http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11  

PETITIONER: NARAYANA GOPAL KRISHNA HEGDE& OTHERS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       07/08/1996

BENCH: G.N. RAY, K. VENKATASWAMI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T      VENKATASWAMI J.      All  these  appeals  by  special  leave  are  preferred against the  common judgment  of the Karnataka High Court in criminal Appeal  Nos. 791,  792 of  1988 and 129-130 of 1989 dated 20th July, 1990. Briefly stated the facts as presented by the prosecution are the following :-      P.W. 16  Praveen  Chandra  was  the  Divisional  Forest officer of  Sirsi Division  during the  relevant period.  On 19.4.1988 at  about 4.00  p.m. he received a phone call from an annonymous  caller that  at  night  at  about  1.00  a.m. (20.4.1988) there  was likelihood  of a  lorry  transporting forest produce  from Manjuguni  side  and  the  same  person called P.W.  16 half an hour later and informed him that his officials would do well to be Present near Kambigar cross at about 11.00 p.m. itself.      The area  referred to  by the annonymour caller fell in the   jurisdiction   of   Hulekal   Range   Forest   office. Accordingly, P.W.16  summoned the deceased Arvind Hegde, the concerned  Forest   Range  Officer   to  meet  him  to  take instructions in  connection with  the above-said phone call. The deceased  met P.W.16 at about 6.3O p.m. on 19.4.1988 and he was asked by P.W.16 to keep a watch at the Kambigar Cross to intercept  the  lorry  that  was  expected  to  transport illegally cut  forest  fuel  wood.  The  deceased  was  also instructed  to   take  necessary  staff  with  him  for  his assistance. The  revolver in the custody of P.W. 16 was also handed over to the deceased. One Mahabaleshwar Joshi was the borther-in-law  of  the  deceased  and  was  also  a  Forest contractor. Few  days earlier he has lent his Ambassador Car bearing  No.  MES  6008  with  the  deceased.  The  deceased travelled in  the said  car from  Sirsi Hulekal Range office and took  the assistance of P.Ws 2 and 3 (forest guards) and went to  Hegdekatta Forest  Office to take the assistance of P.W. 1  P.W. 1  was requested to secure the presence of P.Ws 4 &  5 (forest guards) for further assistance. P.W.s 2 and 3 were a  armed with a gun each. The deceased further directed the forest  guards to  place heavy stones across the road to block free  passage to  the lorry.  At about  3.30  a.m.  on 20.4.1988, as  expected, the  lorry returned  from  kambigar

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11  

Forest loaded  with illegally  cut jungle wood upto the body level. The  lorry had  a nameboard  "SHRIMAN  NARAYANA’  and registration  No.   MYE  5070.  In  spite  of  the  deceased signalling the  lorry to  stop, it  fled away  avoiding  the stones kept  on the  road. The deceased fired at it with his revolver, but  the bullet  could not  release. P.W.  2  also fired from  his gun,  but it  missed the target, namely, the wheel tyre  of the  vehicle. Thereafter the deceased and his men followed  the lorry  in their  car and  the lorry having gone near the house of one Neelkantha Hegde stopped in front of it.  A-11 was  driving the lorry and there were 4 persons in the  lorry. All  of them got down and ran to the house of Neelknatha Hegde.      Neelkantha Hegde,  his sons,  namely, A-1, A-3, A-4 and A-10 as  well as  his Uncle’s sons, namely A-2, A-5, A-8 and A-9 were  all in the house and they came out of the house on seeing the lorry. The deceased informed the accused who came out of  the house  the A-11  had driven  the  lorry  without stopping the  same in  spite of signal was given to stop the same. The deceased called upon them to produce any permit if they had  to cut  and carry jungle wood. The accused replied in the  negative. When  the deceased  informed them that the lorry would  be seized,  all the accused protested that they would not allow him to seize the lorry, but wanted to unload the wood. In spite of the deceased repeatedly informing them about the  various forest  offences committed  and about the information they  had already  got and instructions given by P.W. 16, the accused did not allow the deceased to discharge his official  duty. Realising  the situation,  the  deceased asked P.W. 5 to inform P.W. 16 on phone about the happenings there. The  deceased also asked P.W. 4 to go Sirsi and bring P.W. 16  to the  spot. Sensing the gravity of the situation, A-4, A-6  and A-7  told the  other accused  that before  the arrival of  P.W. 16,  the lorry  must be  removed from  that place for  the purpose  of unloading the fuel elsewhere. The deceased was  also equally  determined to carry out his job. The deceased  and P.W.  1 stood in front of the lorry on its left side  and P.W. 2 stood on the right side. While so, A-1 occupied the  driver’s seat, A-8 and A-10 sat by his side in the cabin.  When A-1  started the  engine, A-4,  A-6 and A-7 dragged the  forest guards aside and tore their uniform. A-2 and A-6  snatched the  gun from P.W. 2. A-7 snatched the gun held by  P.W. 6.  When the  accused attempted  to drive  the lorry, the  deceased who was standing in front of it climbed over the  crashguard in  front of the vehicle. A-2, A-3, A-5 and A-9  climbed into  the body  of the vehicle. A-1 started the  vehicle   while  the   deceased  was  standing  on  the crashguard. The  guard and  the foresters followed the lorry running and  at that  time A-11  (who drove the lorry in the first instance)  emerged from his hiding and shouted that as they were  always facing obstructions from the forest guards they should  be killed. The lorry thus went to a distance of about 11/2  further longs on that forest road then came to a halt near  yantalli Cross. When the lorry was at that Cross, the forest  guards heard  the voice  of the deceased that he was being  killed. A-1, A-8 and A-10 got down from the cabin of the  vehicle and A-8 started assaulting the deceased with a jungle  wood. All  the accused had surrounded the deceased and when  the Guards  reached the  spot, they left the place saying that everything was over. The shirt that the deceased was wearing,  one of  the shoes, his rovolver with belt, his waist belt  were all  lying near  him and  he was lying with blood injuries  and was found dead. That was about 5.10 a.m. when P.W.  16 along  with the Sub Inspector of Police, Sirsi and some  police personnel arrived at the spot, the deceased

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11  

was shifted  in a  car to  the Government  hospital at Sirsi along with P.Ws. 2, 3 and 6. P.W.1 gave written complaint at the Sirsi Police Station at 9.30 a. m. A case was registered as crime  No. 37188.  The  Circle  Inspector  (P.W.  30)  on receiving information  about the  murder of the deceased and his body  being kept  at  the  mortuary  of  the  Government hospital went there and seeing that some violence was likely to take  place, made  arrangements for  maintatining  peace. Thereafter he  held inquest  over the  dead  body,  examined witnesses and  arrested Accused  Nos. 1 to 6. P.W. 30 seized MO-2 a  blood-stained firewood  pellet stated  to have  been used in  assaulting the  deceased, the  leather belt  of the deceased, one  shoe, a  cap, the revolver of the deceased, a misfired bullet,  blandstained earth, and 2 live cartridges. On the  left side  mudguard of  the lorry,  some bloodstains were seen  and its  scrapings were  collected. The lorry was seized under  a mahazer. The Ambassador car was found parked about 300  yards away  from the  spot where the deceased was murdered. The  switch key was in the dashboard. The two guns that were  carried by  the two guards were also found on the back side of the vehicle. Two used cartridges and one unused cartridge was  also lying  there. After  examining some more witnesses, P.W.  30 handed over investigation to the Core of Detectives  (C.O.D.).   P.W.  31   who  took   over  further investigation from  P.W. 30, sent the blood-stained articles for chemical  analysis, sent  the fire-arms, cartridges etc. To the  ballistic experts in the State Scientific Laboratory and on  completion of  the investigation,  filed the charge- sheet.      All  the   accused  stood   charged  for  the  offences punishable under  section 143,  147, 353  read with 149, 352 read with 149, 506 read with 149, 302 read with 149 & 114 of I.P.C. and  section 62(2)  read  with  Section  104  of  The Karnataka Forest Act.      The substantial  defence taken  by the accused was that they were  falsely implicated at the instance of P.W.15. the brother -in-law  of the deceased who was also a rival forest contractor like the accused and the deceased might have died on account  of hit  by lorry  or tuck accidentally They also drew the  attention of  the trial court to the discrepancies in oral  evidence   of P.Ws  1, 2,  3 and  6 as  to who  was alleged to  have caused the blew by jungle wood and also the discrepancy regarding  the cause  of death  as spoken  to in oral evidence  and as recorded in p-53, 56 and 57. They also relied on  the fact  of considerable  delay in  lodging  the F.I.R. which  according to  them, gave room to fabricate the F.I.R.      The learned  Session  Judge  on  the  evidence  adduced before him,  both oral and documentary, bound A-11 quilty of the forest offence under section 62(2) read with section 104 of the karnataka Forest Act and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for 6  months and  to pay  a fine of Rs. 1000/ in default to undergo 2  months R.I.  A-1 to  A-10 were  found  guilty  of rioting under  Section 147  I.P.C.  and  were  sentenced  to simple imprisonment for 6 months each. A-1 to A-10 were also found guilty  under section 353 read with section 149 I.P.C. and were sentenced to R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of rupees one  thousand each,  in default to undergo R.I. for 3 months. In  addition .  A-1 to  A-10 were  also found guilty under section 332 read with section 149 I.P.C. and they were sentenced to  R.I. for  one year  and to  pay a  fine of Rs. 1000/ each,  in default  to undergo  R.I. for  3 months.  In addition, A1,  A2, A3,  A5, A8, A9 and A10 were found quilty under Section  302 read  with section 149 I.P.C and for that they  were  sentenced  to  undergo  imprisonment  for  life.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11  

substantial sentences  of imprisonment  were directed to run concurrently.      The accused  aggrieved by  the conviction  and sentence preferred  tow   appeals  to   the  High  Court.  The  State Government also  filed appeals  against  acquittal  of  some accused under  section 302  read with  section 149  and also another appeals  for enhancement  of sentence.  The  learned counsel  appearing  for  the  accused  reiterated  the  same arguments in  the High  Court that  were advanced before the learned Sessions Judge. The learned judges of the high court on consideration  of the  arguments and  after perusing  the judgment of  the learned  Sessions judge  and all  connected records partly  allowed the  appeals filed  by  the  accused persons by  setting  aside  their  conviction  and  sentence passed for  the offence  under section 332 read with section 149 and  consequently acquitted them of the said charge. The learned Judges  also set  aside the  sentence passed against A2, A3,  A5 and  A9 under  section 302 read with section 149 IPC and  acquitted them of the said charge. so for as A1, A8 and A10  are concerned,  their conviction  under section 302 I.P.C. read  with  section  149  was  however  confirmed  as conviction under  section 302  IPC red  with section 34 IPC. here sentence  to suffer  imprisonment  for  life  was  also confirmed.  Apart  from  this,  the  other  convictions  and sentence imposed under section 353 read with section 149 and 147 were  also confirmed.  So far as the appeal filed by the State are  concerned, the  High Court  declined to interfere with the  conviction and   sentence imposed. by the sessions judgement on certain accused and consequently, dismissed the appeal.      It is  under these circumstances the accused have filed these appeal  by special  leave against their conviction and sentence  and  the  State  has  Also  preferred  appals  for conviction  of  the  acquitted  accused  and  also  for  the enhancement of sentence.      Mr. N.  Natarajan, learned  senior counsel  elaborately argue the  matter before us and took us through the judgment of the  High Court  and also  through the relevant documents and depositions.  We do  not propose  to deal  with all  the points raised  and    argued  before us . We are inclined to confine to  the points  that are  crucial and  are  directly relevant to the facts of this case.      On an overall perusal and appreciation of the facts, we are  satisfied   that  the   accused  were  responsible  for committing  the  forest  offence  and  in  order  to  escape punishment for  that offence, they had driven away the lorry loaded with  billets of  illegally cut  forest fuel trees by using criminal  force and  assaulting the  concerned  forest officials from  discharging their  duties. Therefore, we are not interfering  with the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused for those offences for which they were charged.      So for  as the conviction and sentence of A, A8 and A10 for the  offence under  section 302 read with section 34 IPC is concerned  the act  attributed to  them  was  that  these accused were  in the  cabin of  the lorry,  A1 being  at the driver’s seat  and drove  away the  lorry  even  though  the deceased prevented  them  from  taking  away  the  lorry  by clinging  on  to  the  crash  board.  The  evidence  of  the prosecution, namely,  PWs 1,  2 and 3 on this aspect was hat they also  tried to  prevent the  lorry from moving from the premises of NeelKantha Hegde. However, they were overpowered by the  accused by  snatching away the guns from them and by pushing them  out from  the way  of the  lorry.  Thereafter, according to  them, they  chased the  lorry about furlong on two when  they said  to have heard the voice of the deceased

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11  

crying that  he was being killed. When they actually reached the place,  the deceased  was found  dead and  he lorry  was taken away  from that  place. We have seen from the evidence as spoken  to by  the prosecution  witnesses  that  PW1  was having a  torch and they were 100 ft away from the lorry and they were  able to see the attack by the accused (A1, A8 and A10 ) on the deceased.      Here the  contention of  the learned  counsel  for  the accused was  that there is vital discrepancy in the evidence of PWs  2 and  3 on one hand and PW6 on the other. It is the definite case  of PWs  2 and  3 that  it was A8 who got down form the  cabin of  the lorry and attacked the deceased with the forest  wood which resulted in the dead of the deceased. On the  other hand,  P.W. 6  gave evidence showing it was A1 who got down from the cabin with forest log and attacked the deceased  which   caused  the   death.  the  other  accused, according to  P.W. 6  were engaged  in pulling  the uniform, revolver etc.  from the  body of  the deceased.  Though this discrepancy was  noticed by the High Court, according to the learned senior  counsel, that  was not  given due importance while appreciating  the  defence  case  and  convicting  the accused for the offence under section 302. He also submitted that the  log which was supposed to have been used to attack the deceased  was supposed  to have  been used to attack the deceased was market was MO-2. The measurement of that log as given in  the panchanama  and as spoken to by PW. 23 who has subscribed as  a witness to the panchanama was 42" in length and 8"  in diametre.  According to  the  learned  counsel  a single man  cannot lift  such a big log and with that attack was alleged  by the prosecution witnesses. It is the further submission of the learned senior counsel that the High Court has totally  misunderstood the arguments advanced. before it regarding the  cause for  the death,  Namely,  the  deceased might have  been hit  by a  lorry or a truck. The High Court presumed that the deceased was run over by a lorry. That was nobody’s case.  According to the learned senior counsel, The lorry while  trying to turn from the Tar road to Katcha road there was  small culvert  and  the  ground  was  covered  by pebbles and  there was  just sufficient  gap for  the  lorry along to  go in  that katcha road whole crossing the culvert and to deceased forest officer who has clinging on the crash board of  the lorry  might have fallen from the lorry on the pebbles on a rough surface which might have caused the death and not  as spoken  to by  the P.Ws.  He also suggested that P.Ws 1,2,3  and 6 could not have seen from a distance of 100 ft. At  3-4.00 A.M.  in the  forest area the exact cause for the death of the deceased. The fact that there was a culvert and 8  "Aswathakattas" was  spoken to  by  PW  23.  He  also submitted that  even before  the F.I.R.  was registered  the cause for the death of the deceased as given by P.Ws 2 and 3 to the  medical officer  as recorded  in Ex.  P.53, P.56 and P.57 supports the case of the defence that the cause for the death of  the deceased  was by accident and not as spoken to by P.ws.  It is  the contention  of Mr.  Natarajan.  learned Senior counsel  for the  accused that the High Court was not justified in  rejecting the  evidence of  P.W 25 the medical officer and also the statements recorded by him in Ex. P.53, P.56 and  P-57. Mr.  Natarajan also  contended that the high Court was not at all justified in convicting the accused for offence under section 302 read with section 34 IPC while the conviction by  the learned  Sessions Judge  was for  offence under section  302  read  with  section  34  IPc  while  the conviction by  the learned  Sections Judge  was for  offence under section  302 read  with section  149. According to the learned  counsel,   there  could  not  have  been  a  common

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11  

intention arrived  at in  the cabin  by A1, A8 and A10 while driving away  the lorry  and they wanted to avoid punishment for forest offence committed by them and they never intended to kill  the fores  officer in  this connection.  Lastly, he submitted that  the High  Court knowing  the weakness in the prosecuting case  has confirmed  the conviction and sentence on the basis of passobilities and inferences which cannot be sustained.      The learned  counsel appearing  for the State supported the judgment by referring to the findings giving by the High Court and  he also submitted the those findings are based on appreciation  of   facts  and  they  do  not  call  for  any interference. Apart  from that  he also  submitted that  the High Court was not justified in dismissing the state appeals for conviction  of the  accused who  were acquitted  by  the Sessions Judge  for the  offence under section 302 I.P.C and also for  the offence  under section  302 I.P.C and also for enhancing the sentence.      We have  carefully considered  the submissions advanced on both  sides and  also perused  the judgments of the trial court and  that of  the High  Court. We are of the view that the conviction  and sentence awarded by the High Court under section 302  read  with  Section  34  IPC  requires  further consideration at out hands in the light of the well- sellted principle that  ’every accused is entitled to the benefit of any  reasonalbe   doubt  arising   out  of   the  facts  and circumstances  of  the  case’.  This  Court  has  repeatedly pointed out  that the  principle of extending the benefit of reasonable doubt  to the  accused cannot  be redly accepted, But should  be carefully  applied if  certain  circumstances exist and  warrant the  application of  the principle. It is sufffice to  refer to the judgment of this Court in K. Gopal Reddy v.  State of  Andhra Pradesh  1979 (1)  SCC 355.  this Court in the said judgement abserved as follows:      "If  tow   resonably  probable  and      evenly  balanced   views   of   the      evidence  are  possible,  one  must      necessarily conceded  the existence      of   a   reasonable   doubt.   But,      fanciful and  remote  possibilities      must be  left out  of  account.  To      entitle on  accused person  to  the      benefit of  doubt arising  from the      possibility of  a duality of views,      The possible  view in favour of the      accused   must    be   as    nearly      reasonably     preponderance     of      probability is  all one way, a bare      possibility of  another  view  will      not entitle  the accused  to  claim      the benefit  of  any  view  of  the      evidence in  favour of  the accused      must  be  reasonable  even  as  any      doubt,  the  benefit  of  which  an      accused person  may claim,  must be      reasonable."      The Court further observed:      "A reasonable  doubt", it  has been      remarked,  "does   not  mean   some      light,  airy,  insubstantial  doubt      that may  flit through the minds of      any of  us about almost anything at      some time  or other.  It  dows  not      mean a  doubt begotten  by sympathy      out of  reluctance to  convict:  it

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11  

    means a  real  doubt,  begotten  by      sympathy  out   of  reluctance   to      convict: it  means a  real doubt, a      doubt  founded   upon  reason,   As      observed by  lord Denning in Miller      V. Ministry  of Pensions  (1947)  2      all  ER   372)  "Proof   beyond   a      reasonable  doubt   does  not  mean      proof beyond  a shadow  of a  doubt      does not mean proof beyond a shadow      of a  doubt. The  law would fail to      project   the   community   if   it      admitted fanciful  possibilities to      defect the  course of  justice.  It      the evidence is so strong against a      man  as  to  leave  only  a  remote      possibility in  his  favour,  which      can be  dismissed with the sentence      ’of course  it is  possible but not      in the  least probable’ the case is      proved beyond reasonable doubt, but      Karan vs.  State of  U.P. (AIR 1974      SC 1567  ), this court observed (at      p.1569):      "Neither  mere   possibilities  nor      remote   possibilities   nor   mere      doubts  which  are  not  reasonable      can,   without    danger   to   the      administration of  justice, be  the      foundaion of  the acquittal  of  an      accused   person,   if   there   is      otherwise      fairly      credible      testimony.      Bearing the  above well-settled  principle in  mind, we well not examine the case put forward by the learned counsel for the  accused-appeallants. It is the contention of Mr. N. Natarajan, learned  senior counsel appearing for the accused that the  deceased might have died not by manhandling by the accused (A1,A8  and A10)  as spoken  to  by  the  prosection witness, put  on account of a fall from the crash board from which the  was clinging on when the lorry diverting from the Tar road  and entering  into the  katcha  road.  It  is  the further argument  of the  learned counsel  that this was not properly appreciated  by the  High Court  and the High Court wrongly proceeded  as if  the argument was that the deceased was run  oven by  the  lorry.  In  this  connection,  it  is relevant to extract a portion of the evidence of P.W. 23 who has subscribed as a witness to the Panchnama. He deposed as follows:      "When we  want to  that place along      with PWs.  1  and  6,  some  forest      official and  police officials were      present.  No   forest  guards  were      present at  the time.  The distance      from  Nilkantha   Hedge’s  hose  to      yentally   cross   is   about   tow      furlongs and  not four  furlongs as      suggested.        There         are      "ASWATHAKATTAS" Four numbers on the      eastern side  and four  numbers  on      the  western   side   towards   the      southern side  of Hegdekatta  Sirsi      Road. There was a small "Kornakalu"      in the  middle  of  Yentalli  cross      road running about 17 1/2 feet. The

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11  

    eastern  and   western   sides   of      Yentalli  cross  road  touches  the      stone steps of two "ASWATHAKATTAS".      The witness  volunteered  that  the      distance of 14 feet. The tyre marks      were visible  after about  30 to 40      feet from  the starting of Yentalli      cross  as   there  was  grass.  The      places spread  all oven  the place.      It is  not correct  to suggest that      there was no marked kutcha road and      it is only a open ground."      This  evidence   is  supported   by      Panchanama which  reads as  follows      :-      "At the time of drawing Panchanama,      the eye  witnesses  recognised  all      the   article,    said    aforesaid      articles were  seized by the C.P.I.      From the above said crime.      This   place    is   abutting    to      Hegdekatta Sirsi  Tar road,  katcha      road heading to Rudramule. It is at      distance of  2 furlongs east of the      house of  the Neelkanta Hegde. This      palace is  government  forest,  and      having survey  No.423  of  shivalli      village. Since  there are totally 8      Ashwathakatta in  this place. It is      called Yentalli Katta. Kachcha road      is in  between  Ashwath  katta  and      telephone   pole    No.    A-II/19.      Distance between  the  place  where      blood is  found telephone  pole  is      10’-5’ and it is in east direction,      Kachcha  road  further  heading  to      south in  direction and on the road      the fresh clear make of the tyre of      the lorry is found."      This is  one aspect  of the  matter. The  other  aspect pointed  out   by  the  learned  counsel  for  the  accused- appellants  was  with  regard  to  the  nature  of  external injuries which  could have  been caused,  according to  him, Only by  the fall  of the  victim from  the lorry on a rough surface and not by receiving blow with piece of jungle wood. The external injuries caused were the follwoing:      (1) Two  locerated wound  over  the      occipital region measuring 2" x 1/2      bone deep      (2) Contusion  over the right cheek      8" x 6".      (3) Contusion  of the  right  upper      eye lid  was present. Bleeding from      both  nostrils  and  left  ear  was      present.      (4)  Multiple   constructions   and      abrasion  over   the  chest   wall,      anterior abdominal  wall  and  back      were present.      (5)  Abrasion   over  the  anterior      aspect of  the left thigh 12" x 12"      and another abrasion over the upper      part of  the right  thigh measuring      3"x 3".      (6) Abrasion over the right gluteal

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11  

    region and  upper posterior  aspect      of the right thigh 12" x 10".      On disection  of the  body, the internal injuries found were the following:-      (1)  Haematoma   in  the  occipital      region 6" x 6" was present.      (2)  Fracture  base  of  the  skull      extending  through   posterior  and      middle cranial fossa on both sides.      Fracture of  arbital  roof  on  the      right side. Fracture at the tempora      occipital junction on the left side      and tempero  frontal region  on the      right side.      (3) Laceration of right cerebelum.      (4) On  examination of  the  thorax      there was  fracture of  the 3rd  of      5th rib  in the  anterior  axillary      line on the right side. Fracture of      4th to  8th ribs  at their junction      with vertebrae  on the  left  side.      Pleura was torn on both side. About      500 CC. of blood was present in the      pleural cavity.      (6) Laceration of both the lobes of      the liver  was present.  Perinefric      haematoma was present 6 on both the      sides of kidney.      According to P.W. 25, the Medical Officer, the deceased died due  to shock and haemorrhage on account of injuries of the vital organs.      To a  suggestion put  by the  learned counsel  for  the accused to  the effect  that all  those injuries  could have been caused as a result of a fall from the  medical officer, did not  rule out  that possibility.  Having regard  to  the external injuries  as extracted above, the contention of the learned  counsel   for  the  accused-appellants  that  those injuries could  have been  caused by  the body  coming  into contact with some rough surface on account of the rolling of the bedy  by a  fall from the lorry cannot be brushed aside. It is also noteworthy that the accused in order to take away the lorry  to distant  place to dispose of the illegally cut jungle wood  diverted the  same from Tar road to Katcha road and the  width of  the Katcha  road was just enough to allow the lorry  to enter  in the  Katcha road,  where there  were "Ashwathakattas" Ashwathakattas"  which  means  that  peeple tree surrounded  by some small brick/stone structure further narrowing the  width of  the road.  It is also seen from the Panchanama that  on one  side  those  "Ashwathakattas"  were there and  on the  apposite side  there was a electirc pole. All these  things  would  strengthen  the  argument  of  the learned counsel for the accused that the deceased could have fallen from  the lorry  while the lorry turned from Tar road to Katcha road and thereby sustained all the injuries.      Now coming to the contention of the learned counsel for the accused-appellants  that there  was  abnormal  delay  in registering the  F.I.R. We are of the view that by itself it may not  assume  importance,  but  in  the  light  of  other circumstances this delay may not be easily ignored. The High Court itself  found with  the Station  House Officer for not registering the  F.I.R. immediately when he was at the scene of incident.  The delay  in registering  the  F.I.R  assumed inportance  in   view  of  the  fact  that  in  the  Acident Register, the cause of death was recorded as accident due to hit by  a trunk. This statement was recorded not only in one

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11  

register, but  in three registers, namely, Exs. P53, P56 and P57. This  was the earliest information given by P.Ws. 2 and 3 However,  when they  gave oral  evidence, they have spoken differently  regarding   the   cause   of   death,   namely, manhandling   of the  deceased by A1, A8, and A10. According to the  defence counsel, the original version was changed to suit the  convenience  of  prosecution  by  registering  the F.I.R. belatedly. The High Court, however, brushed aside Ex. P53, P56  and P57  by observing   that they cannot be looked into as  substantive evidence even though they are marked on the prosection  side  and  they  are  public  documents  and presumed to be genuine and duly recorded.      Yet another  discrepancy pointed  out  by  the  learned counsel for  the accused  was that the definite case of PWs. 1,2 and  3 was that it was A8 who got down from the cabin of the lorry and  hit the deceased by MO2 and others jointed in tearing the uniform of the deceased by removing the revolver etc. On  the other  hand, P.W.  6 has spoken that it was A-1 who got  down form the cabin with M.O.2 and gave the flow to the deceased  and others  jointed A1.  This discrepancy  was noticed by the High Court. IT is again the contention of the learned counsel  for  the  accused-appellants  that  in  the forest area  at about  3-4 A.M.,  P.Ws  1,2,3,  and  6  have followed the  lorry by running behind it and alleged to have seen the accused beating the deceased from a distance of 100 ft with  the help  of a  torch light.  this according to the learned counsel, is not possible particularly when the place of accurrence was forest surrounded by trees.      Lastly, it was contended that having regard to the size of MO2  said to  have been  used by  the accused  attack the deceased, the  prosecution case  must fail.  we have noticed that the  size of  MO2 as noted in the Panchanama was 41" in length and  8" in  diametre. In the normal course, it is not possible for  a person  to handle  that heavy  material  for attacking anyone, If we take into account all these factors, we entertain  that there  exists a  reasonable doubt and the benefit of  which must  go to  the accused.  We do not think that there  exists a  reasonable doubt  and the  benefit  of which must  go to  the accused.  We do  not think  that  the doubts created  are either fancy or remote possibilities. On the facts  of  this  case,  we  are  satisfied  that  evenly balanced tow  views are  possible  and,  therefore,  we  are inclined to give the benefit of reasonable doubt the accused and hold  that the  charge against  A1,  A8  and  A10  under section 302 has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.      Before  concluding   we  would   like  to   share   the appreciation expressed  by the  High Court  in the following words:      "In that  process, the  efforts  of      the deceased  Range forest  Officer      Hegdekatta      should      deserve      appreciation not  only in  hands of      his    colleagues    or    officeal      superiors but  also of  the  Court.      Even when  the lorry  started  from      the precincts  of the  house of the      accused,   disregarding   his   own      safety  to   personand   life   the      deceased clung  to the crashguardin      order   to    prevent   the   lorry      proceeding further."      As regards conviction of other charges, we do not think there is any case for interference.      In the  result, the  conviction and  sentence of A1, A8 and A10  under section  302 read  with section 34 IPC is set

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11  

aside and  the conviction  and sentence  in respect of other offences is  confirmed. I  view of  the above  findings, the appeals preferred by the State are dismissed.