M. G. ESHWARAPPA AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

                               [2017] 3 S.C.R. 574


A                     M. G. ESHWARAPPA AND OTHERS
                                         v.
                            STATE OF KARNATAKA
                        (Criminal Appeal No. 435 of2006)
B                               MARCH 02, 2017
              [N. V. RAMANA AND PRAI•'ULLA C. PANT, JJ.)
             Penal Code, 1860:
              ss.506, 354 and 302 rlw. s. 34 - Prosecution under - Of four
c      accused - One eye-witness (injured) - Acquilla! by trial court 011
       the ground that charges not proved beyond reasonable doubt -
       High Court convicted the accused - On appeal, held view taken by
       trial court is perverse and against the evidence on record - Trial
       court wrongly disbelieved the evidence of injured eye-witness - The
       statement of the injured eye-witness is corroborated by the evidence
D
       of three witnesses as well as by medical evidence - FIR is prompt
       and sent to the Magistrate without any delay - Conviction order
       affirmed.
             FIR:
E            Evidentiary value of - FIR is not an encyclopaedia - If
       necessary details are there, on its basis detailed narration by the
       witnesses cannot be doubted.
             Dismissing the appeal, the Court
              HELD: 1. The trial court committed grave error by
F      accepting the defence case that the deceased might have died of
        the injuries suffered in an accident, as the possibility was not
        ruled out by PW-2, the doctor. PW-2 has stated in the cross-
       examination is "such injuries can be caused to a person if he
        meets .accident". There is no suggestion of the fact that at the
G       place of incident any vehicle had passed through at the time of
       the incident. The trial court appears to have taken support of
        conjectures and surmises. In the circumstances, the High Court
       _has correctly held that the view taken by the trial court is perverse
       and against the evidence on record. [Para 16) [583-1<'-G)

1-:1         2. The trial court has disbelieved the evidence of injured
                                     574
        M. G. ESHWARAPPA AND OTHERS v. STATE OF                            575
                      KARNATAKA

eye-witness PW-1 observing that the same is not corroborated               A
by other witnesses of fact who have turned hostile or partly hostile.
The trial court has committed grave error in ignoring the fact
that such witnesses were not witnesses of the incident. The
prosecution case is that they reached the spot subsequently. [Para
15][583-C-D]
                                                                           B
       3. The statement of PW-1 (injured) is corroborated not only
from the statements of PW-16, PW-29 and PW-30 but also from
the medical evidence on record. Therefore, it cannot be said that
the evidence of the sole injured eye-witness should not be
accepted without corroboration and caution. The .First Information
Report in the present case is prompt and copy of the same appears
                                                                            c
to have been sent on the very next day to the Magistrate without
delay. On behalf of the State, it is pointed out that from the record
it is clear that all the three appellants were absconding from the
village after the incident, and could be arrested only on
10.03.1998. Also, there is mention in the Wound Certificate (Ext.           D
P-4(b)), issued by PW-3 regarding history of assault. [Paras 17,
24][583-G-H; 584-A-B]
       Joseph v. Stute of Kera/a (2003) 1 SCC 465 : (2002] 4
       Suppl. SCR 439 - distinguished.
          4. On carefully going through the flrst Information Report,       E
  it is found that all necessary facts are narrated and only the details
  like from which side particular accused came are not stated. It is
. settled law that the flrst Information Report is not an
  encyclopaedia, and if the necessary details are there, on its basis,
  detailed narration by the witnesses cannot be doubted. [Para 19]          F
  [584-G-II; 58~-Al
       5. There is no material contradiction· between the Wound
 Certificate and the Post Mortem Rqwrt for the reason that PW-
 3 (the doctor) has proved Ext. P-4(b) wherein it has been
 mentioned that the patient needed immediate treatment, as such,            G
 only gross injuries were entered in the register (not the minor
 injuries) and the patient was shifted to emergency ward. In the
 cross-examination, he has clearly stated that the (deceased) was
 unconscious. In the circumstances, addition of stitched wounds
 in post mortem report (Ext. P-2) does not create doubt regarding
 the incident in question. [Para 2011585-CI                                 H
576            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2017] 3 S.C.R.


A            6. The accused were close relatives living in the house of
      the witness (PWl) as such, it cannot be said that it was difficult at
      all for her to recognize them when they assaulted her brother at
      7.30 p.rn. [Para 21][585-D-E]
            7. It is' not correct to say that not recording of dying
B     declaration of the deceased is a material fact in the present case.
      It has come on record that the deceased was not in a conscious
      condition when he was admitted in the hospital. As such, there is
      no question of recording of dying declaration of the patient in
      such a critical condition. [Para 22 ][ 585-:F]
c           lrlapati Subbaya v. The Public Prosecut01; Andhra
            Pradesh (1974) 4 SCC 293 : (1974] 3 SCR 602 -
            distinguished.
            8. It is correct when two views are possible, tbe view taken
      by tbe trial court should not be disturbed, but in the present case,
D     the view taken by the trial court was perverse and rightly held so
      by the High Court. [Para 25][586-E]
            Muluwa son of Binda and Ors. v. The State of Madhya
            Pradesh (1976) 1 SCC 37 - relied on.
                              Case Law Reference
E
      Jl974J 3 SCR 602                    distinguished       Para 23
      [2002] 4 Suppl. SCR 439             distinguished       Para 24
      (1976) 1 sec 37                     relied on           Para 25
             CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
F     No.435 of2006.
             From the Judgment and Order dated 07.02.2006 of the High Court
      ofKarnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No. I055of1999.
             B. H. Marlapalle, Sr. Adv., Shanth Kumar V. Mahale, Amith J.,
      Rajesh Mahale, Apoorv Shukla, Aditya Gaggar, Aj it Wagh, S. K. Pathak,
G     Ad vs. for the Appel Iants.
             V. N. Raghupathy, Lagnesh Mishra, Parikshit P. Angadi, Prakash
      Jadhav, Ad vs. for the Respondent.
           The Judgment of the Cou1t was delivered by

H
        M. G. ESHWARAPPA AND OTHERS v. STATE OF                                577
            KARNATAKA [PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.]

       PRA.FULLA C. PANT, J. I. This appeal is directed against · A
judgment and order dated 07.02.2006, passed by the High Court of
Karnataka in Criminal Appeal No. I 055of1999 whereby the High Court
has allowed the appeal filed by the State, and reversed the judgment of
acquittal passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shimoga, in Sessions
Case No. 40 of 1998.
                                                                                B
        2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that PW-16 Niranjanappa
(comp.lainant) was elder brother of accused No. I M.G. Eshwarappa.
Accused No. 2 M.G. Shivaraj and accused No. 3 M.G. Girish are sons
of M.G. Eshwarappa. Accused No. 4 Hebballi Shivappa is brother-in-
law of accused No. 2 M.G. Shivaraj. There was a family dispute between
the complainant and his brother Eshwarappa pertaining to immovable              c
property, and reaping of fruits of tamarind tree in the backyard of the
complainant's house. There used to be quarrel every now and then
between the families of two brothers. Prior to the incident, on 03 .03 .1998
at about 3.00 p.m. the accused persons, armed with deadly weapons,
came to the house of the complainant objecting to the plucking of tamarind      D
fruits by the complainant's family, and threatened them of dire
consequences. With the intervention of the neighbours dispute got pacified
temporarily. Thereafter, as the accused persons went away, the
complainant along with his son Basavaraj (deceased) and daughter
Rajeshwari (PW- I) went to Honnali to consult their legal counsel, and to
get the.complaint lodged against the accused. The three left the village        E
Marigondanahalli at about 5.00 p.m. for Honnali, but the counsel was
ll')t found at his residence. On this, complainant N iranjanappa (PW-16)
asked his son and daughter to return to the village as he wanted to wait
for the arrival of the counsel. At about 6.30 p.m. Basavaraj and
 Rajeshwari left Honnali on way back to their village. When the two had         F
covered a distance of about two kilometers, and were only one kilometer
away from their village, four accused namely- M.G. Eshwarappa, M.G.
 Shivaraj, M.G. Girish and Hebballi Shivappa i11tercepted them.
 Eshwarappa (A-I) was armed with club, Shivaraj. (A-2) was armed
 with Kandli (heavy sharp edged weapon), and Girish (A-3) and Shivappa
(A-4) were armed with iron rods. The first blow was given by Shivaraj           G
 with Kandli on the head ofBasavaraj on which he fell down. His sister
 Rajeshwari (PW-I) to save her brother lied down on him and requested
 the accused to leave her brother. On this Shivaraj (A-2) dragged her on
 one side. In the process she also suffered minor injuries. Thereafter
 Girish (A-3) and Shivappa (A-4) assaulted already injured Basavaraj            H
578             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2017] 3 S.C.R.


A     with iron rods. Basavaraj started bleeding from the injuries received by
      him. The accused persons presuming that the injured is dead left the
      place. PW- I Rajeshwari started crying. One Kammar Rudresh, who
      was returning on a bicycle from Shimoga after selling his flowers, asked
      her as to what had happened, and then left for the village to inform his
      family members of the injured in order to get some bullock ca11. This
B
      incident occurred around 7.30 p.m. There was moon light. At about 8.00
      p.m. Parvathamma (PW-29) mother of the injured, along with other
      villagers reached at the spot and injured Basavaraj was first taken to
      Chellur. After some time Niranjanappa (PW-16) also reached there, and
      after engaging a motor van, the injured was taken to Shimoga hospital,
c     where he was admitted at I 0.45 p.m. However, Basavaraj could not be
      saved and succumbed to the injuries soon after midnight at about 0040
      hrs. A report (Ext. P-5) was given at the nearest Police Station Doddapet
      on which PW-28 M. Gopalappa (Station House Officer) rushed to the·
      hospital. He sent intimation (Ext. P-6) to the jurisdictional Police Station
      Nyamathi, where the same was registered as Crime No. 49 of 1998.
D
      PW-33 S.G. Patil (Police Inspector) took up the investigation and, after
      taking the dead body in his possession, prepared the inquest report (Ext.
      P-28) and interrogated witnesses including Rajeshwari (PW- I),
      Niranjanappa (PW-16) and Parvathanuna (PW-29). PW-2 Dr. C. Francis
      conducted the post mortem examination on 04.03.1998 at 11.00 a.m.
E     ahd prepared the autopsy report (Ext. P-2). He opined that the deceased
      had died due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries suffered
      by him on the head. On conclusion of investigation the charge-sheet
      was filed against all the four accused for their trial in respect of offences
      punishable under Sections 506, 354 and 302 read with Section 34 of
      Indian Penal Code (!PC).
F
             3. After the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, the
      trial court framed charge of offences punishable under Sections 506,
      323, 354 and 302 read with Section 34 IPC, to which the accused pleaded
      not guilty and claimed to be tried. As many as 33 witnesses were got
      examined by the prosecution. The oral and documentary evidence was
G     put to the accused and, after hearing the parties, the trial court acquitted
      the accused holding that the charge against them is not proved beyond
      reasonable doubt.
             4. The State of Karnataka preferred appeal against acquittal of
      the accused before the High Court. The High Court, after re-appreciating
H
        M. G. ESHWARAPPA AND OTHERS v. STATE OF                               579
            KARNATAKA [PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.]

the evidence, held that the finding recorded by the trial court is perverse   A
and contrary to the evidence on record. The appeal was allowed by the
High Court. (Since accused No. 3 M.G. Girish had meanwhile died, his
appeal stood abated.) The High Court convicted rest of the three accused,
namely Eshwarappa, Shivaraj and Hebballi Shivappa under Sections 506,
354 and 302 read with Section 34 !PC, and after hearing on sentence,
                                                                               B
each of the convicts is sentenced under Section 302 read with Section
34 IPC to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of ~10,000/-. In default
of payment of fine, the defaulter, if any, was directed to undergo rigorous
 imprisonment for a further period of one year. In view of the sentence
awarded in respect of offence punishable under Section 302/34 !PC,
qua rest of the offences no punishment was awarded by the High Court.          c
The convicts have preferred this appeal under Section 379 of Code of
 Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). During pendency of appeal before this
 Couii, appellant No. I (M.G. Eshwarappa) has died and his appeal stands
 abated.
      5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants (A-2 M.G.            D
Shivaraj and A-4 Hebballi Shivappa) and learned counsel for the State
and perused the evidence on record.
      6. Perusal of the record shows that the prosecution got examined
PW-1 Rajeshwari (sister of the deceased), PW-2 Dr. C. Francis (who
conducted post mortem examination), PW-3 Dr. Nanda Koti, PW-4 E
Kammar Rudreshi @ Rudrachari, PW-5 H.R. Haleshi, PW-6
Basavangowda, PW-7 Eshwarappa (not the accused), PW-8 Palakshappa,
PW-9 Shankarappa, PW-I 0 M. Raju, PW-11 Chandrashekaraiah, PW-
12 B. Vasavarajappa, PW-13 T.R. Mahadevappa, PW-14 C. Chandrappa,
PW-15 S. H. Parameshwarappa, PW-16 M.G. Nirannjanappa
(complainant), PW-17 H.N. Puttaiah, PW-18 Shankar, PW-19 Aravind, F
PW-20 Basavarajappa @ Basappa, PW-21 M.R. Haleshappa, PW-22
Rudreshappa, PW-23 Angadi. Nataraja, PW-24 Koti Rudreshi @
Rudreshappa, PW-25 Dr. Suresh (lncharge of General Hospital Honnali),
PW-26 C.R. Umesh, PW-27 N .M. Shankar, PW-28 M. Gopalappa (SHO
of Police Station Doddapet), PW-29 Parvathamma (mother of the· G
deceased), PW-30 Chanabasappa, PW-31 Laxmappa, PW-32 M.K.
Ganga! and PW-33 S.G. Patil (Inspector, who investigated the crime).
       7. Before further discussion, we think it just and proper to mention
 the ante-mortem injuries found on the dead body of the deceased,
 recorded by PW-2 Dr. C. Francis in Ext. P-2 as under: -                       H
580             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2017] 3 S.C.R.


A             (!) Lacerated wound 3" x Yi'' bone deep on the scalp and left
                    fronto-parietal region.
              (2)   Sutured wound Yi'' x '/.''on the helix of left ear.
              (3)   Sutured lacerated wound Yi'' x Yi'' on the left muscular
                    region.
B             (4)   Sutured wound Yi" x '/.''on the back of left elbow.
              (5)   Sutured wound Yi" x Y." on the back of lower right arm.
              (6) Multiple, irregular, sutured wounds about Yi" x W' all over
                  the left leg.
              (7) Multiple, irregula1~ sutured wounds situated all over the right
c                 leg.
              (8) Punctured would W' x W' bone deep situated on the medial
                  aspect oflower third ofright leg. On dissection the muscles
                  are irregularly lacerated and comminuted fractures of tibia
                  and fibula on the upper third and compound fracture of tibia
D                 and fibula at the lower third, the muscles are lacerated and
                  plenty of blood clots present.
              (9) Diffused swelling of left arm, on dissection, the muscles
                  are lacerated and large blood clots present.
             In the opinion of the medical officer (PW-2 Dr. C. Francis), as
E     inentioned in Ext. P-2, the deceased died of shock and haemorrhage as
      a result of injury to vital organ, i.e. brain.
             8. The star witness of the prosecution case is PW-I Kumari M.N.
      Rajeshwari who is the sister of the deceased. After narrating the prior
      incident of03.03. l 998 which occurred at 3.00 p.111., she has stated that
F     her father (PW-16 Niranjanappa) along with her brother (deceased)
      and herselfleft the village Marigondanahalli at about 5.00 p.m. for Honnali
      to consult their lawyer to lodge the report. She further told that Mr.
      Srinivas, advocate, to whom they had gone to meet, was not available at
      Honnali and as such her father decided to wait for him, and advised her
      and her brother to go back to the village. She further told that she left
G     Honnali at 6.30 p.m. and came with her brother Basavaraj to Kadadakatte
      on their way back. PW-1 Rajeshwari has further stated that at 7.00 p.m.
      she and her brother reached Kadadakatte, and by 7.30 p.m. they had
      covered distance of about two kilometers on foot, when the four accused
      namely Eshwarappa, Girish, Shivaraj and Shivappa appeared, and
H     intercepted them. Accused Girish said, "Anna Bandaru" (brother! they
        M. G. ESHWARAPPAAND OTHERS v. STATE OF                                 581
            KARNATAKA [PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.)

have come), and Shivaraj (A-2) gave a blow with Kandli (heavy sharp             A
edged weapon) on the head ofBasavaraj. She further told that she lied
down on her brother and pleaded to the accused to leave him, but Shivaraj
(A-2) dragged her away, and thereafter Girish (A-3) and Shivappa (A-
4) assaulted Basavaraj with iron rods. She further told that Shivappa
(A-4) assaulted on her leg. And Eshwarappa who was armed with club,
                                                                                B
assaulted her brother near his ear, and also at the elbow. After assaulting
the two, the accused persons left towards the village uttering "Soolemaga
Sathu Hoda" (he is dead).
       9. PW-I Rajeshwari, narrating the incident further, stated that
left helpless after the incident, she started crying, when one Kammar
Rudresh passing through on bicycle came, and she told about the incident.       c
And said Rudresh went to the village and informed to the villagers, who
in turn came in bullock cart. Thereafter, in another bullock cart her mother
(PW-29 Parvathamma) reached. And Basavaraj was taken on a bullock
cart upto Kadadakatte crossing from where an autorikshaw was engaged
up to Chellur. According to PW- I Rajeshwari, on receiving the information      D
about the incident her father also came to Chellur, and from there they
all boarded matador van, and took the injured Basavaraj to the Shimoga
Hospital. She further told that at about I 0.30 p.m. Basavaraj was admitted
in the Hospital but succumbed to injuries in the night. Lastly she told
that her father (PW-16 Niranjannappa) gave report to the police. She
has also corroborated the fact that the police prepared the inquest report,     E
and that she had shown place ofincident to the police during interrogation.
PW-I Rajeshwari has been subjected to lengthy cross-examination but
nothing has come out which creates doubt in her testimony.
   .     I 0. Explaining the motive of the commission of crime PW~ 16 M.G
 Niranjanappa (complainant) has stated that there was dispute of property        F
 between him'and his brother (A-I Eshwarappa) for fifteen years prior
 to partition. It is further stated by PW-16 Niranjanappa that in the family
 partition when the land was partitioned, four acres ofland was separately
 kept aside for maintenance of their mother who used to live with A-1
 Eshwarappa. But A-1 sold the property given to their mother. He has             G
 further stated that when the mother purchased a property in village
 Marigondanahalli, complainant demanded his share which was denied
 to him. Not only this, the house in which the two brothers used to live
  separately with their families, stood in the name of the complainant which
  A-1 Eshwarappa demanded to be transferred to his name. A Panchayat
                                                                                 H
582;             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2017] 3 S.C.R ..


A      was called which resolved the dispute by directingA-1 to pay ~15,000/­
       to the complainant, biit A-1 paid only' 5000/-. PW-16 Niranjanappa
       fmther told that about eleven months before the incident, due to above
       dispute there was Galata (commotion/scuffle) between the rival parties
       with regard to which a criminal case was registered which was pending
       against A-I Eshwarappa and A-3 Girish. Also, fifteen days prior to the
B
       incident in question there had been quarrel over plucking of tamarind
       fruits by the family of the complainant. This witness (PW-16
       Niranjanappa) has also corroborated the fact that on the date of incident
       (03.03.1998) at 5.00 p.m. he, along with his son Basavaraj and daughter
       PW-1 Rajeshwari, had gone to meet their counsel, but he was not available,
c      and Basavaraj and Rajeshwari were asked by him to go back to the
       village as he wanted to wait to meet the counsel. The witness has further
       told that he made the complaint (Ext. P-17) to the police which was
       signed by him.
              11. PW-30 Chanabasappa has corroborated the fact that one
D      Rudresh came to his house on 03.03.1998 at 8.00 p.m. and informed
       about the incident on wh.ich he went to Chellur and saw Basavaraj in
       injured condition.
               12. PW-3 Dr. Nanda Koti of Mc Gann Hospital, Shimoga, where
       Basavaraj was taken after the incident, has stated that at I0.40 p.m. the
E      injured was brought to the hospital with the history of assault by four .
       accused (Eshwarappa and others). This witness has proved the wound
       certificate (Ext.P-4) and stated that the injured succumbed to injuries in
       the night at about 00.45 hours. He further told that at the time ofadmission
       in the hospital Baswavaraj was unconscious.

F             13. PW-29 Pavatthamma has also corroborated the prosecution
       story and stated that after she received the information of the incident
       through one Kammar Rudresh, she rushed to the spot with Halesh,
       Nataraj, Kammar Rudresh and M. Rudresh on a bullock cart. She further
       told that Gurushanthappa, Basavanagowda, Umesha and Shankara had
       already reached there with their bullock cart. She further narrated that
G      they all took the injured to some distance on bullock cait whereafter an
       autorikshaw was engaged upto Chellur and from Chellur, where her
       husband (N iranjanappa) also joined, they took the injured in a van to Mc
       Gann Hospital, Shimoga. She has also stated that her daughter PW- I
       Rajeshwari had also suffered minor injuries.
H
        M. G. ESHWARAPPA AND OTHERS v. STATE OF                                 583
            KARNATAKA [PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.]

        14. PW-25 Dr. Suresh has stated that on 04.03 .1998 (next day of        A
the incident) he medically examined PW- I Rajeshwari and found following
injuries on her person: -
       (i)   Contusion on medial aspect of the right leg which was about
             3 ems x I ems in size.
        (ii) Pain and tenderness was present on the left side of the             B
             neck.
        (iii) Abrasions on the left hand is about 1 cm x Yi cm in diameter.
        (iv) Tenderness present all over the body
      He also proved the wound ce1iificate (Ext.P-25).                           c
        15. The trial comi has disbelieved the evidence of injured eye-
witness PW- I Rajeshwari observ!ng that the same is not corroborated
by other witnesses of fact who have turned hostile or partly hostile. But
the trial court has committed grave error in ignoring the fact that such
witnesses were not witnesses of the incident. The prosecution case is            D
that they reached the spot subsequently. The trial court strangely did
not believe the prosecution story on the ground that advocate Srinivas
was not produced by the prosecution. It is relevant to mention here that
as per the prosecution story he was not at his residence when PW-16
Niranjanappa with his son and daughter had gone to meet him in
                                                                                 E
connection with the earlier incident of the day.
        16. Having gone through the entire evidence on record, as narrated
above, we agree with the High Court that the trial court committed grave
error by accepting the defence case that the deceased might have died
of the injuries suffered in an accident, as the possibility was not ruled out
                                                                                 F
by PW-2 Dr. C. Francis. We have carefully gone through.thll'statement
of Dr. C. Francis. What he has stated in the cross-examination is "such
injuries can be caused to a person if he meets accidellt". There is no
suggestion of the fact that at the place ofincident any vehicle had passed
through at the time of the indicent. The trial court appears to have taken
support of conjectures and surmises. In the circumstances, we are of             G
the opinion that the High Court has correctly held thaithe view taken by
the trial court is perverse and against the evidence on record.
      17. As discussed above, the statement of PW-I Raj~shwari
(injured) is corroborated not only from the statements of PW-16
                                                                                 H
584             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                             [2017] 3 S.C.R.


A     Niranjanappa, PW-29 Parvathamma and PW-30 Chanabasappa but also
      from the medical evidence on record. The First Information Report in
      the present case is prompt and copy of the same appears to have been
      sent on the very next day to the Magistrate without delay. On behalf of
      the State it is pointed out that from the record it is clear that all the three
      appellants were absconding from the village after the incident, and could
B
      be arrested only on 10.03.1998. Also, there is mention in the Wound
      Certificate (Ext. P-4(b)), issued by PW-3 Dr. Nanda Kati, regarding
      )listory of assault~ which is quoted below: -
                                  "WOUND CERTIFICATE
c               Wound or injuries found on the person ofa male calling himself
              Basavaraj aged 28 years, an inhabitant ofMarigondanahalli who
              was sent with -from - and accornpanied by Channappa for
              report as certain injuries said to have been caused on 3.3.98 and
              to be due to said to have been assaulted by 4 persons, Eswarappa
              and others with club on 3 .3 .98 at about 7 .30
D             p.m ....................... "
           . 18. On behalf of the accused/appellants Shri B.H. Marlapalle,
      learned senior counsel argued that had the incident taken place in the
      manner suggested by.the prosecution, the injured would have been taken
      to nearest hospital available was at Chellur but he was taken to hospital
E     dt Shimoga which creates doubt as to the place of the incident. We find
      no force in the argument for the reason that there is nothing on record to
      show that there were facilities to treat the critically injured patient at
      Chellur. It has come on record that the injured was in a critical condition
      and be was unconscious when admitted in Shimoga hospital. Merely for
F     the reason that one doctor used to be posted at Chellur does not mean
      that there were facilities to treatthe patient of critical condition, as such,
      in our opinion, there appears nothing unusual in taking the injured to the
      hospital where the injured could be given better treatment and time is
      not lost.

G            19. The another argument advanced on behalf of the appellants is
      that there are no details of assault in the First Information Report and
      the story narrated by PW- I Rajeshwari is nothing but an improvement.
      However, on carefully going through the First Information Report we
      find that all necessary facts are narrated and only the details like from
      which side particular accused came are not stated. It is settled law that
H     the First Information Report is not an encyclopaedia, and ifthe necessary
         M. G. ESHWARAPPAAND OTHERS v. STATE OF                                585
             KARNATAKA [PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.]

details are there, on its basis detailed narration by the witnesses cannot     A
be doubted.
       20. The third point raised before us is that in the wound certificate
(Ext. P-4) there are only two injuries, i.e. bone fracture of right leg and
puncture wound below left angle of mandible covered with blood are
mentioned, while in the post mortem report there are nine ante mortem           8
injuries. As such there is apparent discrepancy between the two
documents. On deeper scrutiny, we find that there is no material
contradiction for the reason that PW-3 Dr. Nanda Koti has proved Ext.
P-4(b) wherein it has been mentioned that the patient needed immediate
treatment, as such, only gross injuries were entered in the register (not
the minor injuries) and the patient was shifted to emergency ward. In           c
the cross-examination he has clearly stated that Basavaraj (deceased)
was unconscious. In the circumstances, addition of stitched wounds in
post mortem report (Ext. P-2) does not create doubt regarding the incident
in question.
      21. As to the source of light it is argued that it is not clear as to     D
how PW-1 Rajeshwari recognized the accused. Had the accused been
unknown persons, we would have accepted this argument. But the
accused were close relatives living in the house of the witness, as such,
it cannot be said that it was difficult at all for her to recognize them
when they assaulted her brother at 7.30 p.m. on the way back from               E
Honnali to Marigondanahalli.
        22. Shri 8.H. Marlapalle further contended that not recording of
dying declaration of the deceased is a material fact in the present case.
We are unable to agree with the contention of learned senior counsel for
the reason that it has come on record that the deceased was not in a            F
conscious condition when he was admitted in the hospital. As such, there
is no question of recording of dying declaration of the patient in such a
critical condition.
       23. Learned senior counsel for the appellants drew our attention
to the case of Irlapati Subbaya v. The Public Prosecutor, And/mt                G
Prades/z 1, and submitted that in the similar circumstances this Court did
not find sufficient reason for the High Court to set aside the order of
acquittal. On perusal of said case Jaw, we find that that was a case
where prosecution witnesses had given different time of occurrence
 1
     (l974)4SCC293                                                              H
586               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2017] 3 S.C.R.


A     between noon and just before sunset. There was also doubt as to the
      place of incident in said case. But in the present case there is no doubt
      either as to the time of incident or to the place of incident.
             24. Next case referred on behalf of the appellants is Joseph v.
      State ofKerala 2, and it is submitted that the evidence of the sole injured
B     eye witness should not be accepted without corroboration and caution.
      On going through the case law referred, we find that this Court observed
      in said case that the testimony of the sole injured eye witness was not
      reliable as there were two separate versions of the incident in two First
      Information Reports and one was suppressed. The First Information
      Report relied upon was found doubtful as PW- I himself did not
c     acknowledge his signature in the First Information Report relied by the
      prosecution. In the present case, in our opinion, the evidence of PW-I
      Rajeshwari is sufficiently corroborated from the statements of PW-16
      Niranjanappa, PW-29 Parvathamma and PW-30 Chanabasappa.
              25. Lastly, learned senior counsel for the appellants referred to
D     the case of Muluwa so11 of Bi11da a11d others v. The State of Madhya
      Prades/i 3 and it is submitted that where two views are possible, the
      High Court should not interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the
      trial court. We agree with the principle of law that when two views are
      possible, the view taken by the trial court should not be disturbed, but in
E     the present case the view taken by the trial court, as discussed above,
      was perverse and rightly held so by the High Court.
            26. For the reasons, as discussed above, we find no force in this
      appeal which is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
             27; The appellants M.G Shivaraj and Hebballi Shivappa (appellant
F     Nos. 2 and 3) are on bail. Their bail bonds stand cancelled and the
      sureties are discharged. They shall surrender forthwith before the trial
      court to undergo the sentence awarded by the High Cou11.


      Kalpan.a K. Tripathy                                        Appeal dismissed.




      2
        (2003) 1 sec 465
      ' ( 1976) 1 sec 37