.O.8.
This witness was subjected to cross-examination. In the cross-
examination, it is elicited that P.W.1 is her father's sister. A
suggestion was made that in his presence, M.O.1, M.O.2 and
M.O.8 were not seized and the same was denied. He
categorically says that no notice was given and that at the time
of seizure, another person was present and the same was seized
near Mudenahalli tank and that tank is near the pipeline. He says
that he cannot tell the description of the said place. A suggestion
was made that in his presence mahazar was not conducted and
also suggestion was made that he was not taken to the spot
while drawing the mahazar in terms of Ex.P.10 and the accused
not led the police or anybody to the spot and the same were
denied. A suggestion was made that the accused did not show
the spot and the same was denied. Nothing is elicited from the
mouth of this witness to disbelieve the case of the prosecution
with regard to the recovery is concerned.
24. The main contention of the learned counsel
appearing for the appellant is that P.W.9 and P.W.10 are relative
witnesses. Merely because these two are relative witnesses, their
evidence cannot be discarded when their evidence is consistent
and reliable. Nothing is elicited in the cross-examination of these
two witnesses that they were not present at the time of drawing
the mahazar Ex.P.10 and nothing is elicited that the accused did
not lead the police as well as P.W.9 and P.W.10 to the spot and
their evidence is consistent.
25. This Court would like to rely upon the judgment of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of LEELA RAM (DEAD)
THROUGH DULI CHAND v. STATE OF HARYANA AND
ANOTHER reported in (1999) 9 SCC 525, wherein it is held
that evidence should be considered from the point of view of
trustworthiness. In criminal cases corroboration with
mathematical niceties should not be expected. With regard to
related witnesses, testimony of evidentiary value particularly in
murder case, if the evidence testifies the act of the accused and
in absence of some other factor to discredit the said witnesses,
the Apex Court held that, the evidence of related witnesses could
not be rejected merely on the ground that they were interested
witnesses.
26. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgment in the case
of LALTU GHOSH v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL reported in
AIR 2019 SC 1058, in the case of MD. ROJALI ALI v. STATE
OF ASSAM reported in AIR 2019 SC 1128 and in the case of
STATE OF M.P. v. CHHAAKKI LAL reported in AIR 2019 SC
381 with regard to the related witnesses and interested
witnesses held that, the testimony of a witness in a criminal trial
cannot be discarded merely because the witness is a relative or
family member of the victim of the offence. In such a case, the
Court has to adopt a careful approach in analyzing the evidence
of such witnesses and if the testimony of the related witness is
otherwise found credible, accused can be convicted on the basis
of testimony of such related witnesses. The learned counsel for
the appellant mainly contend that the panch witnesses P.W.9
and P.W.10 are the interested witnesses. The same cannot be a
ground to discard the evidence of interested witnesses.
27. Now this Court has to consider the evidence of
P.W.12, who is FSL Officer. P.W.12 categorically deposes that
except item Nos.2, 4, 6 and 7, others were bloodstained. Insofar
as machete M.O.8 is concerned, the same is stained with blood
and gave the report in terms of Ex.P.11 and the same is marked
and the signature is also identified. In the cross-examination of
this witness, nothing is elicited that he did not conduct the
examination of the articles and only answer is elicited that in
Ex.P.11, not mentioned the measurement of the machete and
also the shape of M.O.8. Ex.P.11 FSL report discloses that the
machete which was seized in the presence of P.W.9 and P.W.10
was stained with blood group of 'O' and both in the cloth of
deceased and machete, 'O' group blood was found and no
explanation was given by the accused during the cross-
examination. It is also very clear that in M.O.6 and M.O.7 no
stains were found and hence, the question of positive does not
arise.
28. In the voluntary statement of the accused as per
Ex.P.14, he categorically stated that he is going to produce the
machete and machete is seized at the instance of the accused.
The evidence of P.W.9 and P.W.10 is consistent and the same
points out the role of the accused and other circumstances goes
against the accused. It is also to be noted that in the voluntary
statement of the accused, he categorically says that he washed
off his pant and shirt before keeping the machete in a bush. It is
evident that the same were kept inside the bush and were not
visible to anybody else and the same is not in open space. When
such being the case, the case of the prosecution is proved
regarding the recovery is concerned. The evidence of P.W.14 is
very clear that he went and handed over the seized articles to
the FSL department. P.W.12 in his evidence categorically says
that he has given the report in terms of Ex.P.11. In the cross-
examination of P.W.12, nothing is elicited with regard to the
machete is concerned, but the same was stained with blood and
it is elicited that he did not mention the length and width of
M.O.8. Hence, the case of the prosecution is proved regarding
recovery at the instance of the accused i.e., M.O.8.
29. The three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in the case
of MUKESH v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND OTHERS
reported in AIR 2017 SC 2161, held that if anything or
weapons etc. are recovered at the instance of the accused under
Section 27 of the Evidence Act, only in the presence of police
party and there is no public witness to such recovery or recovery
memo, the testimony of the police personnel proving the
recovery and the recovery memo cannot be disbelieved merely
because there was no witness to the recovery proceedings or
recovery memo from the public particularly when no witness
from public could be found by the police party despite their
efforts at the time of recovery. But in the case on hand, not only
the police witness who has recorded the voluntary statement of
the accused has spoken about the recovery, but the evidence of
the witnesses P.W.9 and P.W.10 is also in corroboration of the
evidence of police witness, who has been examined as P.W.16.
The evidence of P.W.9 and P.W.10 supports the case of the
prosecution for recovery of machete at the instance of the
accused.
30. The Apex Court in its judgment in the case of BODH
RAJ v. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR reported in AIR
2002 SC 3164, held that the object of the provisions of Section
27 of the Evidence Act was to provide for the admission of
evidence which but for the existence of the section could not in
consequences of the preceding sections, be admitted in
evidence. Under Section 27, as it stands, in order to render the
evidence leading to discovery of any fact admissible, the
information must come from any accused in custody of the
police. In the case on hand, on arrest of the accused, disclosure
statement was made under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
31. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Narsinbhai Haribhai
Prajapati (supra), wherein the Apex Court discussed with
regard to the motive for committing the crime as well as
recovery. But those circumstances are in our opinion wholly
insufficient for sustaining the charge of murder of which the
respondents are accused. But in the case on hand, motive is
proved and also recovery is proved. The evidence of P.W.9,
P.W.10 and also the police inspector, who recovered the same in
the presence of panch witnesses is consistent and reliable.
Hence, the said judgment will not come to the aid of the
appellant.
32. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of
the Apex Court in the case of Meharaj Singh (supra) and
brought to the notice of this Court paragraph No.12, wherein it is
held that FIR in a criminal case and particularly in a murder case
is a vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of
appreciating the evidence led at the trial. The object of insisting
upon prompt lodging of the FIR is to obtain the earliest
information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was
committed. The said judgment also will not come to the aid of
the defence, since immediately after lodging the complaint, case
was registered and FIR was registered at 11.50 p.m. and there
was no any transportation mode and hence, FIR was carried to
the Court on the next morning. Ex.P.1 complaint discloses that
there was a galata between the accused and the deceased prior
to his incident and hence, the genesis of the crime is also found
and this judgment will not come to the aid of the accused.
33. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of
the Apex Court in the case of Kansa Behera (supra) and
brought to the notice of this Court paragraph Nos.12 and 13,
wherein it is held that the evidence about the blood group is only
conclusive to connect the bloodstains with the deceased. That
evidence is absent and in this view of the matter, in our opinion,
even this is not a circumstance on the basis of which any
inference could be drawn. But this judgment also will not come
to the aid of the defence, since in all the materials i.e., clothes of
the deceased 'O' group blood was found and also in the machete,
which was seized at the instance of the accused, 'O' group blood
was found. It is not the case of the defence that the blood does
not belong to the deceased and no effective cross-examination
to that effect. Hence, the said judgment also will not come to the
aid of the accused.
34. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of
the Apex Court in the case of Babudas (supra) and brought to
the notice of this Court paragraph No.4, wherein it is held that
the manner in which the alleged recovery is made also creates a
lot of doubt in our mind. It is seen from the evidence led by the
prosecution that at every place where the accused took the
panchayatdars and the police, according to the prosecution
witnesses themselves, there were thousands of people present
witnessing the recovery. The learned counsel for the appellant
mainly contend that both the witnesses P.W.9 and P.W.10 are
the relatives of P.W.1. Merely because they are relatives, the
same cannot take away the case of the prosecution and their
evidence is consistent and reliable. Except eliciting that they are
the relatives of P.W.1, nothing is elicited and even not suggested
that they are having enmity against the accused to falsely
implicate the accused. All the materials goes against the
accused pointing out the role of the accused only.
35. Though this Court not accepted the evidence of
P.W.1 as eye-witness, but taken note of the evidence of P.W.1
with regard to the motive as well as galata was taken place on
the very same day prior to this incident and there was an enmity
between the accused and the deceased with regard to the
property issue. The recovery is made and the same is proved
and the evidence of the Investigating Officer as well as the
evidence of the recovery witnesses P.W.9 and P.W.10 is
consistent and all the circumstances goes to show that the
accused only committed the murder. Hence, we do not find any
ground to come to a other conclusion that the Trial Court has
committed an error in relying upon the evidence. Though it is
contended that there was a delay, but the incident was taken
place at 6.40 p.m. and thereafter, the body was taken to the
house and then they went and lodged the complaint. The Court
has to take note of the distance between the place of incident as
well as police Station and there was a distance of 16 to 17 kms.
and FIR was handed over to the PC in the odd hour and he went
and gave the FIR in the early morning at 10.45 a.m. by
travelling 16 to 17 kms. and there is no such delay and the same
is also explained. Thereafter, the accused was arrested and
recovery was made. The FSL report goes against the accused
and bloodstains were found in the machete, which was produced
at the instance of the accused and report is also positive in
terms of Ex.P.11. Though in respect of article Nos.6 and 7 shirt
and lungi, not found any bloodstains and no positive report, the
same cannot take away the case of the prosecution. There was
no any explanation on the part of the accused with regard to the
blood group 'O' was found in the machete, which was used by
the accused for inflicting the injury and recovery is made at his
instance. The medical evidence of the doctor also points out
that the injuries are chop wound injuries. Though the weapon
was not sent to the doctor, but evidence is very clear that if
chopper having heavy weight is used for inflicting the injury,
those type of injuries could be caused. All these materials,
including the medical evidence goes against the accused and
hence, we have no ground to interfere with the findings of the
Trial Court. Hence, we answer the point accordingly.
Point No.(ii):
36. In view of the discussions made above, we pass the
following:
ORDER
The criminal appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P. SANDESH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
MD
