1 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE24H DAY OF JULY2020PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R. DEVDAS AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA BHAT CRIMINAL APPEAL No.3501/2013 BETWEEN:
1. Veeresh S/o Doddanagappa Age:
28. years, Occ: Agriculture 2. Mallesh S/o Doddanagappa Age:
26. years, Occ: Agriculture Both are residents of Atkur village Taluka and District: Raichur … Appellants (By Sri B.C.Jaka, Advocate) AND: The State of Karnataka (Through Yapaldinni Police Station) Represented by Addl. State Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench at Gulbarga … Respondent (By Sri Prakash Yeli, Additional State Public Prosecutor) 2 This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the order of conviction and sentences including fine, dated 30.11.2012 passed by the Fast Track Judge Raichur in Sessions Case No.5/2012 convicting the accused/appellants for the offences punishable under sections 447, 302 and 506 read with section 34 of IPC and to acquit the appellants from all the charges. This Criminal Appeal having been heard and reserved on 14.07.2020 for judgment and coming on for pronouncement of judgment this day, R. Devdas J., delivered the following:
JUDGMENTThis Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. assailing the judgment and conviction recorded by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-I, at Raichur in Sessions Case No.5/2012.
2. The appellants are the two accused who were tried before the trial Court and on conviction of life imprisonment, both the accused have preferred this appeal.
3. As per the complaint lodged by the father of the deceased Aluru Rangappa (PW-1), he had four sons 3 and two daughters. Both the daughters were married. Two out of the four sons namely Narayana and Sanna Rangappa were married and they lived along with the parents in the joint family. The family had 22 acres of land, out of which 3 acres was by the side of Yapaladinni road. A small hut has been built in the said 3 acres of land. One of the unmarried sons Ratangappa (deceased) was taking care of the agricultural activities.
4. About 15 days prior to the date of incident (12.08.2011), there was an altercation between Ratangappa and accused No.1 Veeresh. Veeresh had picked up the quarrel against the deceased stating that he smiled at his wife and was trying to lure her. The local villagers, the complainant’s elder brother Krishnappa and another Valekar Lachumappa intervened saying that the deceased was not of that character and he would swear to that effect in any 4 temple. However, Veeresh (A-1) declared that he would finish the deceased and left the place. From that day, Veeresh nursed ill-will against the deceased.
5. Routinely, the deceased would have his dinner and carry food for the servant Narasimhalu and both of them used to sleep at the land by the side of Yapaladinni road. On 12.08.2011, as usual Ratangappa had his dinner and carried food for Narasimhalu and on the way he met Rangappa son of Natti Lakshmappa, Hanumantha and Mahadeva who were also proceeding towards their lands which were close to the land where Ratangappa used to sleep. As usual, the second son Sanna Rangappa and Laxmi, the eldest daughter-in-law got up at 4.00 in the morning and left the house at about 5.00 in the morning to the land where the deceased would sleep, for the purpose of crossing the cotton seeds. They left on a motor cycle. They returned very soon and broke the news that 5 someone had killed Ratangappa with sharp weapon, injuring him behind the neck and left side of the hip and that he was lying in a pool of blood in front of the hut. They informed the complainant that even the intestine had come out.
6. Immediately the complainant, along with his son, daughter-in-law and all family members rushed towards the land and found that Ratangappa was lying in a pool of blood, with the intestine being visible. The blood was also found on the cot on which the deceased was sleeping. The complainant enquired Rangappa, Hanamanthu and Mahadeva who had spent some time the previous night, along with the deceased. They said that they came along with the deceased to the land and gave the food to Narasimhalu and while Narasimhalu was having food they sat chitchatting. Thereafter, since it was time for watering the fields, they left to their 6 respective fields. They said that Ratangappa and Narasimhalu slept in the field.
7. The complainant states that there was an altercation between Veeresh (A-1) and the deceased a few days prior to the incident and therefore the said Veeresh who was nursing ill-will against the deceased has committed the murder of the deceased between 10.00 p.m. of 12.08.2011 and 5.00 a.m. of the next day. It is alleged that the accused has used a sharp weapon to injure the deceased on the backside of the neck and the left side of the hip. It is stated that the injuries must have been caused while the deceased was sleeping on the cot and thereafter he has fallen on the ground in front of the hut.
8. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the conviction recorded by the trial Court is on the basis of the eyewitness account of PW-5 Narasimhalu. However, the trial Court has failed to 7 appreciate the evidence in proper perspective. Most importantly, it was submitted that PW-5 Narasimhalu was not named in the complaint as an eyewitness. It is submitted that the evidence on record would disclose that PW-5 Narasimhalu narrated to the complainant and all other persons, before the complaint was lodged, that the heinous and brutal act of murder was committed by Veeresh (A-1), while his brother Mallesh (A-2) assisted his brother in perpetrating the crime, by holding the legs of the deceased to ensure that he does not move. If that statement is to be believed, then the non-disclosure of the name of the eyewitness PW-5 in the complaint, would be fatal to the case of the prosecution. Moreover, it is submitted that the conduct of the so called eyewitness (PW-5), is most improbable and unnatural, inasmuch as, he has stated on oath that he was threatened by the two accused persons of dire consequences and therefore he went back and slept on the tractor. He did not disclose the names of the 8 accused to Sanna Rangappa and Laxmi, when they came to the field at 5.00 in the morning and having found the deceased lying in a pool of blood, enquired with PW-5 as to what happened?.
9. In this regard the learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on State of Rajasthan vs. Sampat Ram and others reported in (2015) 13 SCC115 Narayana Reddy alias Babu vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2016) 14 SCC212and State of Punjab vs. Bittu and another reported in (2016) 15 SCC566 In Sampath Ram and others (supra), it was held that the behaviour of PW-4 in leaving the place of occurrence and not reporting the matter to anyone is extremely unnatural. The incident having occurred in the darkness, as accepted by PW-4, the chance and opportunity for him to have sufficiently identified the assailants is also doubtful. In Narayan Reddy (supra) it was held that the prosecution failed to establish that 9 there was sufficient light in which PW-1 could see the persons who had attacked the deceased. The Apex Court noticed that when the information was disclosed by PW-1 to the wife of the deceased, he did not name anybody and on the contrary said that somebody had killed. Consequently, in the complaint made to the SHO, he mentioned the name of the appellant only and thereafter improved upon the statement in his subsequent statement, implicating five more persons.
10. On the question of recovery, the learned counsel for the appellants places reliance on Salim Akhtar alias Mota vs. State of U.P. reported in (2003) 5 SCC499 It has been held that the possibility of tampering cannot be ruled out where the recovered articles were not sealed on the spot. This submission was made since the panch witness for the seizure mahazar Ex.P-16, while recovering M.O.-1, sickle, from the hut belonging to appellant No.1 herein, was 10 admittedly a person having dispute with accused No.1. PW-7, Jangeleppa who is the panch witness has admitted in the cross examination that he had some dispute with appellant No.1 herein. He has admitted that he accompanied the police along with the accused to the field belonging to appellant No.1. The police went into the hut and came out with the M.O.-1. There was no seizure of clothes of the accused.
11. The learned Additional SPP, appearing for the respondent – State, seeks to justify the judgment and conviction recorded by the trial Court. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor submits that minor discrepancies are bound to be found in the testimony of the witnesses. However, while relying on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Leelaram (D) vs. State of Haryana and another reported in AIR1999SC3717 it is submitted that discrepancies found in the ocular account of two witnesses unless they are so vital, 11 cannot affect the credibility of the evidence of the witnesses. There are bound to be some discrepancies between the narration of different witnesses when they speak on details, and unless the contradictions are of a material dimension, the same should not be used to jettison the evidence in its entirety. Trivial discrepancies ought not to obliterate an otherwise acceptable evidence. In the same decision it has been held that Court should bear in mind that different witnesses react differently under different situations. Whereas some become speechless, some start wailing while some others run away from the scene and yet there are some who may come forward with courage, conviction and belief that the wrong should be remedied. As a matter of fact it depends upon individuals and individuals. There cannot be any set pattern or uniform rule of human reaction and to discard a piece of evidence on the ground of his reaction not falling within a said pattern is unproductive and a 12 pedantic exercise. Further, it has been held that one may come across a witness whose evidence contain some exaggeration or embellishments – sometimes there could even be a deliberate attempt to offer embellishment and sometimes in their over anxiety they may give slightly exaggerated account. The Court can sift the chaff from the corn and find out the truth from the testimony of the witnesses. Total repulsion of the evidence is unnecessary. The evidence is to be considered from the point of view of trustworthiness. If this element is satisfied, they ought to inspire confidence in the mind of the Court to accept the stated evidence though not however in the absence of the same.
12. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor further places reliance on State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Dalsingh and others reported in (2013) 14 SCC159to buttress his contention that in every 13 criminal case, owing to common errors in observation i.e., errors of memory due to lapse of time, or errors owing to mental disposition, such as feelings of shock or horror that existed at the time of occurrence, discrepancies, embellishments and improvements are very common. The Court must form its opinion about the credibility of a witness, and record a finding with respect to whether his deposition inspires confidence. Irrelevant details which do not in any way corrode the credibility of a witness cannot be labeled as omissions or contradictions. Similarly, in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Krishna Master and others reported in (2010) 12 SCC324 it was held that a rustic witness, who is subjected to fatiguing, taxing and tiring cross-examination for days together, is bound to get confused and make some inconsistent statements. The basic principle of appreciation of evidence of a rustic witness who is not educated and comes from a poor strata of society is that the evidence of such a witness should be appreciated as 14 a whole. The rustic witness as compared to an educated witness is not expected to remember every small detail of the incident and the manner in which the incident had happened more particularly, when his evidence was recorded after a lapse of time.
13. Most importantly, as regards non- mentioning of the names of the accused persons in FIR, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor places reliance on Susanta Das and others vs. State of Orissa reported in 2016 (1) CRIMINAL463 to submit that the Apex Court has held that FIR, as is well known, is not an encyclopedia of the entire case. It need not contain all the details. It was pointed out that the legal principles governing the aspect of a person not named in the FIR, is fairly well settled that even if the accused persons are not named in the FIR, subsequently the names of the appellants were to come to light during investigation and the said accused are named at the 15 earliest opportunity, when the statements of witnesses are recorded, non-mentioning the names of the accused persons in the FIR would not be fatal to the prosecution case and it cannot tilt the balance in favour of the accused.
14. Factually, it was submitted that PW-5 Narasimhalu has stated that the appellant had threatened him of dire consequences and therefore, initially, he did not reveal to the complainant PW-1 that he witnessed the crime being committed by the appellants. It is further submitted that the ocular evidence of PW-1 and PW-5 stating that PW-5 narrated the incident to PW-1 when he came to the scene of crime, should be read as a narration made after the complaint was lodged.
15. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor 16 and have thoroughly gone through the evidence and material placed on record.
16. Every general proposition of law will have an exception. A ruling or proposition of law is derived out of the attending facts and circumstances of the case. In A.Shankar vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2011) 6 SCC279 it has been held that the omissions which amount to contradictions in material particulars i.e., which materially affect the trial, or the core of the case of the prosecution, render the testimony of the witness as liable to be discredited. Where such omissions amount to contradictions, raising serious doubts about the truthfulness of a witness and other witnesses also make material improvements before the Court in order to make their evidence acceptable, it cannot be said that it is safe to rely upon such evidence.
17. Before analysing as to whether non- mentioning of PW-5 Narasimhalu as the eyewitness and 17 non-mentioning of appellant No.2 as one of the accused in the complaint is fatal or otherwise to the case of the prosecution, let us once again re-construct the case of the prosecution. As per the complaint, on 13.08.2011, at 4.00 in the morning, PW-1 Rangappa and all other family members got up as usual. At 5.00 in the morning Rangappa’s second son Sanna Rangappa (PW-
13) and Laxmi, the daughter-in-law left to the fields on a motor cycle, to cross the cotton seeds. Very soon they returned back and broke the news to the family that someone had killed Ratangappa by using sharp weapon. Immediately, PW-1 Rangappa (father of the deceased), along with the other family members rushed to the place of occurrence. Enquiry was made with Rangappa S/o Netti Laxmappa, Hanamanthu and Mahadeva, who were with the deceased till late in the night, at the scene of occurrence. They stated that they were in the field along with the deceased till Narasimhalu had his food and thereafter they left to their respective fields for 18 watering the crops. They informed the complainant that Ratangappa and Narasimhalu stayed back and slept in front of the hut in the field. Then, the complainant says that Veeresh (appellant No.1) was nursing ill-will against the deceased on the pretext that the deceased used to smile at Veeresh’s wife and was trying to lure her and therefore, the said Veeresh had murdered Ratangappa by using sharp weapon, in the intervening night of 12.08.2011 and 13.08.2011.
18. What is noticeable is that the complaint was lodged at 9.30 a.m., on 13.08.2011. As per the testimony of PW-1 and PW-5, it is clear that when Sanna Rangappa and Laxmi came to the field at about 5-5.15 in the morning, they saw the body of the deceased lying in a pool of blood, in front of the hut. When they raised hue and cry, PW-5 Narasimhalu got up and came near them. When they asked Narasimhalu, he did not inform them of having 19 witnessed the crime. Immediately, they rushed back to the house and came back along with PW-1 Rangappa and the other family members. By about 6.00 a.m., PW-1 along with the other family members including PW-13 Sanna Rangappa and Laxmi were back in the place of occurrence. PW-1 has stated that PW-5 Narasimhalu informed him that accused Veeresh and Mallesh have assaulted Ratangappa and killed him. He further states that Narasimhalu was sleeping on the tractor top and on hearing Ratangappa scream, he got up and saw the two accused assaulting Ratangappa. He further states that by about 7.00 a.m. the Police were there at the place of occurrence and they shifted the body to Raichur Hospital for postmortem. PW-5 Narasimhalu has also given the same version. PW-5 has specifically stated in the examination-in-chief that when Sanna Rangappa and Laxmi came to the field at about 5.00 in the morning, they screamed and woke him up and when they enquired as to what happened, 20 he was not in a position to tell them what had happened. PW-5 has stated that they saw Ratangappa’s dead body under the torch light and started weeping and thereafter they returned to the house. He has stated that after sometime, Sanna Rangappa and Laxmi came back with PW-1 Rangappa and other family members. PW-5 has specifically stated that at about 7.00 a.m. he narrated to PW-1 Rangappa as to what had transpired. PW-5 has also stated in the cross- examination that the Police also arrived by about 7.00 a.m. to the scene of occurrence and they enquired him. PW-5 specifically states that Police enquired him first in the land itself. He has clearly stated that he informed PW-1 Rangappa that he did not hear what the accused were talking but he saw accused No.2 holding the legs and accused No.1 assaulting Ratangappa. This version is also corroborated by Sanna Rangappa (PW-13) that when they came back to the spot along with PW-1 Rangappa and other family members, PW-1 enquired 21 with Rangappa, Mahadeva and Hanamanthu and they said that they left to their respective fields to water the crops and the deceased was in the field along with PW-5 Narasimhalu. PW-13 states that when PW-1 enquired with Narasimhalu, he narrated what had transpired. Thereafter, he states that Police came to the spot and enquired with his father regarding the incident. PW-13 specifically states that the Police took his father, mother, Narasimhalu, Mahadeva, Rangappa and Hanamanthu to the police station.
19. Another important aspect to be noticed is that PW-5 has specifically stated in his testimony that after Sanna Rangappa and Laxmi went back to the house to inform PW-1 and the family members about the incident, PW-5 went to Hanumanthu and informed him about the crime. He has specifically stated that Hanumanthu, in turn informed Rangappa and 22 Mahadeva and they also came to the place of occurrence.
20. On a comprehensive reading of the testimony of PW-1, PW-5 and PW-13, it is clear that PW- 1, the complainant Rangappa, father of the deceased was informed by PW-5 that he had witnessed the crime being committed and that the appellants had committed the crime. PW-1 lodged the complaint at 9.30 a.m. and before lodging the complaint, he knew about the crime being committed by the appellants herein. But, in the complaint PW-1 does not reveal that he came to know from PW-5 that the crime was committed by the appellants herein. On the other hand, it is clear from the complaint that he suspected the crime to have been committed by appellant No.1 herein. Viewed from this angle, non-mentioning of PW-5 as the eyewitness and both the appellants as the perpetrators of the crime, leaves a gaping hole in the case of the prosecution. If 23 really PW-5 had informed PW-1 that he witnessed the crime being committed by the appellants, then PW-1, the father of the deceased would have stated so in the complaint. Viewed from this angle, the testimony of PW-5 as an eyewitness to the incident becomes doubtful.
21. In this regard a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ramkumar Pandey vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (1975) 3 SCC815throws sufficient light. In somewhat similar circumstances, where the son is murdered and the father is the complainant, the only person mentioned as an eyewitness to the murder is named as Joginder Singh. The two daughters are mentioned in the FIR only as persons who saw the wrapping of the chadar on the wound of the deceased. It was noticed that significantly it is nowhere mentioned in the FIR that the appellant had stabbed the deceased. It was therefore held that it was inconceivable that by 24 9.15 p.m. it would not be known to the father of the deceased that the appellant had inflicted one of the two stabbed wounds on the body of Harbinder Singh. In para No.9 it is held as follows: “9. No doubt, an FIR is a previous statement which can, strictly speaking, be only used to corroborate or contradict the maker of it. But, in this case, it had been made by the father of the murdered boy to whom all the important facts of the occurrence, so far as they were known up to 9.15 p.m. on March 23, 1970, were bound to have been communicated. If his daughters had seen the appellant inflicting a blow on Harbinder Singh, the father would certainly have mentioned it in the FIR. We think that omissions of such important facts, affecting the probabilities of the case, are relevant under Section 11 of the Evidence Act in judging the veracity of the prosecution case.
22. In Anil Phukan vs. State of Assam reported in (1993) 3 SCC282 it was held that where the single 25 eyewitness is not found to be a wholly reliable witness, in the sense that there are some circumstances which may show that he could have an interest in the prosecution, then the courts generally insist upon some independent corroboration of his testimony in material particulars, before recording conviction. It is only when the Courts find that the single eyewitness is a wholly unreliable witness, that his testimony is discarded in toto and no amount of corroboration can cure that defect. The unnatural conduct of the single eyewitness, in that case was noticed that though he was present along with the deceased at the time of occurrence, he made no attempt to save his uncle from the assault. He did not even continue to stay there, though of course according to him he ran for his life on being advised so by his uncle. He was not assaulted though both he and his uncle were unarmed. Even if Mahendra was engaged in assaulting the deceased, Anil who was also allegedly armed neither made an attempt to assault PW- 26 3 (eyewitness) nor even chased him. PW-3 did not himself lodge the FIR. Of course, he gave information about the occurrence to PW-4, PW-5, PW-7 and others immediately after the occurrence describing the manner of assault and the names of the assailants but why he did not lodge the FIR has not been explained by him. It was therefore concluded that it would not be safe to hold that the prosecution has established its case against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. It was held that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt and granting him that benefit, the conviction and sentence for offence under Section 302/34 IPC was set aside.
23. Now, when we analyse the conduct of PW-5, the sole eyewitness, the credibility of his testimony grows weaker. It is his testimony that he was woken up by the screams of the deceased; he saw appellant No.2 holding the legs of the deceased who was struggling on 27 the cot; appellant No.1 struck the deceased on the backside of the neck using a sickle and thereafter gave one more blow on the left side of the hip; in the meanwhile PW-5 had got down from the tractor top and he could witness the act in the moon light, since it was the previous day of Rakhi Hunnime (full moon day); the appellants threatened PW-5 of dire consequences; PW-5 felt sleepy/giddy/like fainting (three different versions) and therefore he went back and slept on the tractor top; he slept till 5.00 in the morning until Sanna Rangappa and Laxmi came to the spot and woke him up; when they enquired as to what happened, he did not reveal what he saw; when Sanna Rangappa and Laxmi went back to the house to bring PW-1 and the other family members, PW-5, rushed towards the field of Hanumanthu and told him what he saw. There is a further improvement in the testimony of PW-5, that after committing the crime, the appellants rode back on the motor cycle which they had parked on the road 28 abutting the field; he also gives the registration number of the motor cycle which was produced as M.O.-10.
24. In Kuna alias Sanjaya Behara vs. State of Odisha reported in (2018) 1 SCC296 it was noticed that the sole eyewitness, did not utter a sound or make a shriek or raise any alarm either to prevent the occurrence or to muster assistance from the inhabitants in the locality. It was noticed that the witness had admitted that there were about 150 to 200 inhabitants lodging nearby apart from the fact that the house of his relatives as well as the deceased were almost in the same campus. It was held that his plea that he did not disclose the incident to others immediately as he had been threatened by the appellant does not explain or justify in any manner whatsoever, his inexplicable silence or indifference during the time of commission of the act. Therefore, it was held that in the overall scenario, the plea of the defence that the evidence of 29 PW-1 is highly improbable, absurd and doubtful, cannot be lightly brushed aside more particularly, in view of the test of essentiality of the degree of certainty, necessary to accept that the facts narrated by the witness as proved.
25. No doubt, the reaction of a person who has witnessed a gory act of murder could differ, depending on person to person, the attending surroundings and circumstances. One may start screaming, the other may stand shell shocked, while another may muster courage to stop the crime from being perpetrated. But, it is almost absurd that having witnessed the gory incident, the witness, who was aged about 16 years, did not raise any cry; that since he was threatened by the appellants, he went back and slept on the tractor top and woke up only at 5.00 in the morning when Sanna Rangappa and Laxmi came to the spot. This conduct of the witness, does not inspire any 30 confidence in the Court to record a judgment of conviction against the appellants. On the other hand, it lends credence to the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the evidence of PW-5 is highly improbable, absurd and doubtful.
26. This also strengthens the case of the defence that after the complaint was lodged at 9.30 a.m., the next morning, taking advantage of the quarrel between the deceased and appellant No.1, which occurred a few days prior to the incident, a story is woven to implicate not only appellant No.1, but also appellant No.2, who happens to be the brother of appellant No.1. The arguments of the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor that PW-5 did not reveal that he witnessed the act, either to PW-1 Rangappa or any other person when they gathered at the spot at about 6.00 in the morning, till the complaint was lodged at 9.30, cannot be accepted, firstly because PW-1 and PW-5 have clearly 31 stated in their testimony that PW-1 enquired from PW-5 as to what happened and PW-5 narrated to PW-1 what he had witnessed. Secondly, It is but natural that PW-1 would enquire from PW-5 as to what had happened. PW-5 was sent to the field to accompany the deceased and sleep over at the field. Another important aspect that cannot be missed is that PW-5 has specifically stated that he did not reveal to Sanna Rangappa and Laxmi what he saw, even when they asked him. Such specific statement that he did not reveal the incident to PW-1, even when he enquired, is conspicuously absent. On the other hand, PW-5 has asserted that he revealed what he saw, to PW-1 and Hanumanthu. This is corroborated by PW-1 himself and PW-13 Sanna Rangappa. All the persons who had gathered at 6.00 in the morning knew that PW-5 was also sleeping in the field and therefore naturally everyone would have enquired with PW-5 as to what had transpired; whether he witnessed the incident or whether he was asleep?. 32 Consequently, when PW-1, PW-5 and PW-13 have unequivocally stated that when PW-1 along with the family members gathered at the spot at about 6.00 in the morning, they enquired with PW-5 and PW-5 has stated that he revealed to PW-1, what he witnessed, any argument to the contrary cannot be accepted.
27. These natural occurrences can be believed. If that is true, then non-mentioning of the version of PW-5 in the complaint and non-disclosure of the name of appellant No.2 in the complaint and FIR, proves fatal to the case of the prosecution. It also lends credence to the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that PW-5 has not witnessed the incident and therefore there was nothing for him to reveal to PW-1 or any other person, including the police who had arrived at the scene of occurrence by about 7.00 in the morning.
28. It is also a well settled law of criminal jurisprudence that if the testimony of the eyewitness is 33 demolished and the Court comes to a conclusion that the testimony is wholly untrustworthy, recording conviction based on recovery is unsafe. Moreover, PW-7 Jangeleppa, the panch witness for recovery of the sickle has stated that he accompanied the police in the jeep to the land and police told him there is a sickle in the shed and it has to be taken. The police went into the shed and came back with the sickle. The witness has admitted that he had a running feud with appellant No.1, on account of a land dispute and sharing of well water. A cumulative reading of the evidence on record would not inspire confidence in this Court to record conviction in this case.
29. Yet another aspect that would further weaken the case of the prosecution is the delay in submitting the FIR before the Court. The FIR is registered at 9.30 in the morning, while the same is submitted to the Court at 4.30 in the evening. PW-17, 34 the PSI of Yapaladinni Police Station has stated that the Court at Raichur is at a distance of 22 kms. It may take about 1 hour by public transport, while it can be covered in 45 minutes by private vehicle.
30. The trial Court, after looking into the evidence of all the witnesses, has held that the discrepancies pointed out by the defense are minor discrepancies. In the opinion of this Court, for the reasons stated herein above, the discrepancies cannot be brushed aside as minor discrepancies or that they are not vital to the case of the prosecution. Going by the stringent requirement of the prosecution proving its case beyond all reasonable doubts, this Court does not hesitate to hold that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellants, beyond all reasonable doubts. We do not hesitate to hold that the evidence of PW-5, as a witness of incident of murder, as projected by him is wholly unacceptable being fraught with improbabilities, doubts and oddities, inconceivable with 35 normal human conduct or behaviour and, thus cannot be acted upon as the basis of conviction. The testimonies of the witnesses, even if taken on their face value, fall short of the requirement of proof of the charge beyond all reasonable doubt.
31. Consequently, the appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt. The contrary view taken by the trial Court is against the weight of the evidence on record and the exposition of law attested by the decisions cited herein above.
32. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside. As a consequence, the appellants are acquitted and ordered to be set at liberty, if not required in connection with any other case. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE swk