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

PETITIONER: PANDAPPA HANUMAPPA HANAMAR & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF KARNATAKA

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       28/02/1997

BENCH: M.K. MUKHERJEE, S.P. KURDUKAR

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T M.K. MUKHERJEE, J.      This appeal  under  Section  379  Cr.P.C.  is  directed against the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 149 of 1989 whereby it set aside the acquittal of the tow appellants of the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34  IPC recorded  in their  favour by the Additional Sessions Judge,  Bijapur in  Session Case No. 39 or 1987 and convicted and sentenced them thereunder. 2.   Put briefly the prosecution case is as under : a)   The appellants  are the  sons of  the elder  sister  of Hanamapa Sabappa  Halagal (the  deceased ) of village Araker in Dilgi Taluka for the district of Bijapur. After the death of his  first wife,  the deceased  married Erawwa, the elder sister of  the    two  appellants,  i.e.  his  own  sister’s daughter. the  deceased and  Erawwa however  did not  have a happy conjugal life and, within a month of their marriage he deserted her  and started living with Lakshmawwa (P.W. 1), a widow. The  tow appellants  however were  insisting upon the deceased to bring Erawwa back but he refused to oblige them. b)   In the  morning of  December 16, 1986 the deceased went to cultivate  his land  in the  outskirts of  their  village along with  Sunderawwa (P.W.2) a daily labourer. At or about 10 A.M.  Lakshmawwa (P.W.1) reached there carrying  the food for the  deceased and  a basket containing groundnuts. After P.W.1 reached  there all  three of them started shelling the groundnuts. While  they  were  so  engaged  accused  Nagappa (since absconding)  reached there  wit a rampige in his hand and when  questioned told the deceased that he was in search of his  she-buffalo. Nagappa  then sat  nearby  and  started eating  groundnuts.  A  little  later  appellant  Lakshmappa (hereinafter referred  to as  A2 )  also reached there armed wit an  axe and  started gossiping  with  the  deceased  and others present there. After sometime A1 arrived there with a knife and  stabbed the deceased on his chest. A2 and Nagappa also  jointed  him  in  the  assault  wit  their  respective weapons. (c)  Seeing the  assault both  P.Ws 1 and 2 raised a due and cry and  the latter  snatched away the axe from the hands of A2 and threw it away. Both P.Ws. 1 and 2 then left the place

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

and proceeded  towards the  village. On  the  way  they  met Bhagawaa (P.W.3)  later they  found A1  and A2 coming behind them with A1 holding the severed head of the deceased in his hand. Both  of them  (A1 and  A2) then  went  to  the  agasi (village gate) and tied the severe head to that gate. (d)  On seeing  A1 and  A2 carrying  the served  head of the deceased and  then thing  it to  the village  gate,  Hussain Saheb (P.W.  6) ,  a peon  of the  local  Panchayat  office, rushed to  the village Post office and gave an intimation to the Kaladagi  Police Station  about the  Murder of Hanamappa over  telephone.   One  receipt  of  that  information  Sub- Inspector Hemanth  Jaganneth Jahagirdar  (P.W.20)  made  and entry in  the station  House Diary  book and left for Arkeri wit some  constables. Reaching  there they first went to the Panchayat office  and met P.W.6, ad then accompanied by him, went to  the village  gate. After getting photographs of the severed   head taken, P.W.20 sent the constables to the spot where the torso of he deceased was lying. In the meantime he (P.W.20) secured  the presence  of P.W.1  at  the  panchayat office and  recorded her  statement (EXT.P-1).  Treating the same as  the F.I.R. he took up investigation of the case and wend to the place of occurrence. He held inquest on the body of  the   deceased.  Meanwhile   Ramchandra  Benakappe  mane (P.W.21), Circle  Inspector of  Police reached  the  village gate and got the served head brought down. The head was then taken  to   the  site  of  the  incident  and  inquest  held thereupon. The  trunk and  the head were then sent for post- mortem examination.  P.W.21 then took over the investigation from P.W.  20 and  seized and  exe, a  pair  of  chappal,  a rampige,  a   tatta  (   sack)  some  groundnut  shells  and groundnuts and some blood stained earth from the place where the dead body was found. (e)  Both A1  ad A2  were arrested  in the same night and as some injuries  were found on their persons they were sent to the  Medical  Officer,  kaladagi  for  examination.  On  the following day  P.W. 21 interrogated them and pursuant to the statement of  A1 recovered  one Jambia  (MO2) which was kept hidden in thorny bushes. Thereafter the dhotis, Which A1 and A2   were wearing  were seized as they were found to contain blood stains. (f)  P.W.21 sent  all the articles seized for examination by the Forensic  Science Laboratory  (FSL) and on completion of investigation submitted  charge-sheet  against  A1,  A2  and Nagappa (showing him as absconding). 3.   Both the   appellants  pleaded not guilty to the charge levelled against  them and  contended  that  they  had  been falsely implicated.  A.1 also  took a  specific defence that Sundarappa and  Mangalappa of  Their Village  had  got  them implicated in  the case  wit ha  view to getting the land of the deceased. 4.   To  give   and  ocular  version  of  the  incident  the prosecution examined  P.W.1 and  P.W.2. Though  P.W.2  fully supported the  prosecution case P.W.1 did not, for which she was declared  hostile. Besides,  it examined Laxman (P.W. 4) Irayya (P.W.5)  Husensaheb  (P.W.6),  Ganganna  (P.W.8)  and Pandappa  (P.W.11),   who  claimed  to  have  seen  the  two appellants taking the severed head of the deceased along the village road  and then  tying it  to the  village gate.  The other witnesses  examined by the prosecution were the doctor who held  autopsy upon  the deceased and examined A1 and A2, some villagers  in whose  presence the different panchanamas were prepared,  and the  two Investigating Officers Hemanath Jaganneth Jahagirdar  (P.W.20) and Ramachandra Benkappa mane (P.W.21). The  prosecution also tendered in evidence reports of the  FSL. No  witness was  however examined  on behalf of

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

defence. 5.   On perusal  of the  judgment of the trial Court we find that the  reasons which  weighed wit  it for  discarding the prosecution case  were, that  no reliance could be placed on the evidence of P.W.2 as she materially contradicted herself with reference  to her  statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C., that  the evidence  of P.Ws.  4 to 6, 8 and 11 were contradictory to  each other,  that the medical evidence did not fit  in with  the ocular  evidence as  regards the  time when, and  the manner  in which the assault took place, that the investigation  was tainted, and that the prosecution did not give  any explanation  as  to  how  the  two  appellants sustained injuries during the incident. 6.   In reversing  the order  of acquittal  the  High  Court first observed  that the trial Court ought not to have given undue importance   to  minor contradictions appearing in the evidence of  the eye-witnesses  who were  all  disinterested persons and  had given  a graphic  picture of  the different arts of  the macabre  incident. The High Court next observed that the trial Court entertained doubt regarding the time of the murder  when none existed. The reluctance on the part of the trial  Court to  place reliance  upon  the  evidence  of independent witnesses, which according to the High Court was corroborated  by  circumstantial  evidence,  was  also  much commented upon.  Lastly, the High Court observed that in the facts and circumstances for the case the prosecution owed no duty to explain the injuries found on the persons of the two appellants. 7.   Mr. Javeli, the learned counsel for the appellants took us through  the entire  evidence on record and the judgments of the  learned Courts  below to  contend that  the findings recorded  by   the  trial  Court  were  passed  on  detailed discussion and  proper  appreciation  of  the  evidence  and therefore the  High  Court  was  not  at  all  justified  in upsetting the  same by  taking a  different view  of it. Mr. Javali further  contended that having regard t the fact that the evidence  of Sandrawwa  (P.W.2)  as  also  that  of  the witnesses who  claimed to have seen the two appellants going with  the   severed  head  of  the  deceased  bristled  with contradictions and  improbabilities,  the  trial  Court  was fully justified  in observing  that  no  reliance  could  be placed upon  the same. Mr. Veerappa, the learned counsel for the State  o the  other hand fully supported the judgment of the High court. 8.   Having considered  the judgment  of the  trial Court in the light of the evidence on record we have no hesitation in concluding that the findings recorded by it in favour of the appellants are  patently wrong  and perverse  and  the  High Court was fully justified in reversing the same. 9.   That Hanamappa  met with his gory death on his land and that his served head was found tied to the village get stand conclusively established  by the  uncontroverted evidence of the two  police Officers, namely, P.W.20 and 21, who visited the spot  soon after P.W.6 gave the phone message, the panch witnesses and other witnesses. The Photographs of the served head and  the torso  (Ext. P3 to P6) which were taken by the photographer (P.W.16),  who  accompanied  the  above  police officers  fully   corroborated  their   version.  Dr.   R.N. Nadagounda (P.W.10),  who held  autopsy on the trunk and the severed head  of Hanamappa found as many as twenty injuries. From  the   above  facts   and  circumstances   which  stand established  there  cannot  be  any  manner  of  doubt  that Hanamappa was  brutally murdered.  Indeed, this  part of the prosecution case was not seriously challenged by the defence and both  the Courts  below recorded a concurrent finding in

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

this respect. 10.  The next  and the  vital question  that falls  for  our determination is  wither the  prosecution has  been able  to conclusively prove  that the  tow appellants are the authors of the  ghastly crime.  As earlier  stated, the main stay of the prosecution in this regard is P.W. 2 who claimed to have been caltivating  the land  of the  deceased on  the fateful day. She  testified the since about ten to twelve days prior to that  day she  was  working  in  that  land  as  a  daily labourer. As before, she went to that land in the morning of December 16, 1986 and engaged herself in uprooting the dried up tomato  plants. The deceased reached there sometime later and tethered   the  bullocks, that  he had  brought wit him, near the  haystack. At  or about  the same  time P.W.1  also reached there  with a  bag or groundnuts and a butti (tiffin box) containing  the meals for the deceased. After spreading a gunny  bag all  of them sat over it and started gossiping, while shelling  the groundnuts.  While they  were  gossiping accessed Nagappa  reached there  with a rampige and on being asked by  the deceased  about the  purpose of his visit said that he  was i  search of his buffalo which was missing from the previous  night. Nagappa  then sat  wit them and started gossiping. After  something A2  came there  and joined them. while they were talking t each other P.W.1 left the place to answer a  call of  the nature.  By the  time she reached the heap of stones lying nearby A1 appeared there with his hands held behind  his back.  Immediately thereafter A1 caught the deceased and stabbed him with a knife he was carrying and A2 assaulted him  with the  exe he  had with  him P.W.2 however managed to  snatch the  exe from the hand of A2 and throw it away. Before however P.W.1 could raise a hue and cry Nagappa also assaulted  him with  his rampige.  The both  P.W. 1 and P.W.2 went towards the village to inform the villagers. 11.  P.W.2 went  on two  say that  when he was going towards the village she heard sound of food steps from behind and on turning back  saw accused  Nagappa coming towards them. when she requested  him to rescue the deceased he replied that he had not  come to rescue him and ran towards the Nala. P.W. 2 next  stated   theat  then   she  followed  P.W.1,  who  was proceeding ahead,  towards the  village and  on the way when she (P.W.2)  met P.W.  3 she  told him  that all  the  three accused had  killed the  deceased. Then  she found A1 and A2 following them with A1 carrying the served head of Hanamapa. The above  scene struck  terror in  there mind and she along with P.W.1  ran towards  the village  and stayed back in her house till  police came. P.W.2 identified the knife, exe and rampige with  which the  three  accused  had  assaulted  the deceased the  clothes of  the  deceased  and  the  pairs  of chappals that the deceased and P.W.1 were wearing. 12.  One  of   the  reasons   for  which   the  trial  Court disbelieved her  evidence was  that thought  she claimed  to have uprooted  tomato plants from the land no such plant was seized by the police. The trial Court ought not to have laid any stress  on this  aspect for her claim about her presence is furnished  by the  fact that groundnuts, groundnut shells an da  gunny bag  were seized  from the site of the incident and all  those articles  together wit  the  wearing  appeals seized from  the person  of the  deceased were  found by the F.S.L. to contained human blood of Group ’B’. Another reason advanced by the trial Court to disbelieve her - which in our view is  an absurd  one-was that though according to her the deceased had fallen on the gunny bag blood stains were found on the  earth also.  Considering the  weapons used  and  the number and  nature of injuries inflicted therewith it can be legitimately inferred  that blood  spurted out  to cover  an

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

area beyond  the gunny  bag on which the deceased had fallen down. The  next ground  canvassed by  the  trial  Court  for disbelieving her  was that no other witness had spoken about her having been present at the spot at the material time. If the above  observation of  the trial  Court is  taken to its logical conclusion  it would means that no conviction can be recorded on the basis of the evidence of a solitary witness, howsoever reliable his testimony may be. One of the tests to judge the  credibility of a witness is the intrinsic quality and worth of his evidence, independent of other evidence and if such  evidence measures up to the Court’s satisfaction it can itself  form the  basis of  conviction. It  is only when such evidence  does not  oass muster  that the  Court  seeks Corroboration to  draw its  conclusion therefrom.  The trial Court  also   disbelieved  P.W.2  on  the  ground  that  she contradicted  herself  with  her  statement  recorded  under Section 161  Cr.P.C. Having  gone through the contradictions we are  of the  view that  the trial Court ought not to have allowed   the    defence   to    bearing   those   purported contradictions on  record- much  less rely upon the same-for they are only minor omissions. To avoid prolixity we refrain from referring to each of them except one to demonstrate the trial Court’s  unjustified reliance  upon them.  As  earlier noticed, P.W.2 testified that when A2 tried to give a second blow on  the deceased  with an  axe he snatched the axe from him. The  omission to  which her attention was drawn in this regard was that before the police she did not state that she snatched away  the axe  when the second blow was about to be given. The  omission here  was not in respect of her failure to state  about the  snatching away  of the but the stage of such snatching.  It is  obvious that this was not a material omission and,  therefore, the  trial Court ought not to have permitted the  prosecution to  prove the  said omission, far less relied  upon it  to discredit  P.W.2 Lastly,  the trial Court observed  that as there were discrepancies between the evidence of  P.W.2 and  the other  witness, the former could not be relied upon. On perusal of the discrepancies referred to by  the trial  Court we are of the opinion that it should have ignored  them  as  insignificant  and  inconsequential. After having  carefully gone  thorough the evidence of P.W.2 we find  no reason to disbelieve her as we find that she was a natural  and probable witness and inspite or lengthy cross examination the defence could not shake her credibility. 13   That brings us to the evidence of the other eye witness namely, Lakshmawwa  (P.W.1). While  admitting that  she  was living with the deceased as his mistress, she testified that in that morning she went to the field at or about 10.00 A.M. with a  basket of groundnuts and a tiffin box containing the food for  the deceased. Reaching there, she found Sunderawwa (P.W.2) plucking  tomato plants.  She  (P.W.1) spread out an empty gunny  bag on the ground and all three of them started shelling the  groundnuts. While  they  were sitting, Nagappa (the absconding accused) came there. When deceased asked him as to why he came there he replied that he came in search of this missing  she-buffalo. she  then asked  the deceased for some groundnuts  and started  eating them. while all of them were talking  A2 came  there with an axe on his shoulder and they started  talking to  each other.  A  little  later  she (P.W.1) left  the pace  to ease  herself. She  then  saw  A1 approaching the  deceased. When  she came  back after easing herself she found the deceased bleeding near the place where they were  shelling the  groundnuts. She  then became afraid and ran  towards the hose. She, however, did not speak about the actual  assault on  the deceased  by the  three  accused persons  for  which  she  was  contradicted  by  the  public

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

Prosecutor, with  the permission  for   the Court,  with her statement recorded  by P.W.  20 (which  was treated  by  the police as  the FIR  but was  found by  both the  Courts as a statement recorded  during investigation)  wherein  she  had supported the prosecution case fully. 14.  In dealing  with the  evidence of P.W.1 the trial court first detailed  her testimony  to the  extent it was legally admissible and then made the following comments:      "So from  the  statement  of  P.W.1      recorded  by  the  court  what  act      these two  accused had committed in      causing the death or assaulting the      deceased has  not been spoken to by      P.W.1 so  her  evidence  so  as  to      connect the accused wit the assault      on the deceased in concerned cannot      be of  any help to the prosecution.      Mere  presence   of   the   accused      persons in  the land at the alleged      spot itself  will not sufficient to      come to  the conclusion  that it is      the   accused   persons   who   are      responsible for  the assault on the      deceased." 15.  In Satpaul  vs. Delhi Administration A.I.R. 1976 SC 294 this Court had occasion to consider the question whether the entire evidence  of a prosecution witness, who turns hostile and is  cross examined  by the  public prosecutor  with  the leave of  the Court,  is to  be discarded  altogether. After discussion the  law on the subject and the decisions of this Court and  High Court  on that  aspect the Court observed as under:      "From  the   above  conspectus,  it      emerges  clear   that  even   in  a      criminal prosecution when a witness      is cross  examined and contradicted      with the leave of the Court, by the      party  calling  him,  his  evidence      cannot, as  a  matter  of  law,  be      treated as  washed off  the  record      altogether. It  is for the Judge of      fact  to   consider  in  each  case      whether as  a result  of such cross      examination and  contradiction, the      witness      stands      thoroughly      discredited or ca still be believed      in  regard   to  a   part  of   his      testimony. If  the Judge finds that      in the  process, the  credit of the      witness  has  not  been  completely      shaken, he  may, after  reading and      considering  the  evidence  of  the      witness,  as   a  whole,  with  due      caution and  care,  accept  in  the      light  of  other  evidence  on  the      record, that  part of his testimony      which he  finds to be creaditworthy      and act  upon it.  It  in  a  given      case, the whole of the testimony of      the witness is impugned, and in the      process,   the    witness    stands      squarely and  totally  discredited,      the Judge  should, as  a matter  of      prudence, discard  his evidence  in      toto."

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

16.  A similar  view was expressed by a three judge Bench of this court in Bhagwan Singh vs. State of Haryana A.I.R. 1976 SC 202  when it  stated that  the fact  that the  Court gave permission to  the prosecution  to  cross  examine  his  own witness, thus  characterising him as, what is described as a hostile witness,  does not  completely efface  his evidence. The evidence remains admissible in the trial and there is no legal bar  to  base  a  conviction  upon  his  testimony  if corroborated by other reliable evidence. 17.  In view  of the above tests laid down by this Court for appreciating the  evidence of  a hostile  witness the  trial court was  not at all justified i discarding the evidence of P.W.1 altogether what the above quoted comments and it ought to have  considered her  evidence in  the light of the other evidence eon  record. when  so considered  we find  that her evidence regarding the presence of P.W.2 at the time for the incident, the appearance of the accused on the scene and the decease later  on found bleeding is trustworthy as it stands corroborated not  only by the evidence of P.W. 2 but also by the recovery  of blood  stained gunny  bag, groundnut shells and axe. while on this point it is pertinent to mention that in spite  of a searching cross examination the defence could not discredit  her evidence,  so far as it sought to support the prosecution case. 18.  Now that  we have  found that  P.W.2 is  a reliable and truthful  witness   and  P.W.1   does   not   stand   wholly discredited, we  may advert our attention to the testimonies of the  five witnesses,  namely, P.W.4,  5, 6, 8 and 11, who saw the  severed head  of the  deceased being carried by the tow appellants and then tied by them to the village gate. To appreciate the reasonings of the trial Court to brand all of them as  unreliable  witnesses  it  would  be  necessary  to discuss their  evidence in  some details.  P.W.4 claimed  to have gone  to the  land of  one Sorgavi  which was  near the village stream, to water pomegranate plants. At or about 11- 11.30 A.M.  the supply  of electricity failed, and with that the supply  of water  stopped, and  so he  was to the nearby pump-souse to  take his  food. When he was about to open his lunch box,  he saw  P.Ws. 1 and 2  coming towards the stream screaming. When  asked by  him as  to what  had happened she told that Hanamappa had been hacked by Pandya (A1) ad Laxmya (A2). then she said P.W.2 went running. He then went towards the field  and stood  there. At  that time  he saw A1 and A2 coming towards  the village,  with the  former  holding  the served head  of the  deceased. In  cross examination  he was contradicted with  his statement  recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C.  Where  in  he  did  not  state  that  because  the electricity has  failed he  had gone  to take his food at or about 11  or 11.30 A.M. and that P.W.1 told him that Pandapa and Laxmappa  had cut  Hanamappa. He  asserted that both the accused persons  were almost  behind P.Ws.1 and 2. He denied the suggestion that whole committing theft in the land of A1 he was  caught red-handed  by A2  and then  fined and out of that enmity he was giving false evidence. 19.  P.W.5, testified  that after  cultivating his  land  he went back  to his  home at  or about  12 noon  to take food, While he  was in  his house  he was  both the accused person persons coming  to the  village, with the served head of the deceased in the hand of A1. He followed them to the village- gate where he saw A2 tying the head to the beam of the gate. Thereafter both  went towards  their house proclaiming their valour (shouting   ’deen’).  At that  time he  saw  Gangappa Hadapad  (P.W.   8)  and  others  present  there.  In  cross examination it  was elicited  from him  that he used to go t the houses in the village, including that of the accused, to

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

collect alms.  It was  suggested to him that about one years prior to  the incident  A1 had got prepared one tayatha from him for  one of  his bullocks  and paid  Rs.  50/-.  It  was further suggested  the because  the bullock died A1 got that money     recovered  form  him  for  which  their  relations deteriorated. The suggestions were however denied by him. He however admitted  in the  cross-examination that  he did not see any  one going  towards the land of the deceased when he was returning  home. His attention was then drawn to certain contradictions with  reference to  his statement made before the police. 20.  The star  witness of the prosecution to prove the above fact is  however P.W.6  who deposed  that about 12 noon that day he  was sitting  on  the  Katta  outside  the  Panchayat office. At  hat time  both  the  accused  came  towards  the panchayat office  with the  severed head of the deceased and then went  towards the  village-gate. He stood at a distance about 20  marus and  saw A-2  tying a torn piece of towel to the hair on the head after taking the head from the hands of A-1 and  then affixing  it to  the beam of the gate. Both of them hen  went towards  the village  shouting deen.  At that time P.Ws.  5, 8  and 11 were present there. He then vent to the Dalapathy of the village but as he could not find him he sent a message to the Kaladagi Police Station from the local post office.  A suggestion was put to him that Rs.200/- were paid as  bribe at  his instance to the Talati of the village by A1  to get a loan sanctioned and because the same was not sanctioned A1  was pressing  his brother  to  get  back  the money,  but   he  denied  the  suggestion.  From  his  cross examination we find that nothing of consequence was elicited in his  cross examination  to discredit his. it is of course true that  he did  not give  all the  details  i  the  phone message but  it is of no consequence because he did intimate about the murder of Hanamappa. 21.  P.W.8, a  barber by  profession, was  near the  village gate at  about 12  noon that day and he saw both the accused coming there  with the  severed head  of  the  deceased  and trying it  to the village-gate in the manner stated by other witnesses. He  identified it  as that of deceased Hanamappa. He also spoke of the presence of other witnesses referred to above. He  denied the  suggestion in  the  cross-examination that his  elder brother Mutheppa had illicit connection with P.W.1.  Other  suggestions  to  show    enmity  towards  the appellants were  also denied  by his.  From his  evidence we find that  nothing of  consequence could  be elicited  i his cross-examination so as to doubt his veracity. 22.  The last witness on the point is P.W.11, who is also an agriculturist. he  has his  house about  half a furlong away from the  village  gate.  On  getting  he  information  that Hanamappa  was   murdered  he   along   with   Handigeri   a Shivalingappa went  towards the  village gate at or about 12 noon and  saw both  the accused  going there with the served head of the deceased and then fixing it to the village gate. He admitted  that he  had not  gone to his land that morning but stated  before Police  that he  had gone to his land and returned by  12 noon.  In cross examination he admitted that Bharamappa, a  cow-boy, is the cousin of the accused persons but denied  that in  his marriage he had consumed liquor and misbehaved for  which A1 had beaten him. He also denied that for that  reason he and A1 were not in talking terms. On the country he asserted that they were in talking terms. 23.  The principal ground which weighed with the trial Court to disbelieve  the evidence of P.Ws. 5, 6,8, and 11 was that while testifying  before the  Court they  improved on  their statement made  before the  police during  investigation. On

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

perusal of  the improvements referred to by the trial Court, we find  that they  relate primarily  to the manner in which the accessed  tied the  served  head  to  the  village  gate details of which were not disclosed to the police. The other improvements also relate to insignificant omissions, some of which  we   may  mention   by  way  of  illustration.  while discussing the  evidence of P.W.5, the trial Court commented upon his having no stated before the police about the actual manner in  which the  head was  tied -  though he gave those details in  evidence -  and that  while proceeding alone the road with  the head  they (the  appellants) raised  slogans. Similarly, while criticizing the evidence of P.W.6 the trial Court observed  that while  in his  testimony  in  court  he stated only  three persons  had witnessed  the tying  of the served head,  in his  statement before  the police he stated that under  of persons  had assembled near the village gate. The  trial   Court  also   laid  much   stress  upon   minor contradictions in  the evidence  of the  above witnesses  as would be  evidence from its comment that whereas P.Ws. 5 and 6 had  seen only tying of the served head with pawada to the hair of  the severed   head,  P.Ws. 8  and 11 said tat along pawada. cheri was also used. 24.  In our  considered view  the trial Court was not at all justified  in   disbelieving  the   evidence  of  the  above witnesses:  firstly,  because  ,  they  were  all  dependant witnesses and  nothing was  brought our in cross-examination to indicate  that they  were interested  in the cause of the prosecution or inimically deposed towards the appellants and secondly, because  ,  the  improvements  and  contradictions referred to  by the  trial Court  in their evidence were too insignificant to  be taken  notice of.  Before we  part with this aspect  of the  matter was  may mention  that the trial Court did  not give  any reason  whatsoever to  discard  the evidences of  above five witnesses and we are of the opinion that there  is not  justifiable ground  to disbelieve  their testimonies. 25.  As stated  earlier, another  ground  canvassed  by  the trial   Court to  disbelieve the  prosecution case  was that there was  material Discrepancy  regarding the  actual  time when the  incient took  place. The  trial Court  pointed out that   i the  charge framed  against the  appellants it  was mentioned that  the incident  took  place  at  1  P.M.,  but according to  P.Ws/ 1  and 2  the incident  took place at or about 10  A.M., while  the witnesses  who  spoke  about  the carrying of  the served  dead claimed  to have  seen it at a about 12 noon. In making these comments the trial Court gave undue importance  to a  mistake in the charge, ignoring both the ocular evidence and the medical evidence and the medical evidence. It  is also  not clear on what basis it was stated in the  charge that  incident had occurred at 1 P.M. nor was it necessary  to refer  to the  time of incident therein. Be that as  it may,  the record  does not  indicated  that  the appellants capitalised  on it  not can  it be  said that the they  were  prejudiced  thereby.  P.W.2  deposed  that  when Hunamappa was  murdered it  was about  five hours after sun- rise and P.W. 1 said that she went to the land at a about 10 A.M. According  to P.Ws.  4, 5,6,8  and 11  it was  about 12 noon, then  both the appellants came to the village shouting "deen" and  holding the  severed head  of the deceased. When considered in the context of the Act that the witnesses were village rustics, who do not testify about time by the watch, there is  not contradiction whatsoever regarding the time of the incident. Another conclusion of the trial Court that the incident. Another  conclusion of  the trial  court that  the incident must  have taken  place in  the  early  morning  of

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

December 16,  appears to have been influenced by the opinion given by  the Doctor,  who held the autopsy. The trial court ought not  have based its conclusion on the opinion so given , when  the witnesses  have  consistently  stated  that  the actual assault was round about five hours after sun-rise. 26.  As regards  the criticism  of the  trial Court that the failure on  the part  of  the  prosecution  to  explain  the injuries found  on the  person of  the two appellants by Dr. Nadagounda P.W.10) when he examined them in the night of the incident made  its case  suspect, it mus be said that in the facts ad  circumstances of  the instant case the prosecution owned no  such duty.  P.W. 10 found one incised would on the thigh of A1 and one incised wound on the middle of the right palm of  A2 measuring  1.1/4" x  1/4" and  skin  deep.  Such simple and minor injuries on the person of the accused could not  out   weigh  the   evidence  of  the  large  number  of independent  witnesses   examined  by  the  prosecution  who consistently deposed  about the  ghastly crimes committed by them in  severing the head of the deceased, parading with it along the  village pathway and then tying it to the village- gate. We  cannot lose  sight of the fact that the appellants along with another attacked the deceased with deadly weapons and inflicted  twenty injuries  on his  person. When  such a ghastly murder is committed it was not unlikely that the tow appellant sustained  those injuries  accidently or  owing to the resistance which the deceased must have offered. In make this observation  we have  drawn inspiration  from the  fact that the  injury that  was suffered  by A2  was on the right palm. At  any rate  there is  nothing  on  record  that  the deceased caused  or could  have caused  those injuries, more so, when  he was  not armed  with any weapon. we, therefore, find no  hesitation in  concluding that  the reliance of the trial Court  on the  superficial  injuries  on  the  accused persons  do   distrust  the   prosecution  case  was  wholly unjustified. 27.  On conspectus  of the entire evidence on record we are, therefore, in complete agreement with the agreement with the following observations  and tsfindings  recorded by the High Court, in  setting aside  the order  of acquittal  passed in favour of the appellants:      "The  learned   counsel   for   the      accused-respondents urged  that  we      should be  slow in interfering with      the judgment  of acquittal  as  the      trial Court  has adverted   to  all      aspects  of   the  case   and   has      disbelieve  the  testimony  of  the      prosecution witnesses. We are aware      that we  should be  slow  when  the      accused   have   the   benefit   of      acquittal in the hands of the trial      Court.  We   have  reappraised  the      evidence and  found that  the trial      Court   has    grossly   erred   in      disbelieving the  testimony of  the      two  erred   in  disbelieving   the      testimony of  the tow eye witnesses      and other  witnesses in the village      who   actually    saw    the    two      respondents taking  the served head      of the  deceased and  tying to  the      village gate.  In such  a situation      from a  small village  like the one      in question  may not be possible to      expect any better evidence that the

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

    one  given   by   the   prosecution      witnesses.  When  the  tow  accused      were carrying  the served  head  of      the   deceased    it   is    rather      impossible  to  conceive  that  any      one could  have interfered wit this      inhuman and  ghastly act of theirs.      Reaction of  a witness  in  such  a      situation may  not be  uniform  and      one cannot  expect the witnesses to      behave in  a particular manner. the      entire   incident    is   one   and      continuous from the stage of attack      on the  deceased till  the  severed      head was  tied to the village gate.      Therefore the  trial Court  instead      of   hair-spliting   evidence   and      depending on  discrepancies with to      no go  to falsify  the evidence  of      these   witnesses ought not to have      disbelieved them.  Undue importance      was attached  to the  difference in      time factor referring to the one in      the charge  and the evidence of the      prosecution witnesses.  We have  no      hesitation  in   finding  that  the      approach of  the trial court to the      evidence    is     perverse     and      unreasonable. No  other  conclusion      than of  guilt can  follow from the      prosecution   evidence.    It   was      therefore    not    justified    in      acquitting the accused.      In the  result the  appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed