Karnataka High Court
H V Puttaraju @ Putti 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 R
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.751/2018
C/W.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.318/2018
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.606/2018
IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.751/2018:
BETWEEN:
1. H.V. PUTTARAJU @ PUTTI
S/O LATE VENKATESH,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
DASA GOWDARA STREET, KOTE,
HOLENARASIPURA TOWN-573 211. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. C.H.HANUMANTHARAYA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY HOLENARASIPURA TOWN POLICE
STATION, HOLENARASIPURA,
HASSAN DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU-560001. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP)
2
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2)
OF CR.PC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED
19.12.2017 PASSED BY II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN IN S.C.NO.49/2010 - CONVICTING
THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.6 FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 144, 147, 148, 114, 504,
506, 302 R/W SECTION 149 OF IPC.
IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.318/2018:
BETWEEN:
1. B. SATHISHA @ DADA
S/O LATE BYRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
MADIVALA STREET, PETE
PRESENTLY RESIDING
NEAR GREEN WOOD CONVENT,
HOUSING BOARD COLONY,
HOLENARASIPURA TOWN.
2. NAGARAJA @ KULLA
S/O SOMANNA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF CHITTANAHALLI ROAD,
DASAGOWDARA STREET, KOTE,
HOLENARASIPURA TOWN.
3. H.J. KUMARA @ OLE KUMARA
S/O JAVARAPPA @ JAVAREGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF VAKKARANE BAVI STREET,
KOTE, HOLENARASIPURA TOWN.
4. S. MANJUNATHA @ HOTTE MANJA
S/O SUBBEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
SLN TEMPLE ROAD,
3
DALAVAYI STREET,
HOLENARASIPURA TOWN. ... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. M.N.MADHUSUDHAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY HOLENARASIPURA TOWN POLICE
STATION, HOLENARASIPURA,
HASSAN DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560001. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2)
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED
19.12.2017 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN IN S.C.NO.49/2010 - CONVICTING
THE APPELLANTS NO.1 TO 4/ACCUSED NO.2 TO 5 FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 144, 147, 148,
114, 504, 506 AND 302 R/W SECTION 149 OF IPC.
IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.606/2018:
BETWEEN:
1. SATHISHA @ ASPATRE SATHISHA
S/O LATE GOPALAKRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
D-GROUP EMPLOYEE
GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL
DASAGOWDARA STREET,
HOLENARASIPURA TOWN-573211. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. C.H.HANUMANTHARAYA, ADVOCATE)
4
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY HOLENARASIPURA TOWN POLICE
STATION, HOLENARASIPURA
HASSAN DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU-560001. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2)
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED
19.12.2017 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN IN S.C.NO.49/2010 - CONVICTING
THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.1 FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SEECTIONS 143, 144, 147, 148, 114, 504,
506 AND 302 R/W SECTION 149 OF IPC.
THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT ON 25.02.2026 THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
5
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)
Heard learned counsels for the appellants and learned
Additional Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
2. These appeals are filed against the judgment of
conviction and sentence passed in S.C.No.49/2010 on the file of
the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan dated
19.12.2017 convicting the accused persons for the offence
punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 114, 504, 506
and 302 read with Section 149 of IPC and imposing life
imprisonment against accused Nos.1 to 6 and to pay fine of
Rs.20,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 302
read with Section 149 of IPC, imposing simple imprisonment for
one year for the offence punishable under Sections 144 and 148
read with Section 149 of IPC with fine of Rs.500/- each,
imposing simple imprisonment for six months for the offence
punishable under Section 504 read with Section 149 of IPC with
fine of Rs.500/- each and imposing simple imprisonment for
three years with fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence
6
punishable under Section 506 read with Section 149 of IPC and
the Trial Judge also ordered that the sentence shall run
concurrently. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction
and sentence, these appeals are filed by the respective accused
questioning the conviction and sentence and praying this Court
to acquit all the accused/appellants.
3. The factual matrix of case of the prosecution is that
the incident has taken place on 09.12.2009 in between 10.45
a.m. to 11.00 a.m. at Dodda Masjid Galli situated at
Holenarasipura. The genesis of the crime is that there was
animosity in between the accused No.1 and deceased
Trineshkumar and a criminal case was also lodged against the
accused No.1 because the accused No.1 assaulted the
complainant. The deceased Trineshkumar did not come forward
to settle the matter, hence, accused No.1 gave threat to
deceased by the supporter i.e., accused No.6. With all these
reasons, on that day, all the accused persons formed an unlawful
assembly by possessing deadly weapons and picked up quarrel
with deceased Trineshkumar, the accused No.2 assaulted with
7
repiece patti and the accused Nos.3, 4, 5 and 6 also assaulted
the deceased Trineshkumar with Long and the same is with the
instigation of accused No.1. In the result, the said Trineshkumar
had sustained injury and he was shifted to different hospitals
and ultimately, he succumbed to the injuries on 11.12.2009.
Though, the case was registered at the first instance for the
offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC, based on the
complaint as per Ex.P4 and on account of death of
Trineshkumar, other offences are invoked. The inquest mahazar
was drawn in terms of Ex.P2, seizure mahazar in terms of
Exs.P3, P7, P14 to P17, P19 to P21, spot mahazar in terms of
Exs.P11 to P13 and Ex.P22 and thereafter, the Investigating
Officer has obtained post mortem report as per Ex.P48 and so
also the opinion of the Doctor as per Ex.P49. The Investigating
Agency have also obtained FSL report as per Exs.P53 and P54
and having recorded statement of witnesses, on completion of
investigation, charge-sheet was submitted to the Court. The
accused persons were on bail and charges are framed and
accused claims trial.
8
4. Hence, the prosecution relies upon the evidence of
P.W.1 to P.W.56 and documents Exs.P1 to P64 and M.Os.1 to 22
are marked. On closure of the evidence of prosecution, accused
persons were subjected to examination under Section 313 of
Cr.P.C. and they have denied the incriminating evidence, but did
not choose to lead any defence evidence, except marking of
documents Exs.D1 to D4 through P.W.1, P.W.50 and P.W.55.
5. The Trial Court having considered both oral and
documentary evidence, particularly the evidence of the Doctor,
who has conducted the Post Mortem examination i.e., P.W.50
and having considered Ex.P48 report as well as Ex.P49-opinion
comes to the conclusion that it is a case of homicidal. The Trial
Court also having considered the evidence available on record
comes to the conclusion that accused No.1 was arrested from
Halli Mysore bus stand on 15.12.2009 and after the arrest of
accused No.1, accused Nos.2 to 6 are also arrested from
Channarayapatna on 23.12.2009. The accused No.1 cannot deny
the said version, as the prosecution have collected the
documents to the effect that he was absent for his duty from
9
02.12.2009 to 15.12.2009. For that certificate as well as
attendance register extract are obtained and produced and they
are marked as Ex.P58 and comes to the conclusion that non-
identifying the accused persons by P.W.5 is not a ground to draw
an adverse inference against the prosecution case.
6. The Court has taken note of the conduct of the
accused and the same also plays a vital role and absconding is
also one of the circumstance of guilt on the mind of the accused
and unless the accused offers a reasonable explanation for his
absence for several days at his normal place of residence or
work or at places where he would normally expected to be and
relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court in KUNDULA BALA
SUBRAMANYAM vs. STATE OF ANDHTA PRADESH reported
in (1993) 2 SCC 684.
7. The Trial Court mainly relies upon the evidence of
P.W.55, who is the eye witness, who supported the case of the
prosecution and other eyewitnesses have turned hostile,
particularly, P.W.5 has turned hostile in part only with regard to
the incident is concerned. But, he was there along with the
10
deceased, since the deceased used the car of P.W.5 car. The
Trial judge also taken note of principles laid in the judgment in
BHADRI vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN reported in AIR 1976 SC
560, wherein an observation is made that there is no law to
disbelieve the testimony of the single witness as a matter of
prudence, that corroboration would be sought. A plea that in a
murder case, the Court would insist upon the plurality of the
witnesses cannot be accepted. If the Court is satisfied that the
witness is speaking truth, the Court may act upon it.
Circumstantial corroboration is sufficient and comes to the
conclusion that P.W.5 was subjected to lengthy cross-
examination and there is nothing elicited to disbelieve his
testimony. Where the neighbourer refused to take the sides or
give evidence, conviction can be based on the evidence of single
eye witness, if it is wholly reliable. The Trial Court comes to the
conclusion that, in order to commit crime, there was motive on
the part of the accused persons and they conspired since
02.12.2009 and frequently, they made galata and the same is
spoken by P.W.1 and P.W.4 i.e., the wife and brother of the
deceased. The Court has taken note of the fact that there was
11
dispute between the accused No.6 and husband of P.W.1 with
regard to organizing the bike race without including accused
No.6 and so also accused No.1, who is the tenant of accused
No.6 and he went and assaulted the complainant, who is the
mother of the deceased and unfortunately, she passed away. In
the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.4, they deposed that accused
No.1 openly expressed that as he has got support of accused
No.6, nobody could do anything against him and accused No.6
encouraged the accused No.1 and when it reached to extreme
level, the same resulted in committing the murder of
Trineshkumar. The Trial Court also discussed in detail the
evidence of P.W.1, P.W.4 and also the evidence of police
witnesses’ and considering the evidence of P.W.55, the sole
eyewitness to the incident, comes to the conclusion that the
accused persons have committed the murder of the deceased
and convicted the accused.
8. The main contention of learned counsel for the
appellant/accused No.6 in Crl.A.No.751/2018 is that Trial Court
committed an error in relying upon the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.4
12
and P.W.55, who claim to be the relatives of the deceased and
their evidence does not inspire the confidence of the Court and
there is no corroborating evidence before the Court and the
evidence of witness remains uncorroborated. The counsel would
contend that the Trial Judge mainly relies upon the evidence of
P.W.55, who is the sole eyewitness and his statement was
recorded after 20 days after the date of the incident and he did
not inform immediately after he witnessed the incident. Hence it
creates doubt in the mind of the Court.
9. Learned counsel for the appellants-accused Nos.2 to
5 in Crl.A.318/2018 has also taken similar grounds and contend
that the Trial Court erroneously accepted the evidence of P.W.55
and conviction is based only on surmises and conjunctures and
not on the basis of any concrete proof and failed to take note of
the fact that statement of P.W.55 was recorded belatedly and
the same cannot be ignored as though it is a lapses on the part
of the Investigating Officer and committed an error in relying
upon the same.
13
10. Learned counsel for appellant-accused No.1 In
Crl.A.No.606/2018 also reiterated the very same grounds as
urged in Crl.A.No.751/2018 appeal.
11. Sri C.H. Hanumantharaya, learned counsel for
appellants/accused Nos.1 and 6 in his argument would submit
that he has been instructed to argue the matter in all the cases.
The counsel would vehemently contend that according to the
prosecution, the incident has taken place on 09.12.2009 at
10.45 a.m. to 11.00 a.m. The counsel also brought to notice of
this Court charges framed by the Trial Court and contend that no
proper charges are framed and there is no ingredients of Section
504 of IPC, but there was conviction for the offence punishable
under Section 504 of IPC. The counsel also would submit that
the case of the prosecution is that the accused assaulted with
repiece patti and Long and injured was shifted to different
hospitals i.e., Holenarasipura, Hassan and Nimhans and
ultimately, he died at Nimhans on 11.02.2009. The counsel
would vehemently contend that though prosecution relies upon
the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.56 and out of that, 39 witnesses
14
have turned hostile i.e., P.Ws.5 to 30 and 33 to 35, 36, 39, 40
and 45 to 48 and other 17 witnesses have supported the case of
the prosecution. The counsel would vehemently contend that the
motive for committing the murder is that there was difference
between accused No.6 and deceased in connection with
conducting state level two wheeler race and date was also fixed
and it was earlier conducted on 27.01.2008 and also brought out
pamphlet which is Ex.P1 and it was cancelled and to that effect,
document Ex.D1 was also confronted and marked. The deceased
pretended that because of accused No.6, the same was
cancelled. Ex.D2 is very clear that on 01.12.2009 the accused
was not in the house. The counsel would vehemently contend
that even though P.W.1 supported the case of the prosecution,
who is none other than the wife of the accused, she categorically
admits that he was addicted to drug and having bad vices and
deceased was very whimsical and quarreling with each other.
12. The counsel would vehemently contend that though
P.W.5 claims to be an eye witness and so also P.W.55 and their
evidence not inspires the confidence of the Court and P.W.5 only
15
deposes with regard to using his car. But, with regard to the
incident is concerned, he did not support the case of the
prosecution. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court that
P.W.55 was belatedly examined before the Trial Court as an
eyewitness and he was not examined at the earliest point in time
when trial had commenced and ought to have examined all the
eyewitnesses together, but the same has not been done. The
counsel also brought to notice of this Court that it clearly
discloses that the deceased was having bad vices, bad conduct
and bad temperament and having enemies and he was also a
rowdy sheeter. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court
that MOB was also issued against the accused. The counsel also
would submit that no MLC is produced before the Court when the
injured was taken to different hospitals i.e., Holenarasipura and
Hassan Hospital and Nimhans. The counsel would submit that in
terms of Ex.D3, it is very clear that assault was made by
unknown persons and records of Nimhans also does not disclose
the same.
16
13. The counsel would vehemently contend that the
complaint was given in terms of Ex.P4 i.e., at 14.00 hours and
no explanation regarding delay is concerned and so also, it is
contented that FIR was dispatched at 5.00 p.m. and the same is
evident from the records. The counsel would vehemently
contend that the prosecution witnesses deposes that on the
same day at 4.30 a.m. also, accused persons went to the house
of complainant and caused threat, but not given any complaint
and counsel would submit that as per Ex.P37, a complaint was
given against the deceased on the previous night at 1.30 a.m.
P.W.53, who is a PSI, having all powers to register the case
immediately on receipt of information, did not register the case
and says that he arrested accused No.1 at Halli Mysore and the
same is not found in the Station House Diary and there are
contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The
counsel also brought to notice of this court that P.W.35 received
FIR at 5.00 p.m., but P.W.53 says it was given at 3.00 p.m. and
the evidence of P.W.53 and P.W.35 is contradictory to each
other. But, P.W.53 says that complaint was lodged at 2.00 p.m.
and there are no chances of lodging the complaint at 2.00 p.m.,
17
while P.W.35 says that he has received FIR at 5.00 p.m. Hence,
it is clear that afterthought with due deliberation, case was
registered. The counsel would vehemently contend that
prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of P.W.55 and his
statement was recorded on 29.12.2025 and the incident has
taken place on 09.12.2009 and the statement of P.W.55 was
recorded after the arrest of all the accused persons. None of the
accused, who made the voluntary statement disclose about the
presence of P.W.55. This witness is a planted witness as an eye
witness and other eyewitnesses have also not stated about the
presence of P.W.55. P.W.1 is relative to this P.W.55 and answers
elicited from the mouth of witness P.W.55 clearly shows that he
was not present at the time of the incident.
14. The counsel also would submit that P.W.56,
Investigating Officer also not stated anything and there was no
reference of presence of P.W.55 and admittedly, he has not
appeared for Test Identification Parade when the same was
conducted and Ex.P32 evidence the same. The counsel also
vehemently contend that with regard to the recoveries are
18
concerned, there are 14 mahazars and all the recovery witnesses
20 in number have turned hostile and nothing is proved with
regard to recovery is concerned. The counsel also submit that
FSL report is also not useful and the same is ‘negative’ and while
submitting the seized articles, not obtained any permission from
the Court and PF is also not marked and even though the same
are not marked, the Court can take judicial note of the same.
There is no call details or call records and the Trial Court has
convicted the accused only based on evidence of P.W.55 and no
other evidence on record.
15. The counsel in support of his argument relies upon
the judgment in ESAKKIMUTHU vs. STATE REPRESENTED BY
THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE reported in 2025 SCC ONLINE
SC 1496 with regard to evidence of hostile eye witness and
probabilizing the defence and brought to notice of this Court
paragraph Nos.31 and 32, wherein the Apex Court discussed
improbability gains even more prominence in light of the fact
that no other alleged eyewitness has supported the prosecution’s
case. The fact that the deceased was a habitual drunkard and a
19
convicted criminal under the Goondas Act makes it highly
probable that the deceased had enmities with multiple people
who may have assaulted him and caused his death. The counsel
also brought to notice of this Court admission on the part of
P.W.1 that he is a drug addict. The counsel also brought to
notice of this Court discussion made in paragraph No.32 that
probable explanations for the crime are being listed to infer that
these possibilities cannot be ruled out, and that the case at hand
is certainly not the one where it has been proven beyond the
shadow of doubt that in all human probability, the act must have
been done by the accused only. On the contrary, there remains
an impressionable question mark out about the presence of the
accused persons at the spot of the crime itself.
16. The counsel also relies upon the judgment in
SURENDRA KOLI vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND
ANOTHER reported in 2025 SCC ONLINE SC 2384 and
brought to notice of this Court paragraph No.17, wherein,
discussion was made to the effect that suspicion however grave,
cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt. In paragraph
20
No.17, the discussion was made that it is a matter of deep regret
that despite prolonged investigation, the identity of the actual
perpetrator has not been established in a manner that meets the
legal standards. Criminal law does not permit conviction on
conjecture or on a hunch. Suspicion, however grave, cannot
replace proof beyond reasonable doubt.
17. The counsel also relies upon the judgment in VIJAY
SINGH ALIAS VIJAY KR. SHARMA vs. STATE OF BIHAR
reported in 2024 SCC ONLINE SC 2623 and brought to notice
of this Court paragraph Nos.34 and 35, wherein the Apex Court
discussed regarding case of prosecution is full of glaring doubts
as regards the offence of abduction. As regards motive, we may
suffice to say that motive has a bearing only when the evidence
on record is sufficient to prove the ingredients of the offences
under consideration. Without the proof of fundamental facts, the
case of the prosecution cannot succeed on the presence of
motive alone.
18. The counsel also relied upon the judgment in
GOVIND MANDAVI vs. STATE OF CHATTISGARH reported in
21
2025 SCC ONLINE SC 2731 and brought to notice of this court
paragraph Nos.12, 13, 39, 46 and 47 with regard to inconclusive
FSL report, Test Identification Parade and also with regard to the
improvement and genesis of the case. The counsel also brought
to notice of this Court with regard to Forensic Science Laboratory
report and also with regard to analysis of these facts leads to the
irrefutable conclusion that two star prosecution witnesses have
attempted to modulate and improve their versions while
deposing on oath and other incriminating circumstances is the
purported recovery of the blood-stained articles said to have
been effected pursuant to the disclosure/memorandum
statement of the accused. As has been mentioned, none of the
recovered articles tested positive for any particular blood group.
19. The counsel also relied upon the judgment in
RENUKA PRASAD vs. STATE REPRESENTED BY ASSISTANT
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE reported in 2025 SCC
ONLINE SC 1074 and brought to notice of this Court discussion
made in paragraph Nos.48 and 49 that if two views are possible,
the benefit of doubt goes in favour of the accused. It is also
22
discussed with regard to the evidence of hostile witnesses and
circumstantial evidence.
20. The counsel also relied upon the judgment in RAJ
KUMAR ALIAS BHEEMA vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
reported in 2025 SCC ONLINE SC 2465 and brought to notice of
this Court paragraph Nos.57 to 69 in respect of conducting of
Test Identification Parade and also recoveries of articles and
non-identification of articles. The counsel referring these
judgments would vehemently contend that the prosecution has
not proved the case and even though it was not proved, the Trial
Court committed an error in relying upon the evidence of P.W.1
and P.W.4, who have partly turned hostile and witnesses P.W.5
and P.W.55 and police witnesses and the same not inspires the
confidence of the Court. Hence, it is a case for acquittal.
21. Per contra, learned Additional Special Public
Prosecutor for the respondent-state would submit that though
P.W.5 has turned hostile, but his evidence is very clear with
regard to the fact that deceased was along with him on the date
of the incident and the deceased used the car which belongs to
23
him and he was working as a driver with his owner and the
owner also has been examined before the Court as P.W.9 and he
categorically says that he engaged the services of P.W.5 and
when he called him, P.W.5 was scared and the said evidence
clearly discloses that P.W.5 was scared when he was called.
Hence, it is clear that he witnessed the incident of inflicting
injuries by the assailants and Court can draw an inference. She
would submit that P.W.1-wife in her evidence categorically
deposed before the Court that there was previous ill-will between
the accused No.1 and the mother of the deceased and incident
has taken place on 02.12.2009 and complaint was lodged and
though case was not registered, the same was compromised at
the instance of his son P.W.4, who is the brother of the deceased
and he also reiterated the same that there was ill-will between
accused No.1, deceased as well as accused No.6 and all of them
formed an unlawful assembly and inflicted injury with deadly
weapons like a repiece and Long. She also would submit that the
evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.4 is corroborated by the evidence of
P.W.55, who is the eyewitness and P.W.55 narrated how an
incident has taken place, since he witnessed the same. She
24
would submit that though this witness was cross-examined in
length, nothing fruitful is found in the cross examination of
P.W.55.
22. The learned counsel would further submit that
though other witnesses have turned hostile and not supported
the case of the prosecution, there is recovery at the spot by
conducting mahazar in terms of Ex.P11 and found weapon which
was used at the spot and blood stained and unstained mud was
also collected. The learned counsel would contend that Ex.P12 is
drawn in respect of seizure of the car from P.W.5, who was the
driver and P.W.9 was the owner of the vehicle and the same is
evident that in that car of P.W.5 victim came. Though, P.W.5
turned hostile, but he has narrated that deceased came in a
vehicle and when he found the persons armed with weapons, he
ran away from the spot, but not supported inflicting of injury.
The evidence of P.W.55 is very clear that these accused persons
only inflicted injury with deadly weapons. The learned counsel
would further submit that the official witnesses, who have been
examined before the Trial Court i.e., police about registration of
25
the case and conducting further investigation as well as recovery
of vehicles and weapon is concerned and recovery is made at the
instance of accused No.2 i.e., repiece patti and bike and though
recovery witnesses have turned hostile, this Court can rely upon
the evidence of official witnesses. The learned counsel would
also submit that Exs.P15 and P16 disclose about recovery at the
instance of the accused persons and so also in terms of Ex.P13,
motorcycle as well as Innova car and also weapons are seized.
23. The learned counsel would submit that accused No.5
himself led panch witnesses and also the Investigating Officer
and accused No.5 swimmed in the Hemavathi river, wherein he
had thrown the weapon and the same was recovered at the
instance of accused No.5 and accused Nos.5 and 6 disclosed the
same and mahazar was drawn in terms of Ex.P16. The accused
No.3 also categorically made the statement that he had thrown
knife in the river, but recovery failed, since they did not find the
weapon which was thrown by accused No.3. The learned counsel
would also submit that accused No.1 instigated all the accused
from the date of the incident which took place between the
26
mother of the deceased and himself on 02.12.2009 to commit
the murder of the deceased and he was on leave and arrested on
15.12.2009 and Ex.P58 i.e., copy of attendance certificate is
very clear that accused No.1 was absent. Hence, it is clear that
he is the mastermind in eliminating the deceased. She would
also submit that recovery at the instance of the accused is
nothing but disclosure statement and none was aware of that
weapon which was used for committing the offence was shown in
the Hemavathi river and the same is recovered at the instance of
accused No.5 and the same is nothing but a disclosure statement
and the Court can take note of the same.
24. No doubt, joint recovery is made at the instance of
accused Nos.5 and 6, but when there is a recovery at the
instance of accused No.5 i.e., Iron Long, the same is admissible.
She would submit that though P.W.5 denies about the case of
the prosecution, but the evidence of P.W.8, father of P.W.5 is
very clear that he took the deceased in his car and the same is
reiterated by P.W.9 that P.W.5 was working under him and the
same is also spoken by P.W.8 that his son was working under
27
P.W.9 and P.W.9 categorically says that P.W.5-driver was at
Hassan and he was apprehended at Hassan, since he had
communicated the same that he is in Hassan and thereafter, his
statement was also recorded, since he is also an eyewitness to
the incident. Though he turned hostile, the evidence of P.W.8,
P.W.9 and P.W.5 has to be conjointly read to consider the case
of the prosecution. She would further submit that the evidence
of P.W.1 and P.W.4 is consistent with regard to previous ill-will
and nothing is elicited with regard to witnesses have spoken
about the previous ill-will and it is also very clear that in respect
of the incident dated 02.12.2009, complaint was given and the
same was not registered and it was compromised at the instance
of son of the complainant, who also passed away subsequent to
the incident and no fruitful evidence is found during the course
of cross-examination of P.W.1 and P.W.4 and the fact that
complaint was given and the same was compromised was not
denied by the defence. Hence, it is clear that there was previous
ill-will between them.
28
25. The learned counsel would further submit that FSL
report also discloses that Iron Long which was found at the spot
was stained with blood and the same is ‘positive’ and recovery of
Iron Long at the instance of accused No.5 was not stained with
mud, but there was no stains because the same was inside the
river and the Court also cannot expect the same. The learned
counsel also submit that the evidence of sole eyewitness is
sufficient and the same is taken note of by the Trial Court while
convicting the accused. The learned counsel would further
submit that the Trial Court also considered the evidence of
P.W.1, P.W.4 and P.W.5 and also the evidence of recovery
official witnesses, who have consistently deposed before the Trial
Court with regard to the incident is concerned. The evidence of
P.W.55, who is an eyewitness is consistent and reliable and sole
evidence of eyewitness is enough to convict the accused and the
Trial Court rightly convicted and sentenced the accused and it
does not require any interference of this Court.
26. Having heard learned counsels for the appellants and
learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent-
29
State and also considering the grounds which have been urged
in all the appeals and also the principles laid down in the
judgments, the points that would arise for consideration of this
Court are:
(i) Whether the Trial Court committed an error in
accepting the case of prosecution in coming to
the conclusion that accused Nos.1 to 6 only
committed the murder of Trineshkumar and
whether such finding requires interference of
this Court by acquitting all the accused
persons?
(ii) What order?
Point No.(i):
27. Having heard respective counsels for the appellants
and also learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor counsel for
the respondent-State and also considering both oral and
documentary evidence available on record, now, this Court has
to consider the evidence available before the Court. No doubt,
number of witnesses have turned hostile, nothing is elicited from
the mouth of these witnesses, the only evidence available before
the Court is P.W.1, P.W.4, P.W.5, P.W.8, P.W.9, P.W.50, P.W.53,
30
P.W.55 and P.W.56 and also the official witnesses and whether
this Court has to examine the same and the evidence of these
witnesses inspires the confidence of the Court. We have given
our anxious consideration to the evidence available on record
both in respect of evidence of eye witnesses’ circumstantial
witnesses and also recovery witnesses’. Though independent
witnesses and recovery witnesses have turned hostile, this Court
has to examine whether the evidence of official witnesses with
regard to recovery is reliable and consistent. Hence the evidence
of the official witnesses is necessary for consideration of case of
the prosecution and also the grounds which have been urged in
the appeals and also learned Senior counsel pointed out the
grounds for disbelieving the case of prosecution and in the light
of the said submission, this Court has to analyse the evidence.
28. It has to be noted that case was registered on
09.12.2009 and there was delay in registration of the case. The
Court has to take note of the fact that statement of eye
witnesses was recorded on the date of the incident itself i.e.,
P.W.6 and P.W.7, but both of them have turned hostile and they
31
did not mention the name of the accused. But, the fact is that
statement of eye witnesses was recorded on the date of the
incident and also it has to be noted that at the first instance,
case was registered for the offence punishable under Section
307 of IPC and the same is converted for the for the offence
punishable under Section 302 of IPC, consequent upon the death
of the injured on 11.12.2009.
Whether case of Homicidal
29. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of
P.W.1, P.W.4, P.W.5. According to the prosecution, P.W.5 is an
eyewitness and he was treated hostile in part and other
eyewitness is P.W.55, who is the sole eyewitness to the incident,
who has supported the case of the prosecution. The Court has to
take note of evidence of police witnesses and mahazar witnesses
have not supported the case of prosecution. Before considering
the oral and documentary evidence available on record, this
Court would like to consider the material with regard to whether
the death of Trineshkumar is on account of homicidal and this
Court has to rely upon the evidence of P.W.50-Dr.Lakshmi
32
Rajyam, who conducted the Post Mortem examination. Having
perused the evidence of P.W.50 and Ex.P48-PM report, it is clear
that injured had sustained 13 external injuries and the said
injuries are grievous in nature. The Doctor also given further
opinion in terms of Ex.P49 that these external and internal
injuries could be caused using Long and also repiece patti.
30. This witness was subjected to cross-examination. In
the cross-examination, she admits that the Doctor who has first
examined the injured has put the stitches and she came to know
that it was an assault and x-ray was not taken and incised
wound could be caused if the injured comes in contact with hard
objects. She admits that she has given Ex.P49-opinion based on
Ex.P48-PM report and suggestion was made that opinion is given
in terms of Ex.P49 as per the request of the police and the same
was denied. Having considered the evidence of P.W.50, it is very
clear that there were 13 external injuries and 6 internal injuries
and there was swelling in the brain bone and there was also
fracture in the head. Having taken note of nature of injuries and
also the evidence of the Doctor, it is a clear case of homicidal
33
and Trial Court also taking note of material on record,
particularly appreciating the evidence of P.W.50 and the
documents of Ex.P48-PM report and Ex.P49-opinion of the
Doctor comes to the right conclusion that it is a case of
homicidal.
Analysis of evidence of both eyewitnesses and
circumstantial evidence
31. Now, this Court has to consider the evidence of eye-
witnesses as well as circumstantial evidence in keeping the
principles laid down in the judgments referred supra by the
counsel appearing for the appellants and also have to consider
the motive for committing the murder so also the recovery at
the instance of the accused persons in the light of Section 27 of
the Evidence Act and also have to consider that when the panch
witnesses have turned hostile with regard to the recovery,
whether this Court can rely upon the evidence of police
witnesses if it is consistent and reliable and whether any
inconsistency in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.
34
32. This Court in the light of the judgments of the Apex
Court in a case of NARSINBHAI HARIBHAI PRAJAPATI ETC.
v. CHHATRASINH AND OTHERS reported in AIR 1977 SC
1753; MEHARAJ SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. reported in (1994)
5 SCC 188; KANSA BEHERA v. STATE OF ORISSA reported in
(1987) 3 SCC 480; BABUDAS v. STATE OF M.P. reported in
(2003) 9 SCC 86 would like to rely upon both oral and
documentary evidence placed on record.
33. In this regard, 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
35
not be rejected merely on the ground that they were interested
witnesses.
34. 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 same cannot be a
ground to discard the evidence of interested witnesses.
35. 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
36
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 panch witnesses
turned hostile and hence considered the reliability of police
witnesses.
36. 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
37
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.
37. In keeping the principles laid down in the judgments
referred supra, this Court has to analyze both oral and
documentary evidence placed on record. It is the fact that the
incident was taken place in between 10.45 a.m. to 11.00 a.m.
on 09.12.2009 and there is no dispute to that effect. It is
emerged during the course of evidence that immediately, the
information was given to the police by the public over phone. It
has to be noted that injured was immediately shifted to the
Holenarasipura Hospital then, he was taken to the Hassan
Hospital and also to NIMHANS. But injured was not in a position
to make the statement as he had sustained severe injuries. The
complaint was given by the mother of the deceased in terms of
Ex.P4 and PW4 claims that he only written the complaint as per
the details given by deceased mother and P.W.4 came from
38
Mysore. Having perused Ex.P4, it is very clear that accused No.1
quarreled with the mother of the deceased on 02.12.2009 and
assaulted. Though, it is mentioned that, the case was registered
against him but only complaint was given, but not placed any
document on record to show that the case was registered.
38. It is specific case of the complainant that accused
No.6 who is the member of the Municipal Council insisted to take
back the case causing life threat. But the deceased informed that
let the case be decided in the Court. On the same day, in the
early morning at 04.30, accused persons came with Machete and
Long and caused life threat and insisted to take back the
complaint and since the deceased was not at the house,
threatened the mother of the deceased. At that time, Satisha,
Manja @ Hotte Manja, accused No.6 and other persons were also
there and mother of the deceased identified those persons who
caused threat stating that they are going to eliminate her son
and abused and left the place. But on the very same day, the
mother of the deceased came to know about the incident that
accused persons have caused injury to her son and she went to
39
the spot and saw her son who has sustained the injury on his
neck, head and other parts of the body. In the complaint, it is
specifically mentioned that accused No.6, Satisha, Manja @
Hotte Manja are responsible for the same along with others. As
the deceased was not in a position to speak, immediately, he
was taken to the hospital and the same was informed to the
family members and there was a delay in lodging the complaint.
This complaint was given at 14.00 hours and registered the case
in Crime No.243/2009. Having perused this complaint, it shows
that a reference was made with regard to the previous incident
dated 02.12.2009 and on the date of the incident, at about
04.30 a.m., accused persons came and searched the deceased
and threatened the life of him in front of the mother. Based on
this complaint, FIR was registered and the same is sent to the
Magistrate and Magistrate has received the same at 05.45 p.m.
and the same was dispatched at 05.00 p.m. No doubt, there is a
gap between 02.00 p.m. to 05.00 p.m. and to that effect also,
witness was examined i.e., P.W.35.
40
39. Now, the main contention of the counsel appearing
for the defence is that Ex.D3 is very clear that on 11.12.2009,
the intimation was given by the NIMHANS Hospital with the
history of assault by unknown person. But the fact is that in
terms of the complaint as per Ex.P4, the role of three of the
accused persons on 09.12.2019 is mentioned. Hence, the
document of Ex.D3 will not comes to the aid of defence since the
persons who took the injured to the NIMHANS Hospital on the
very same day at night were not aware of the fact that who had
inflicted the injury to the deceased. But the fact is that FIR was
registered on the very same day and some of the accused name
is mentioned. Hence, the contention of the defence cannot be
accepted.
40. Now, this Court has to take note of the contents of
Ex.P4. This Court pointed out that earlier, an incident was taken
place on 02.12.2009 and also on the very day of the incident,
accused persons went to the house of the deceased. This Court
also would like to take note of the complaint given by accused
No.6 as per Ex.P37. Having considered Ex.P37, it discloses that
41
the same corroborates with the contents of Ex.P4 that there was
a galata between accused No.1 and mother of the deceased on
02.12.2009 and accused No.6 categorically says in Ex.P.37 that
a case was registered in this regard and on the intervention of
himself, his lawyer-Sridhar and Valekumara spoken with the
brother of the deceased Gururaj-PW4 and they have advised in
the panchayat. Hence, it corroborates the contents of Ex.P4.
Accused No.6 categorically admits that he has let out the
premises to accused No.1-Sathisha i.e., his house. Though
denied the same in the cross-examination, but his admission in
Ex.P.37 takes away the defence. Accused No.6 categorically says
that the deceased came at around 11o clock on 08.12.2009 and
insisted him to get vacate accused No.1 from his house and he
came along with 3 persons and also abused him stating that he
is supporting accused No.1 and the deceased came with Machete
and the same is evident in the mahazar drawn that they found
one Machete in the car which was seized at the spot on the very
same day of incident. Accused No.6 also categorically says that
deceased came and caused the life threat in the night. The same
was witnessed by the employees of accused No.6 and they came
42
and pacified the galata. The deceased slapped one of them and
left the place. It is important to note that accused No.6
categorically says that the deceased came in white Maruthi Van.
Hence, it is clear that PW5 who was the driver of the said car
went along with the deceased on the date of incident to the
house of accused No.6 but not deposed the same.
41. It is important to note that the document of Ex.P37
corroborates the case of prosecution with regard to the earlier
incident dated 02.12.2009 and also 4.30 a.m. visit by accused
persons and also the life threat caused by the deceased to
accused No.6. It has to take note that this complaint was given
in the midnight on the very same day of incident i.e., at around
01.30 a.m. by accused No.6 and the case was registered for the
offences punishable Sections 323, 504, 506, read with Section
34 of IPC and FIR is also registered as per Ex.P38 and
dispatched at 02.30 a.m. It has to be noted that Ex.P4 discloses
that accused went to the house of deceased in search of him at
04.30 a.m. and the same is evident in the document of Ex.P4
and the defense cannot deny the contents of Ex.P37 and P38
43
since the same is given by accused No.6 and the same
substantiate the case of the prosecution.
42. Having considered these documentary evidence, this
Court has to rely upon the oral evidence. PW1 – wife as well as
PW4 – brother of the deceased who stated all these things in
their evidence i.e., with regard to the previous galata between
the mother of the deceased and also accused No.1 and they also
spoken about that at the instance of accused No.6, the bike race
which was organized by the deceased was cancelled and the
same was not disputed and the cancellation of bike race was
noticed at the instance of the defence itself. Hence, there was an
ill-will between the deceased and accused No.6. But, the
deceased has not given any complaint in this regard. PW1 also
deposes with regard to vacating the house by accused No.6
which was let out to accused No.1 by accused No.6 and she also
deposed about the incident of 02.12.2009. Accused No.1 claims
that he is having the support of accused No.6 and given the
complaint by her mother-in-law and compromised the said issue
since they sought apology. The mother of the deceased had
44
informed that on the particular date, accused persons came and
searched the deceased in the early morning and this fact is also
found in Ex.P4.
43. PW4 also reiterates the said fact. No doubt, in the
cross examination of PW1, it is elicited that the deceased was
drug addicted person and the same is admitted by PW1, the wife
of the deceased. PW4 categorically says that at his intervention,
the complaint given in respect of the incident dated 02.12.2009
was got compromised and defence also elicited the same and not
denied the same. Even if it is denied also Ex.P37 is very clear in
this regard. The evidence of PW1 and PW4 is very clear with
regard to the advice made; enmity and differences between the
deceased and accused Nos.1 and 6. Though counsel appearing
for the appellants would submit that there are omissions and
commissions in the evidence of PW1 and PW4, the document of
Ex.P4 as well as Ex.P37 will not take away the case of the
prosecution even if there are some omissions. The counsel
brought to notice of this Court that having received the
information from the mother, PW4, on the next day, did not rush
45
to the village. No doubt, it is emerged that having received the
information of inflicting the injury, PW4 rushed to the village and
given the complaint by taking his mother to the police station in
terms of Ex.P4. It is the contention of the counsel appearing for
the appellants that there was an improvement in the evidence of
the prosecution but we did not find the same in view of the
contents of Ex.P37 as well as Ex.P4 and Court also cannot expect
each and every incident narration either in the FIR or in the
complaint which was lodged at the first instance since family
members will be under grief in view of the said incident and
P.W.4 also on information came from Mysore and there was a
delay in giving the complaint.
44. Now, this Court has to consider the evidence of eye
witnesses. According to the prosecution, PW5, PW6, PW7, PW26,
PW27 and PW55 are eye witnesses. But PW6, PW7, PW26 and
PW27 have completely turned hostile to the case of prosecution.
Even they have treated as hostile, they subjected to cross-
examination and in the cross-examination also nothing is elicited
from them. Now, the only eyewitness remains is PW5 and PW55.
46
It has to be noted that PW5 is the driver of the car in which the
deceased had travelled. But it is the case of the prosecution that
PW55 also travelled along with them. But PW5 says that PW55
has not travelled, only deceased has travelled in his car. But in
the evidence of PW5, he made an attempt to say that the
deceased was having several enemies. Though, PW5 did not
support the case of prosecution, his evidence is very clear with
regard to the fact that there was a quarrel between the deceased
and some persons. He says that after coming to Holenarasipura,
went to bar and there were three persons along with the
deceased and deceased came out alone and deceased quarreled
in the bar also and thereafter, he quarreled with other persons
also and the deceased came out and sat in his car. Thereafter
they went near the Muslim area of Holenarasipura, there, the
deceased found some persons and quarreled with them also.
When the people came to assault the deceased, again he came
and boarded the car and left that place and also went near the
Kalyana Mantapa, wherein also the deceased quarreled with
some persons. Then, the deceased asked him to sleep in the car
and the deceased also slept in the car. But this Court has to take
47
note of the fact that this witness did not speak anything about
the fact that deceased went near the house of accused No.6 and
he only speaks that the deceased quarreled with several persons
at different places. But the fact is that accused No.6 himself
admits that the deceased came in a white Maruthi Van which
belongs to PW5. Hence, it is clear that PW5 was won over by the
defence. However, he categorically says that he had witnessed
the several persons coming with Long and Machete and being
afraid of himself, he left the car at the spot and boarded the
lorry and went to the Hassan. Hence, it is clear that only in
respect of the incident is concerned, PW5 turned hostile. No
doubt, nothing is elicited in his cross-examination. But the fact is
that he was there at the time of the incident.
45. In order to consider the evidence of PW5, this Court
has to consider the evidence of PW8 who is none other than the
father of PW5. PW8 categorically admits that PW5 was working
with PW9 and also admits that he himself and also the owner of
the vehicle went in search of his son to Hassan. Police Sub-
Inspector was also along with PW5 who had found him near the
48
Hassan dairy. Thereafter, all of them came to the police station
and police enquired PW5 but PW8 did not enquire PW5. Hence, it
is clear that the evidence of PW5 corroborated with the evidence
of PW8 that PW5 was in Hassan as deposed by PW5-eyewitness.
46. Now, this Court has to consider the evidence of PW9
who is the owner of the car in which PW5 taken the deceased to
the Holenarasipura. PW9 categorically says that he came to
know that his car was seized in connection with the murder and
they were in search of his driver. He categorically says that
within 2 or 3 days, PW5 called him and informed that he lost the
mobile. He also categorically says that he was near Hassan dairy
and he was scared and not taken the food from last two days
and PW9 informed the same to the Circle Inspector who visited
the house of PW9. Thereafter, he himself and the father of PW5
went to Holenarasipura and when he called Circle Inspector,
Circle Inspector informed him that PW5 is at Hassan only.
Hence, both of them were accompanied by A.S.I. – Shivakumar
and searched PW5 at Hassan and found him there. Thereafter,
all of them came to the police station and police enquired PW5
49
not by themselves. Hence, it is very clear that PW5 was scared
by witnessing the incident. PW5 evidence is also very clear that
having left the car at the spot, he boarded the lorry and went to
Hassan. The evidence of PW9 is very clear that when he spoke to
PW5, he was scared and also he has not taken the food from last
two days. If he has not witnessed the incident, what made him
to board the lorry and travel to Hassan immediately and what
made him for being scared and not taking of food for two days.
Hence, it is clear that he being the eye-witness, he was won over
by the defence and this evidence also corroborates the case of
prosecution. Though in the climax, PW5 turned hostile saying
that he did not witness the incident. But the fact is that he was
scared by witnessing the persons who were having Long and
Machete in their hands.
47. Now, this Court has to consider the other witness-
PW55, who is an eye-witness according to the prosecution. The
main contention of the appellants that his statement was
recorded on 29.12.2009 i.e., after lapse of 20 days. No doubt, it
is not in dispute that his statement was recorded on 29.12.2009.
50
To this fact is concerned, this Court has to examine whether
there is an explanation. In this regard, this Court has to consider
the evidence of PW53 – IO who recorded the statement of PW55.
In the cross-examination, he gave an explanation that he was
not aware of witnessing the incident by PW55. The explanation is
given that later, he came to know about the same and hence, he
did not inform the same in Court that there are eye-witnesses.
When such explanation is given that later he came to know
about PW55 who was also witnessed the incident, the same
cannot be found fault with.
48. In this regard, this Court would like to rely upon the
judgment reported in 2025 SCC ONLINE SC 627 in the case of
FIROZ KHAN AKBARKHAN vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA.
The Apex Court in this judgment in paragraph 21 held with
regard to the delay is concerned referring several judgments
that no doubt that Court has laid down that an inordinate delay
in recording witness statements can prove to be fatal for the
prosecution, as pointed out by three learned Judges in Ganesh
Bhavan Patel v. State of Maharashtra, (1978) 4 SCC 371.
51
Further observation is made however, therein, the delay in
recording statements of the material witnesses was accompanied
by a delay in registering of the FIR and the surrounding
circumstances, which led the Court to hold that there was a
cloud of suspicion on the credibility of the entire warp and woof
of the prosecution story. In Jagjit Singh v. State of Punjab,
(2005) 3 SCC 689 and State of A.P. v. S Swarnalatha,
(2009) 8 SCC 383, the Court held in favour of the
convict/accused, as the inordinate delay therein could not be
sufficiently explained. Delay of about 27 days, in a case where
communal violence had broken out, was held not fatal, in Lal
Bahadur v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 4 SCC 557. Delay
of over 2 years in recording witness statements was deemed not
fatal, when explained, in Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab,
(2014) 12 SCC 473. Delay in recording witness statements was
held not fatal per se in Sunil Kumar v. State of Rajasthan,
(2005) 9 SCC 283 and V K Mishra v. State of Uttarakhand,
(2015) 9 SCC 588. The sum and substance is that delay in
recording statements of witnesses was held to have cast serious
52
doubts on the prosecution version in Shahid Khan v. State of
Rajasthan, (2016) 4 SCC 96.
49. Having taken note of the principles laid down in the
judgments referred supra, delay of 3 days to 2 years was taken
note of by the Apex Court in several judgments and held that the
same is not fatal. But it is very clear that thus, stricto sensu,
delay in recording witness statements, more so when the said
delay is explained, will not aid an accused. Of course, no hard-
and-fast principle in this regard ought to be or can be laid down,
as delay, if any, in recording statements will have to be
examined by the Court concerned in conjunction with the
peculiar facts of the case before it.
50. Having considered the principles laid down in the
judgment referred supra, no doubt, in the case on hand, there
was a delay of 20 days in recording the evidence of PW55. It has
to be noted that this witness is not the only an eye-witness and
there were several eye-witnesses, particularly PW5. This Court in
detail discussed that PW5 was won over by the defence and only
in respect of the climax is concerned, he has turned hostile. But
53
PW6, PW7 and PW26 and PW27 have completely turned hostile
and their statement also recorded in between these 20 days. But
the fact is that PW6 and PW7 evidence was recorded on the very
day of the incident and other witnesses statements were
recorded in between that 20 days. But the IO has given his
explanation that he was not aware of the fact that PW55 also
witnessed the incident and only during the course of
investigation, he came to know about the same, that is why, the
same is not found entry in the CD as well as in the remand
application. When such explanation is given, the delay of 20
days in recording the statement of PW55 cannot be a fatal to the
case of prosecution.
51. Now, this Court has to consider the evidence of
PW55 to know that whether his evidence is consistent or not.
Having perused his evidence, it is very clear that PW55 went to
his sister’s house at Balur on 07.12.2009 and on the next day,
deceased Trineshkumar along with his wife and child came to
Balur and he met the deceased and deceased asked him to go to
K.R.Nagar and then to Holenarsipura and he accompanied the
54
deceased in a car belongs to PW5 since he was known to PW5
who is a driver of the said car as the deceased took the services
of the car of PW5 only. This witness also reiterates that when
they came near the petrol bunk at Holenarsipura, there was a
galata among the friends of deceased. The deceased went and
spoke to them and came back. Though, all the three were sitting
in the car, deceased went and brought the Machete from his
house and thereafter, they went to Dabha to have the food and
deceased went to the house which is located in the garden and
called the person by name Putti and words were exchanged
between Putti and deceased about 20 minutes, at that time
PW55 was also there along with the deceased as deposed. Putti
agreed to get the house vacated within 2 to 3 days and they
came back. While coming back, deceased saw some persons and
assaulted one of them and Putti came to the spot where galata
was taking place and deceased asked Putti that whether those
people are more than him. This witness identifies each of the
accused persons before the Court including the photographer
with whom the deceased was speaking. PW55 further deposed
that when they were proceeding, accused No.6 was following
55
them and when they went near the Dodda Masjid, driver could
not able to move from the spot since there was a electric pole
and sand. At that time, the deceased was surrounded by the
persons who came in a motorcycle and accused No.6 was
speaking with the deceased and immediately, the persons who
came in the motorcycle with Machete, repiece patti and Long,
started to assault the deceased and one among them took the
repiece patti from the petty shop and assaulted the deceased
and the same was witnessed by PW55 and overt act is also
narrated in his evidence. PW55 further deposed that apart from
deadly weapons, even assaulted the injured with their hands.
Car driver and himself were watching the said incident. PW5
having witnessed the incident, ran away from the spot being
scared and accused persons were also searching them and PW55
came to Mysuru and stayed in his friend’s room. Later, he came
to know about the death of the injured.
52. PW55 was also subjected to cross examination. In
the cross examination, he says that the distance between his
village and Balur is 70 k.m., and the distance between K.R.Nagar
56
and Balur is 13 to 15 k.m. There was no special day at Balur on
08.12.2009. A question was put to this witness that why he did
not give intimation to the police, for that, he says that being
scared of the said incident, he went and stayed in his friend’s
room at Mysore and he was not aware of the death of the
injured and subsequently, he came to know about the same.
When police called him visiting his village, he gave the
statement before the police and police have put certain
questions to him and he did not make the statement before the
police. But he categorically says that with regard to the incident
at petrol bunk, he made the statement with the police and he did
not made any attempt to inform the police till he was called.
53 He also admits that the police have not shown all the
accused. It is suggested that on that day he did not accompany
the deceased to Holenarasipura and the same was denied. He
admits that he gave the statement before the police that he
spoke to P.W.5 when car was required for hire purpose. This
admission takes away the case of the defence that P.W.5 did not
take P.W.55 along with him when the car was taken for hire
57
purpose. He also claims that he made the statement before the
police that the deceased went and brought the machete. But
though not stated before the police that he went and brought,
but categorically says that he made the statement before the
police that he brought the machete. He also says that the
deceased went near the wine store, which is located near the
circle. But he cannot tell the circle name. He categorically
deposes that the deceased went to wine store and came back
within 10 minutes. It is suggested that he did not make the
statement before the police that he went to the farm house and
called him as Putti and the same was denied. Though such
suggestion was made, it is very clear that Putti alias Puttaraj
himself admitted the same in the document of Ex.P.37
complaint. It is suggested that M.O.10 and M.O.11 will be
available in any farmers house and the same was denied. It is
suggested that this type of weapons will be available in scrap
market and he says that he does not know. He admits that he
does not know any specific identification mark of the weapon. It
is suggested that he is deposing before the Court falsely that he
was very much present and the same was denied.
58
54. Having re-assessed the evidence available on record,
P.W.55 categorically deposed before the Court that the deceased
called him to go to K.R. Nagara and in K.R. Nagara took the
vehicle of P.W.5 and he was known to P.W.5. He only called him
and engaged the car and also narrated having come to
Holenarasipura, he went and brought the machete and also went
to the wine store and dhabha and also to the house of accused
No.6. There was a galata between accused No.6 and his men
and accused No.6 followed him and when the driver was unable
to move, at that time, all of them gathered and inflicted injury
and all of them came in the motorcycle. He identifies the weapon
as well as the accused persons before the Court and
categorically deposed that P.W.15 ran away from the spot
having witnessed the incident. In the cross-examination, though
certain omissions are elicited from the mouth of this witness, but
he withstood the cross-examination that he did not make the
statement before the police immediately, since the police had
not called him. The evidence of police is also very clear that
when they came to know about he was also present, then only
they recorded the statement of P.W.55 and explanation is given
59
and also even narrated that he met the photographer and also
quarreled with him and there was a quarrel near the wine shop.
He categorically deposes before the Court that he made the
statement before the police for having went and met accused
No.6 and he has narrated what had happened on the previous
day. Even gone to the house of accused No.6 and having met
accused No.6, accused No.6 also lodged a complaint with the
police in terms of Ex.P.37. The other witnesses have turned
hostile. Though P.W.5 denies that P.W.55 did not accompany
him, but whatever P.W.5 spoken before the Court is also
reiterated by this witness and Ex.P.37 substantiate the same.
The complaint Ex.P.37 is very clear that the deceased came
along with three persons. Hence, it is clear that the driver,
deceased and one more person was there when they visited the
house of accused No.6 at 11.00 p.m. on 08.12.2009. The
documentary evidence also substantiate the presence of another
person. P.W.55 categorically narrated that they went to the
house of accused No.6 in the night and even he came down from
first floor to ground floor when the deceased slapped the persons
of accused No.6. Ex.P.4 is very clear that all of them went near
60
the house of the deceased in the early morning at 4.30 a.m.
P.W.4 also categorically deposes that his mother had called and
informed about the same and in the very document of Ex.P.4, it
is mentioned with regard to the incident of 02.12.2009 as well as
4.30 a.m. on the very next. Even though other eyewitnesses
have turned hostile, considering the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.4,
P.W.5 and this eyewitness P.W.55, the same substantiate the
charges levelled against the accused persons.
55. The other contention of the learned counsel
appearing for the appellants is that test identification parade was
not conducted. The test identification parade is necessary only if
the witnesses are not having any acquaintance with the accused
persons or otherwise not necessary. No doubt, admittedly this
witness did not participate in the test identification parade and
other test identification parade witness participated and did not
identify the accused, but the same will not take away the case of
the prosecution. The very document of Ex.P.4 given by the
mother of the deceased specifies the role of the accused persons
i.e., Puttaraju, Sathisha and Hotte Manja and also mentioned
61
that others came to the house in the early morning. All these
materials disclose connecting of the accused persons in
eliminating the deceased and hence, the judgment which has
been relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants with
regard to test identification parade is concerned, will not come to
the aid of the defence.
56. We have perused the material available on record
with regard to the recoveries is concerned and no doubt, all the
witnesses with regard to the recovery is concerned, turned
hostile in respect of 14 mahazars and 20 witnesses, except the
official witnesses. It has to be noted that the mahazars at
Exs.P.11 and 12 are in respect of conducting the mahazar at the
spot and seizure of one weapon i.e., iron long at the spot. The
same was sent to FSL and FSL report Ex.P.53 is positive that
human blood found on the weapon as well as on the cloth of the
deceased are one and the same. It is important to note that
immediately after the arrest of accused No.1 and also the other
accused persons, voluntary statements were recorded. In terms
of the voluntary statement, recovery was made at the instance
62
of accused No.2 as per Ex.P.16 i.e., repiece patti and no doubt,
the same is not stained with blood. Accused No.2 bike was
seized and in respect of accused No.1 is concerned, Ex.P.13 is
drawn and bike was seized for having used the bike arriving to
the incident spot. The accused No.3 also gave the voluntary
statement that if he is taken near Hemavathi river, he is going to
produce the knife, which was thrown in the river. But the
recovery was failed, since the same was not found. The accused
No.5 went and searched the long in the Hemavathi river and
produced the same before the Investigating Officer and mahazar
was drawn in terms of Ex.P.16. In order to connect accused No.1
is concerned, it is very clear that from the date of incident of
02.12.2009, he did not attend the duty and he being a ‘D’ group
employee in the hospital, till the date of his arrest at Halli
Mysore on 15.12.2009, he did not attend the duty and the Court
has to take note of the conduct that from the day one of the
incident taken place near the house of the deceased since he
assaulted the mother of the deceased, he was not attending duty
and he was taking the assistance of accused No.6 and the
deceased went near the house of accused No.6 in the previous
63
night and complaint was given in terms of Ex.P.37 by accused
No.6 against the deceased and all these material connect that
the accused persons only inflicted the injury.
57. No doubt, it is the disclosure statement by accused
No.5 under Section 27 of the Evidence Act that, since the long
was inside the river, he only searched and recovered and handed
over the same and there was a recovery. But the Court has to
take note of the evidence of official witness i.e., police with
regard to the recovery, since other recovery witnesses have
turned hostile. The Investigating Officer seized the iron long at
the instance of accused No.5 and seized the vehicle from the
accused persons i.e., motorcycle in which they went and
participated in the crime. P.W.56 in detail spoken that accused
No.1 was arrested on 15.12.2009 and his voluntary statement
was recorded as per Ex.P.56 and bike was seized. On
16.12.2009, a mahazar was drawn for seizure as per Ex.P.13.
Ex.P.1 pamphlet clearly discloses that bike race pamphlet was
seized. The accused Nos.2 to 6 were arrested at
Channnarayapatna on 23.12.2009 and produced before him and
64
thereafter, the voluntary statement of accused Nos.4 and 5 was
recorded and seized the mobile from them and mahazar was
drawn in terms of Ex.P.14(c). The voluntary statement of
accused No.2 was recorded and seized ripiece patti by drawing
the mahazar in terms of Ex.P.15. The voluntary statement of
accused Nos.5 and 6 was recorded as per Exs.P.61 and 62 and
seized iron long produced by accused No.5 and mahazar was
drawn in terms of Ex.P.16 between 2.45 p.m. to 4.00 p.m.
58. No doubt, in the absence of independent panch
witnesses, credibility cannot be given to official witnesses. But if
it inspires the confidence of the Court and the evidence is
consistent, the police official witnesses cannot be discarded. In
the cross-examination of P.W.56, except making a suggestion
that no such voluntary statements are given, nothing is elicited.
In the cross-examination of P.W.56 regarding recovery from
accused No.5 i.e., iron long, is not denied. Except making the
suggestion that mobile is not recovered i.e., M.O.18 in terms of
Ex.P.14, nothing is elicited. Except this suggestion, no denial of
65
recovery of iron long from accused No.5 and hence, the evidence
of P.W.56 is very clear.
59. With regard to non-conducting of test identification
parade, it is admitted by P.W.56 that he did not conduct the test
identification parade and also did not mention the car number.
The very suggestion made to P.W.56 is that he was having
acquaintance with the driver Mohan and this admission takes
away the case of disputing the evidence of P.W.55 eye witness.
It is also important to note that a suggestion was made that
P.W.55 has not given the statement that they went to the farm
land and called Putti. But the same is not disputed, since
accused No.6 himself has given the complaint that deceased
went to his house along with three persons and he himself has
given the complaint and this omission will not take away the
case of the prosecution and he has given the complaint in terms
of Ex.P.37 in the midnight at 1.30 a.m. The evidence of the
official witness i.e., P.W.56 regarding arrest of the accused and
recovery is consistent. This Court can rely upon the evidence of
the police witness, if it is trustworthy.
66
60. This Court would like to rely upon the judgment of
the Apex Court in the case of PRAMOD KUMAR v. STATE
(GNCT) OF DELHI, reported in AIR 2013 SC 3344, wherein
the Apex Court held that there is no principle of law that without
corroboration by independent witnesses, the testimony of police
personnel cannot be relied on. The presumption that a person
acts honestly applies as much in favour of a police personnel as
of other persons and it is not a proper judicial approach to
distrust and suspect them without good reasons. In the case on
hand, we do not find such circumstances to distrust the evidence
of the police. As a rule it cannot be stated that Police Officer can
or cannot be sole eye witness in criminal case. Statement of
Police Officer can be relied upon and even form basis of
conviction when it is reliable, trustworthy and preferably
corroborated by other evidence on record. The same is also held
in the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
GOVINDARAJU ALIAS GOVINDA v. STATE OF SHRI
RAMAPURAM P.S. & ANOTHER reported in AIR 2012 SC
1292.
67
61. This Court would like to rely upon the judgment of
the Apex Court in the case of RENUKA PRASAD v. STATE REP.
BY ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE reported in
2025 SCC ONLINE SC 1074, wherein the Apex Court in
paragraph No.13 held as under:
“13. State of H.P. v. Pardeep Kumar
reported in (2018) 13 SCC 808 again was a case in
which there were no independent witnesses to attest
the recovery of the contraband, since none were
available due to the severe cold on that day. The
conviction was based on the testimony of seizure of
contraband from the accused, as testified by the
Police Officers. We cannot digress from the above
proposition as laid-down by this Court but only raise
a caution, insofar the recovery made under Section
27, in the context of the findings of the High Court,
in the instant case, having to be necessarily
connected to the crime and the accused, failing
which the recovery is of no consequence. We also
have to observe that the confession can only be with
respect to the discovery of a fact leading to the
recovery of a material object and cannot be with
respect to any confession as to the actual crime as
68has been held in Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor
reported in AIR 1947 PC 67.”
62. The Apex Court in the judgment in the case of
KARAMJIT SINGH v. STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION)
reported in (2003) 5 SCC 291 has held that the testimony of
police personnel should be treated in the same manner as
testimony of any other witness and there is no principle of law
that without corroboration by independent witnesses their
testimony cannot be relied upon. It will all depend upon the facts
and circumstances of each case and no principle of general
application can be laid down.
63. The Apex Court in the case of RIZWAN KHAN v.
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH reported in (2020) 9 SCC 627, in
paragraph No.10.2 held that independent witnesses (panchnama
witnesses) have turned hostile, that does not adversely affect
the case of the prosecution. It is submitted that the prosecution
has been successful in proving the case against the accused by
examining the reliable witnesses i.e., P.W.3 to 5, 7 and 8.
69
64. In STATE, GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI vs. SUNIL
AND ANOTHER reported in (2001) 1 SCC 652, the Apex Court
held that we feel that it is an archaic notion that actions of the
police officer should be approached with initial distrust. The Apex
Court also observed that at any rate, the court cannot start with
the presumption that the police records are untrustworthy. As a
proposition of law the presumption should be the other way
around. That official acts of the police have been regularly
performed is a wise principle of presumption and recognised
even by the legislature. Hence when a police officer gives
evidence in court that a certain article was recovered by him on
the strength of the statement made by the accused it is open to
the court to believe the version to be correct if it is not otherwise
shown to be unreliable.
65. In MOHD. ASLAM vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
reported in (2001) 9 SCC 362, the Apex Court discussed
Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872 with regard to Evidence of
police officer effecting recovery and held that the evidence could
not stand vitiated by reason of panch witnesses supporting the
70
evidence turning hostile and also discussed Terrorist and
Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 and Section 5 of
Arms Act, 1959, so also Section 25(1-A) and 25(1-B)(a).
66. Having considered both oral and documentary
evidence available on record and also on re-appreciation,
particularly taking into note of contents of Ex.P.4 complaint
given by the mother of the deceased, no doubt, she is no more.
But the contents of Ex.P.4 was reiterated by P.W.4 claiming that
he only wrote the said complaint on the instructions of the
mother and in the said complaint regarding enmity is concerned,
mentioned the incident dated 02.12.2009 as well as on the
particular date of incident at 4.30 a.m. all the accused persons
went to the house of the complainant’s mother and caused the
threat and they were searching the deceased and even
mentioned the name of three of the accused persons and also
other persons. Apart from that, Ex.P.37 is very clear that the
deceased went to the house of accused No.6 and made galata
and to that effect, accused No.6 himself lodged the complaint in
the midnight at 1.30 a.m. and after lodging the complaint, went
71
to the house of the deceased in search of him and he was not
found and though not given the complaint, the learned counsel
would contend that no such complaint was given to the incident
at 4.30 a.m.. But the fact is that the deceased was not in the
house on that day. The complainant narrated the same at the
first instance while lodging the complaint in Ex.P.4. Apart from
that, P.W.1 and P.W.4 narrated the same and P.W.5 was with
the deceased on the date of incident and he turned hostile only
to the climax with regard to inflicting of injury. But the evidence
of P.W.9 is very clear that P.W.5 called him and he was scared at
that time and even mentioned that he did not take food for a
period of two days and he was at Hassan. The statement of
P.W.5 is also very clear that after this incident, he boarded the
lorry and he went to Hassan and he was brought to the police
station along with P.W.8 and P.W.9 and his statement was
recorded on the same day. The accused eliminated the deceased
on the very same day of early morning incident of 4.30 a.m.
between 10.45 a.m. to 11.00 a.m. There is a proximity to the
incident which has taken place in the midnight at 1.30 a.m. in
the house of accused No.6 as well as in the house of the
72
deceased when the mother was present at 4.30 a.m. On the
same day at around 10.45 a.m. to 11.00 a.m. this incident has
taken place and all these materials clearly connect the accused
persons that accused persons only committed the crime,
particularly at the instance of accused No.1, since there was an
incident between accused No.1 and mother of the deceased on
02.12.2009 and from that date, he did not attend the duty as
per Exs.P.58 and 59 from 02.12.2009 to 15.12.2009, till the
date of his arrest, which clearly discloses that all the accused
persons joined together with an intention to eliminate the
deceased and also in the night near the house of accused No.6
the deceased slapped the employee of accused No.6 and the
same is also spoken by P.W.55 eyewitness as well as found in
the complaint Ex.P.37. The contents of Ex.P.37 is very clear and
the said complaint is given by accused No.6 himself and both
oral and documentary evidence available before the Court point
out the role of each of the accused persons in eliminating the
deceased. Hence, the material available on record is sufficient to
convict the accused and the Trial Court in detail though not
discussed as discussed by this Court, but all these factors taken
73
into consideration and by taking note of evidence of P.W.1,
P.W.4, P.W.5, P.W.8, P.W.9, P.W.5 and P.W.55 and official
witnesses P.W.53 and P.W.56, has passed a cryptic order coming
to a wrong conclusion. But this Court dealt with each and every
circumstances, which point out the role of the accused persons.
67. The Trial Court committed a mistake in convicting
the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 504 as
well as 506 of IPC. Having perused the charge, no charge is
framed for the offence under Section 504 of IPC and though it is
mentioned as Section 504 of IPC in 6th charge, the same would
be in respect of Section 506 of IPC. It is to be noted that the
Trial Court while convicting the accused for the offences
punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC, not discussed the
same in detail. It is very clear that threat was caused by the
accused when they visited the house of the deceased at 4.30
a.m. and the deceased was not present and only mother of the
deceased was present and to that effect, there is no charge and
also allegation is made for abusing the mother of the
complainant. In the present incident, it is very specific that all of
74
them surrounded when the deceased was talking to the accused
and no material before the Court with regard to causing any
insult and abusing in filthy language in order to attract Section
504 of IPC and so also to invoke Section 506 of IPC, there is no
any material and none of the witnesses speaks about the same.
When such being the case, the Trial Court ought not to have
convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections
504 and 506 of IPC and the Trial Judge committed an error.
Hence, we answer point No.(i) accordingly.
Point No.(ii):
68. In view of the discussions made above, we pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The criminal appeals are allowed in part by
setting aside the conviction and sentence for
the offences punishable under Sections 504
and 506 of IPC. In respect of other offences,
conviction and sentence is confirmed.
(ii) If any bail bond is executed by the accused,
the same stands cancelled.
75
(iii) The fine amount deposited for the offences
punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC
is ordered to be refunded to the accused, on
proper identification.
(iv) The accused persons are directed to surrender
before the Trial Court on 13.03.2026 and if
the accused fail to surrender, the Trial Court is
directed to issue NBW and secure them and
send them to the prison along with conviction
warrant.
Sd/-
(H.P. SANDESH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
ST/SN/MD