PANDAPPA HANUMAPPA HANAMAR AND ANR.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

        PANDAPPA HANUMAPPA HANAMAR AND ANR.                                    A
                                     v.
                       STATE OF KARNATAKA

                          FEBRUARY 28, 1997

                                                                               B
          (M.K. MUKHERJEE AND S.P. KURDUKAR, JJ.]


        Indian Penal Code, 1860/Criminal Procedure Code, 197~Sections 302
and 34-Sections 378, 386- Appellant charged with having caused death of
the deceased with common intention-Trial Court acquitted disbelieving C
evidence on record-Reversal of acquittal by the High Court-On ap-
peal-Held : Findings of trial Court patently perverse-High Court fully jus-
tified in reversing the same-Conviction can be based on testimony of single
eye witness if found credible-Hostile witness can not be discredited entire-
ly-No legal bar in believing testimony of hostile witness if co"oborated by
other reliable evidence-Independent witnesses can not be discarded on the D
basis of insignificant contradictions when nothing was brought out in cross-
examination that they were interested in the prosecution case or that they
deposed inimically-Entertainment of doubt regarding actual time of occur-
rence on the basis of the time mentioned in the charge-Held : I"elevant and
improper-Mentioning of time in the charge not necessary--Consistent deposi- E
tion of witness regarding time of actual occu"ence relevant and should be
relied upon----Failure to explain minor injuries on the person of the ac-
cused-Does not affect the prosecution case-Prosecution owes no duty to
explain on the facts and circumstances of the case-When it was proved that
the deceased was unanned and the accused attacked him fully anned, minor
injuries might have caused in the process.                                   F

       As per the prosecution, the appellants had grudge against the
deceased as he deserted their sister, who was his wife but was living with
another woman. In order to take revenge, they alongwith another, attacked
him at about 10 A.M. in the morning on December 16, 1986, when he was
shelling ground nuts in his field in company of P.W. 1 and 2. They started     G
assaulting him with axe, knife and 'rimpage'. P.W. 2 snatched the axe from
the hands of A. 2 and threw it away. But they continued the assault. Raising
hue and cry P.Ws. 1 and 2 ran towards the village, to inform the other
villagers. On their way they met P.W. 3 and informed him of the incident.
A little later they found the appellants coming behind them with Al carry-     H
                                    529
      530                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (1997] 2 S.C.R.

A ing the severed head of the deceased in his hand. PWs. 4, 5, 6, 8and11 also
  saw the appellants carrying the severed head a'ong the village road and
  then tying it to the village gate. P.W. 6 informed the police over phone about
  the incident. Police arrived at the spot, took photographs of the severed
  head and the torso, recorded the statement of P.W. 1 and treating the same
  as FIR started investigation. After inquest the deadbody was sent for
B postmortem. The accused were arrested on the same night and pursuant to
  ·their statement the weapons used for committing the crime were.recovered.
  After usual investigation the accused were chargesheeted under Section 302
  read with Section 34 of the India Penal CoJe and were sent for trial. The
  trial Court acquitted them disbelieving the evidence on record, entertaining
C doubt regarding the actual time of occurrence and also considering the
  failure of the prosecution to explain the minor injuries on the persons of
  the accused to be against the prosecution. On appeal, the High Court
  reversed the order of acquittal holding that the findings of the trial Court
  were patently perverse. Being aggrieved, the appellants filed the present
   appeal.
D
            Dismissing the appeal, this Court

            HELD : 1. The evidence on record condusively proves that the find·
      ings recorded by the trial Court in favour of the appellants are patently
      perverse and the High Court was fully justified in reversing the same .
.E:                                                                      [536-EJ
            2.1. The trial Court was ~Tong in disbelieving the evidence of the eye
      witness, P.W. 2, who was a natural and probable witness and the defence
      failed to shake her credibility inspite of lengthy cross-examination. The
      trial Court discarded the testimony of P.W. 2 holding that there were
F     discrepancies between the evidence of P.W. 2 and other witnesses. The
      discrepancies referred to are so insignificant and inconsequential that they
      should not have been considered at all as they no way impaired the prosecu·
      tion case. [539-A·B]

G       2.2. Another reason advanced by the trial Court for discarding the
  evidence of P.W. 2 was that no other witness had spoken of her presence
  on the spot at the material time. If the observation or" the trial Court is
  taken to the logical conclusion, it would mean that no conviction can be
  recorded on the basis of a solitary eye witness, however reliable the tes·
  timony may be. One of the tests to judge the credibility of a witness is the
                                                                                     41
H intrinsic quality and worth of the evidence, independent of other evidence
            PANDAPPAHANUMAPPAHANAMAR v. STATE                             531

and if such evidence, measures upto court's satisfaction, it can itself form A
the basis of conviction. It is only when such evidence does not pass muster
that the court seeks corroboration to draw its conclusion therefrom. [538-
C-E]

      2.3. The trial Court also disbelieved P.W. 2 on the ground that she
contradicted herself from the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr. B
P.C. The contradictions referred to by the trial Court are mere minor
omissions. The trial Court ought not to have allowed the defence to bring
the purported contradictions on record, much less rely upon the same to
discredit the evidence of P.W. 2. [538-E-F; H]
                 .                .                                              c:
      3. The trial Court was not at .all justified. in entirely discarding the
evidence of P.W. 1, who was declared hostile. The entire evidence of a
hostile witness can not be discarded altogether. The evidence of P.W. 1
regarding the presence of P.W. 2 at the time of the incident, the appearance
of the accused on the scene and the deceased later found bleeding is
trustworthy but as it stands corroborated not only by the evidence of P.W.       D
2 but also by the recovery of blood-stained gunny beg, groundnut shells
and the axe. On this point, it is ·also pertinent to mention that inspite of
a searching cross examination the defence could not discredit the evidence
so far as it sought to support the prosecution case. [541-A-C]

      Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR (1976) SC 202 and Satpaul
                                                                                 E
v. Delhi Administration, AIR (1976) SC 294, relied on.

       4. The trial Court was not at all justified in disbelieving the evidence
of P.Ws. 4, 5, 6, 8.and 11, who saw the severed head of the deceased being
carried by the two appellants who tied it to the village gate. They are all F
independent witnesses and nothing was brought out in cross-examination
to indicate that they were interested in the cause of prosecution or inimi-
cally .deposed towards the appellants. Moreover, the contradictions
referred to by the trial Court in their evidence were too insignificant to be
taken notice of. The trial Court did not give any reason whatsoever to G
discard the evidence of P.W. 4. A careful scrutiny of the evidence of these
witnesses clearly proves that there is no justifiable ground to disbelieve
their testimony. [544-B-D]

     5. Another ground canvassed by the trial Court to disbelieve the
prosecution case was that there was material discrepancy regarding the H
    532                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [1997] 2 S.C.R.

A actual time as to when the incident took place. The trial Court pointed out
    that in the charge framed against the appellants it was mentioned that the
    incident took place at 1.00 P.M. but according to PWs. 1 and 2 the incident
    took place at or about 10 A.M., while the witnesses who spoke about the
    carrying of the severed head claimed to have seen it at or about 12 noon. In
    making these.comments the trial Court gave undue importance to a mis-
B   take in the charge, ignoring both the ocular evidence and the medical
    evidence. It is also not clear on what basis it ·was stated in the charge that
    the incident had occurred at 1 P.M., nor was it necessary to refer to the time
    of incident therein. Be that is it may, the record does not indicate that the
    appellants capitalised on it nor can it be said that they were prejudiced
C   thereby. There is no contradiction whatsoever regarding the time of the
    incident when the witnesses have consistently stated that the actual assault
    was around five hours after sun-rise. [544-E-G; 545-B]

          6. As regards the criticism of the trial Court that the failure on the
    part of the prosecution to explain the injuries found on the person of the
D   two appellants by the doctor on the night of the incident made its case
    suspect, it must be said that in the facts and circumstances of the instant
    case the prosecution owed no such duty. The simple and minor injuries on
    the person of the accused could not outweigh the evidence of the large
    number of independent witnesses examined by the prosecution who consis-
E   tently deposed about the ghastly crime committed by them. The appellants
    attacked the deceased with deadly weapons and inflicted twenty injuries on
    his person. When such a ghastly murder is committed, it was not unlikely
    that the two appellants sustained those injuries accidentally or owing to
    resistance which the deceased must have offered. There is nothing on
    record to show that the deceased caused or could have caused those injuries
F   more so, when he was not armed with any weapon. Therefore, it can be
    concluded that the reliance of the trial Court on the superficial injuries on
    the accused person to distrust the prosecution case was wholly unjustified.
                                                                       [545-C-F]

          CRIMINAL APPELLATE·JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
G 90of1994.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 8.10.93 of the Karnataka High


                                                                                     II
    Court in Crl.A. No. 149 of 1989.

H         S.S. Javeli and S.N. Bhat for the Appellant.
        PANDAPPA HANUMAPPA HANAMAR v. STATE [M.K. MUKHERJEE, J. J            533

          M. Veerappa and Ms. Manjula Kulkarni for the Respondent.                 A

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          M.K. MUKHERJEE, J. This appeal under Section 379 Cr.P.C. is
    directed against the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Criminal
    Appeal No. 149 of 1989 whereby it set aside the acquittal of the two           B
    appellants of the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC
    recorded in their favour by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bijapur in
    Sessions Case No. 39 of 1987 and convicted and sentenced them there-
    under.

          2. Put briefly, the prosecution case is as under :
                                                                                   c
           (a) The appellants are the sons of the elder sister of Hanamappa
    Sabappa Halagalo {the deceased) of village Arakert in Bilgi Taluka of the
    district of Bijapur. After the death of his first wife, the deceased married
    Erawwa, the elder sister of the two appellants, i.e. his own sister's daughter, D
    the deceased and Erawwa however did not have a happy conjugal life and,
    within a month of their marriage, he deserted her and started living with
    Lakshmawwa (P.W.1), a widow. The two appellants however were insisting
    upon the deceased to bring Erawwa back but he refused to oblige them.

           (b) In the morning of December 16, 1986 the deceased went to            E
    cultivate his land in the outskirts of their village along with Sunderawwa
    (P.W. 2) a daily labourer. At or about 10 A.M. Lakshmawwa (P.W. 1)
    reached there carrying the food for the deceased and a basket containing
    groundnuts. After P.W. 1 reached there all three of them started shelling
    the groundnuts. While they were so engaged accused Nagappa (since              F
    absconding) reached there with a rampige in his hand and when questioned
    told the deceased that he was in search of his she-buffalo. Nagappa then
    sat nearby and started eating groundnuts. A little later appellant

-   Lakshmappa (hereinafter referred to as 'A2') also reached there armed
    with an axe and started gossiping with the deceased and others present
    there. After sometime Al arrived there with a knife and stabbed the
    deceased on his chest. A2 and Nagappa also joined him in the assault with
                                                                                   G


    their respective weapons.

          (c) Seeing the assault both P.Ws 1 and 2 raised a hue and cry an~
    the latter snatched away the axe from the hands of A2 and threw it away. H
    534                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [1997] 2 S.C.R.

A Both P.Ws.1and2 then left the place and proceeded towards the village.
   On the way they met Bhagawwa (P.W. 3) near a nala and apprised him of
   the incident. A little later they found Al and A2 coming behind them with
 · Al ho1ding the severed head of the deceased in his hand. Both of them
   {Al and AZ) then went to the agasi (village gate) and tied the severed head
B to that gate.

        (d) On seeing Al and A2 carrying the severed head of the deceased
  and then tying it to the village gate, Hussain Saheb (P.W. 6), a peon of the
  local Panchayat office, rushed to the village Post Office and gave an
  intimation to the Kaladagi Police Station about the murder of Hanamappa
C over telephone. On receipt of that information Sub-Inspector Hemanth
  Jaganneth Jahagirdar (P.W. 20) made an entry in the Station House Diary
  book and left for Arakeri with some constables. Reaching there they first
  went to the Panchayat office and met P.W. 6, and then, accompanied by
  him, went to the village gate. After getting photographs of the severed head
D taken, P.W. 20 sent the constables to the spot where the torso of the
  deceased was lying. In the meantime he (P.W. 20) secured the presence of
  P.W. 1 at the Panchayat office and recorded her statement (Ext. P-1).
  Treating the same as the F.I.R. he took up investigation of the case and
  went to the place of occurrence. He held inquest on the body of the
  deceased. Meanwhile Ramachandra Benakappa Mane (P.W. 21), Circle
E Inspector of Police reached the village gate and got the severed head
  brought down. The head was then taken to the site of the incident and
  inquest held thereupon. The trunk and the head were then sent for post-
  mortem examination. P.W. 21 then took over the investigation from P.W.
  20 and seized an axe, a pair of chappal, a rampige, a tatta (a sack) some
F groundnut shells and groundnuts and some blood stained earth from the
                                                                                      -
  place where the dead body was found.

         ( e) Both Al and A2 were arrested in the same night and as some
  injuries were found on their person they were sent to the Medical Officer,
  Kaladagi for examination. On the following day P.W. 21 interrogated them
G and pursuant to the statement of Al recovered one jambia (M02) which
                                                                                      -
  was kept hidden in thorny bush.:s. Thereafter the dhotis, which Al and A2
  were wearing, were seized as they were found to contain blood stains.

          (t) I'.W. 21 sent all the articles seized fot examination by the Forensic
H Science Laboratory (FSL) and on completion of investigation submitted
                                                                                      •
          PANDAPPA HANUMAPPA HANAMAR v. SfATE [M.K. MUKHERJEE, J.]             535

      charge-sheet against Al, A2 and Nagappa (showing him as absconding).            A
            3. Both the appellants pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled

 -    against them and contended that they had been falsely implicated. Al also
      took a specific defence that Sundarappa and Mangalappa of their village
      had got them implicated in the case with a view to getting the land of the
      deceased.                                                                       B

             4. To give an ocular version of the incident the prosecution examined
      P.W. 1 and P.W. 2. Though P.W. 2 fully supported the prosecution case
      P.W. 1 did not, for which she was declared hostile. Besides, it examined
      Laxman (P.W. 4) Irayya (P.W. 5), Husensaneb (P.W. 6), Ganganna (P.W.
      8) and Pandappa (P.W. 11), who claimed to have seen the two appellants
                                                                                      c
      taking the severed head of the deceased along the village road and then
      tying it to the village gate. The other witnesses examined by the prosecution
      were the doctor who held autopsy upon the deceased and examined Al
      and A2, some villagers in whose presence the different panchanamas were
      prepared, and the two Investigating Officers Hemanath J aganneth Jahagir-       D
      dar (P.W. 20) and Ramachandra Benakappa Mane (P.W. 21). The
      prosecution also tendered in evidence reports of the FSL. No witness was
      however examined on behalf of defence.

            5. On perusal of the judgment of the trial Court we find that the
      reasons which weighed with it for discarding the prosecution case were,
                                                                                      E
      that no reliance could be placed on the. evidence of P.W. 2 as she materially


-
91    contradicted herself with reference to her statement recorded under Sec-
      tion 161 Cr.P.C., that the evidence of P.Ws. 4 to 6, 8 and 11 were
      contradictory to each other, that the medical evidence did not fit in with
      the ocular evidence as regards the time when, and the mam;ier in which,         F
      the assault took place, that the investigation was tainted, and that the
      prosecution did not give any explanation as to how the two appellants
      sustained injuries during the incident.

            6. In reversing the order of acquittal the High Court first observed
      that the trial Court ought not to have given undue importance to minor          G
      contradictions appearing in the evidence of the eye-witnesses who were all
      disinterested persons and had given a graphic picture of the different parts
~--   of the macabre incident. The High Court next observed that the trial Court
      entertained doubt regarding the time of the murder when none existed.
      The reluctance on the part of the trial Court to place reliance upon the        H

•
    536                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  f1997] 2 S.C.R.
A evidence of independent witnesses, which according to the High Court was
    corroborated by circumstantial evidence, was also much commented upon.
    Lastly, the High Court observed that in the facts and circumstances of the
    case the prosecution owed no duty to explain the injuries found on the
                                                              •
    persons of the two appellants.

B          7. Mr. Javeli, the learned counsel for the appellants took us through
    the eritire evidence on record and the judgment of the learned Courts
    below to contend that the findings recorded by the trial Court were based
    on detailed discussion and proper appreciation of the evidence and there-
    fore the High Court was not at all justified in upsetting the same by taking
C   a different view of it. Mr. Javeli futber contended that having regard to the
    fact that the evidence of Sundrawwa (P.W. 2) as also that of the witnesses
    who claimed to have seen the two appellants going with the severed head
    of the deceased bristled with contradictions and improbabilities, the trial
    Court was fully justified in observing that no reliance could be placed upon
    the same. Mr. Veerappa, the learned counsel for the State on the other
D   hand fully supported the judgment of the High Court.

          8. Having considered the judgment of the trial Court in the light of
    the evidence on record we have no hesitation in concluding that the
    findings recorded by it in favour of the appellants are patently wrong and
E   perverse and the High Court was fully justified in reversing the same.

        9. That Hanamappa met with his gory death on his land and that his
  severed head was found tied to the village gate stand conclusively estab-
  lished by the uncontroverted evidence of the two Police Officers, namely,
  P.W. 20 and 21, who visited the spot soon after P.W. 6 gave the phone
F message, the panch witnesses and other witnesses. The photographs of the
  severed head and the torso (Ext. P3 to P6) .which were taken by the
  photographer (P.W. 16), who accompanied the' above police officers fully
  corroborate their version. Dr. R.N. Nadagounda (P.W. 10), who held
  autopsy on the trunk and the severed head of Hanamappa found as many
G as twenty injuries. From the above facts and circumstances which stand
  established there cannot be any manner of doubt that Hanamappa was
  brutally murdered. Indeed, this part of the prosecution case was not
  seriously challenged by the defence and both the Courts below recorded a          _..
  concurrent finding in this respect.

H         10. The next and the vital question that falls for our determination is




                                                                                      l
         PANDAPPA HANUMAPPA HANAMAR v. STATE [M.K MUKHERJEE, J.]             537

     whether the prosecution has been able to conclusively prove that the two       A
     appellants are the authors of the ghastly crime. As earlier stated, the main
 .   stay of the prosecution in this regard is P.W. 2 who claimed to have been
     cultivating the land of the deceased on the fateful day. She testified that
     since about ten to twelve days prior to that day she was working in that
     land as a daily labourer. As before, she went to that land in the morning      B
     of December 16, 1986 and engaged herself in uprooting the dried up
     tomato plants. The deceased reached there sometime later and tethered
     the bullocks, that he had brought with him, near the haystack. At or about
     the same time P.W. 1 also reached there with a bag of groundnuts and a
     butti (tiffin box) containing the meal for the deceased. After spreading a
     gunny bag all of them sat over it and started gossiping, while selling the     C

-    groundnuts. While they were gossiping accused Nagappa reached there
     with a rampige, and on being asked by the deceased about the purpose of
     his visit said that he was in search on his. buffalo which was missing from
     the previous night. Nagappa then sat with them and started gossiping. After
     sometime A2 came there and joined them. While they were talking to each        D
--   other P.W. l left the place to answer a call of the nature. By the time she
     reached the heap of stones lying nearby Al appeared there with his hands
     held behind his back. Immediately thereafter Al caught the deceased and
     stabbed him with a knife he was carrying and A2 assaulted him with the
     axe he had with him. P.W. 2 however managed to snatch the axe from the
     hand of A2 and threw it away. Before however P.W. 1 could raise a hue          E
     and cry Nagappa also assaulted him with his rampige. Then both P.W. 1
     and P.W. 2 went towards the village to inform the villagers.

           11. P.W. 2 went on to say that when he was going towards the village
     she heard sound of foot steps from behind and on turning back saw p
     accused Nagappa coming towards them. When she requested him to rescue
     the deceased he replied that he had not come to rescue him and ran
     towards the nala. P.W. 2 next stated that then she followed P.W. 1, who

-    was proceeding ahead, towards the village and on the way when she (P.W.
     2) met P.W. 3 she told him that all the three accused had killed the
     deceased. Then she found Al and A2 following them with Al carrying the G
     severed head of Hanamappa. The above scene struck terror in her mind


--   and she along with P.W. 1, ran towards the village and stayed back in her
     house till Police came. P.W. 2 identified the knife, axe and rampige with
     which the three accused had assaulted the deceased, the clothes of the
     deceased and the pairs of chappals that the deceased and P.W. 1 were H
    538                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [1997] 2 S.C.R.

A wearing.
           12. One of the reasons for which the trial Court disbelieved her
    evidence was that though she claimed to have uprooted tomato plants from
    the land no such plant was seized by the police. The trial Court ought not
    to have laid any stress on this aspect for her claim about her presence is ·
B furnished by the fact that groundnuts, groundnut shells and a gunny bag
    were seized from the site of the incident and all those articles together with
    the wearing apparels seized from the person of the deceased were found
    by the F.S.L. to contain human blood of Group 'B'. Another reason
    advanced by the trial Court to disbelieve her - which in our view is an
    absurd one - was that though according to her the deceased had fallen on
C the gunny bag blood stains were found on the earth also. Considering the
    weapons used and the number and nature of injures inflicted therewith it
    can be legitimately inferred that blood spurted out to cover an area beyond
    the gunny bag on which the deceased had fallen down. The next ground
    canvassed by the trial Court for disbelieving her was that no other witness
D had spoken about her having been present at the spot at the material time.
 - If the above observation of the trial Court is taken to its logical conclusion
    it would mean that no conviction can be recorded on the basis of the
    evidence of a solitary witness, howsoever reliable his testimony may be.
    One of the tests to judge the credibility of a witness is the intrinsic quality
    and worth of his evidence, independent of other evidence and if such
E evidence measures up to the Court's satisfaction It can itself form the basis
    of conviction. It is only when such evidence does not pass muster that t~e
    Court seeks corroboration to draw its conclusion therefrom. The trial
    Court also disbelieved P.W. 2 on the ground that she contradicted herself
    with her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Having gone
    through the contradictions we are of the view that the trial Court ought
F not to have allowed the defence to bring those purported contradictions
    on record - much less rely upon the same - for they are only minor
    omissions. To avoid prolixity we refrain from referring to each of them
    except one to demonstrate the trial Court's unjustified reliance upon them.
    As earlier noticed, P .W. 2 testified that when A2 tried to give a second
G blow on the deceased with an axe he snatched the axe from him. The
  · omission to which her attention was drawn in this regard was that before
    the police she did not state that she snatched away the axe when the second
    blow was about to be given. The omission here was not in respect of her
    failure to state about the snatching away of the axe but about the stage of
    such snatching. It is obvious that this was not a material omission and,
H therefore, the trial Court ought not to have permitted the prosecution to
          PANDAPPA HANUMAPPA HANAMAR v. STATE [M.K. MUKHERJEE, J.]            539

       prove the said omission, far less relied upon it to discredit P.W. 2. Lastly, A
       the trial Court observed that as there were discrepancies between the
     . evidence of i>.W. 2 and the other witnesses, the former could not be relied
-      upon. On perusal of the discrepancies referred to by the trial Court we are
       of the opinion that it should have ignored them as insignificant and
       inconsequential. After having carefully gone through the evidence of P.W.
       2 we find no reason to disbelieve her as we find that she was a natural and B
       probable witness and inspite of lengthy cross examination the defence
       could not shake her credibility.

            13. That brings us to the evidence of the other eye witness namely,
     Lakshmawwa (P.W. 1). While admitting that she was living with the
     deceased as his mistress, she testified that in that morning she went to the C
     field at or about 10.00 A.M. with a basket of groundnuts and a tiffin box
     containing the food for the deceased. Reaching there, she found Sunderaw-
     wa (P.W. 2) plucking tomato plants. She (P.W. 1) spread out an .empty
     gunny bag on the ground and all three of them started shelling the
     groundnuts. While they were sitting, Nagappa (the absconding accused) D
     canie there. When deceased asked him as to why he came there he replied
     that he came in search of his missing she-buffalo. She then asked the
     deceased for some groundnuts and started eating them. While all of them
     were talking A2 came there with an axe on his shoulder and they started
     talking to each other. A little later she (P.W. 1) left the place to ease E
     herself. She then saw Al approaching. the deceased. When she came back
     after easing herself she found the deceased bleeding near the place where
     they were shelling the groundnuts. She then became afraid and ran towards
     the house. She, however, did not speak about the actual assault on the
     deceased by the three accused persons for which she was contradicted by
     the Public Prosecutor, with the permission of the Court, with her statement F ,
     recorded by P.W. 20, (which was treated by the police as the FIR but was
     found by both the Courts as a statement recorded during investigation)



-
     wherein she had supported the prosecution case fully.

           14. In dealing with the evidence of P.W. 1 the trial Court first detailed G
     her testimony to the extent it .was legally admissible and then made the
     following comments:

·-            "So from the statement of P.W. 1 recorded by the Court what act
              these two accused had committed in causing the d·eath or. assaulting
              the deceased has not been spoken to by P.W. 1. So her evidence H
    540                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [1997] 2 S.C.R.

A           so as to connect the accused with the assault on the deceased is
            concerned cannot be of any help to the prosecution. Mere
            presence of the accused persons in the land at the alleged spot
            itself will not sufficient to come to the conclusion that it is the     _.
            accused persons who are responsible for the assault on the
            deceased."
B
          15. In Satpaul v. Delhi Administration, A.LR. (1976) SC 294 this
    Court had occasion to consider the question whether the entire evidence
    of a prosecution witness, who turns hostile and is cross examined by the
    Public Prosecutor with the leave of the Court, is to be discarded altogether.
C   After discussing the law on the subject and the decisions of this Court and
    High Courts on that aspect the Court observed as under :

             "From the above conspectus, it emerges clear that even in a
             criminal prosecution when a witness is cross-examined and con-
             tradicted with the leave of the Court, by the party calling him, his
D
             evidence cannot, as a matter of law, be treated as washed off the
             record altogether. It is for the Judge of fact to consider in each
             case whether as a result of such cross examination and contradic-
             tion, the witness stands thoroughly discredited or can still be
             believed in regard to a part of his testimony. If the Judge finds
E            that in the process, the credit of the witness has not been com-
             pletely shaken, he may, after reading and considering the evidence
             of the witness, as a whole, with due caution and care, accept, in
             the light of the other evidence on the record, that part of his
             testimony which he finds to be creditworthy and act upon it. If in
F            a given case, the whole of the testimony of the witness is impugned,
             and in the process, the witness stands squarely and totally dis-
             credited, the Judge should, as a matter of prudence, discard his
             evidence in toto."

        16. A similar view was expressed by a three Judge Bench of this             .....
G Court in Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana, A.LR. (1976) SC 202 when it
  stated that the fact that the Court gave permission to the prosecution to
  cross examine his own witness, thus characterising him as, what is described
  as a hostile witness, does not completely efface his evidence. The evidence
  remains admissible in the trial and there is no legal bar to base a conviction
H upon his testimony if corroborated by other reliable evidence.
     PANDAPPA HANUMAPPA HANAMAR v. SfATE [M.K. MUKHERJEE, J.]            541


         17. In view of the above tests laid down by this Court for appreciating A
  the evidence of a hostile witness the trial Court was not at all justified in
  discarding the evidence of P.W. 1 altogether with the above quoted com-
  ments and it ought to have considered her evidence in the light of the other
  evidence on record. When so considered we find that her evidence regard-
  ing the presence of P.W. 2 at the time of the incident, the appearance of B
' the accused on the scene and the deceased later on found bleeding is
  trustworthy as it stands corroborated not only by the evidence of P.W. 2
  but also by the recovery of blood stained gunny bag, groundnut shells and
  axe. While on this point it is pertinent to mention that in spite of a
  searching cross. examination the defence could not discredit her evidence,
  !iO far as it sought to support the prosecution case.                          C

        18. Now that we have found that P.W. 2 is a reliable and truthful
 witness and P.W. 1 does not stand wholly discredited, we may advert our
 attention to the testimonies of the five witnesses, namely, P.Ws. 4, 5, 6, 8
 and 11, who saw the severed head of the deceased being carried by the two D
 appellants and then tied by them to the village gate. To appreciate the
 reasonings of the trial Court to brand all of them as unreliable witnesses it
 would be necessary to discuss their evidence in some details. P.W. 4
 claimed to have gone to the land of one Soragavi which was near the village
 stream, to water pomegranate plants. At or about 11 - 11.30 AM. the E
 supply of electricity failed, and with that the supply of water stopped, and
 so he want to the nearby pump-house to take his food. When he was about
 to open his lunch box, he saw P.Ws. 1 and 2 coming towards the stream
 screaming. When asked by him as to what had happened she told that
 Hanamappa had been backed by Pandya (Al) and Laxmya (A2). Then she
 and P.W. 2 went away running. He then went towards the field and stood . F
 there. At that time he saw Al and A2 coming towards the village, with the
 former holding the severed head of the deceased. In cross examination he
 was contradicted with his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
 wherein he did not state that because the electricity had failed he had gone
 to take his food at or about 11 or 11.30 AM. and that P.W. 1 told him that G
 Pandapa and Laxmappa had cut Hanamappa. He asserted that both the
 accused persons were almost behind P.Ws. 1and2. He denied the sugges-
 tion that while committing theft in the land of Al he was caught red-
 handed by A2 and then fined and out of that enmity he was giving false
 evidence.                                                                     H
    542                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [1997] 2S.C.R.

A       19. P.W. 5, testified that after cultivating his land he went back to his
  home at or about 12 noon to take food. While he was in his house he saw
  both the accused persons coming to the village, with the severed head of
  the deceased In the hand of Al. He followed them to the village-gate where
  he saw A2 tying the head to the beam of the gate. Thereafter both went
  towards their house proclaiming their valour (shouting 'deen'). At that time
B he saw Gangappa Hadapad (P.W. 8) and others present there. In cross
  examination it was elicited from him that he used to go to the houses in
  the village, including that of the accused, to collect alms. It was suggested
  to him that about one year prior to the incident Al had got prepared one
  tayatha from him for one of his bullocks and paid Rs. 50. It was further
C suggested that because the bullock died Al got that money recovered from
  him for which their relations deteriorated. The suggestions were however
  denied by him. He however admitted in the cross-examination that he did
  not see any one going towards the land of the deceased when he was
  returning home. His attention was then drawn to certain contradictions
D with reference to his statement made before the police.

          20. The star witness of the prosecution to prove the above fact is
    however P.W. 6 who deposed that about 12 noon that day he was sitting
    on the katta outside the Panchayat office. At that time both accused came
    towards the Panchayat Office with the severed head of the deceased and
E then went towards the village-gate. He stood at a distance of about 20
   marns and saw A-P tying a torn piece of towel to the hair on the head after
    taking the head from the hands of A-1 and then affixing it to the beam of
    the gate. Both of them then went towards the village shouting deen. At that
    time P.Ws. 5, 8 and 11 were present there. He then went to the Dalapathy
p of the village but as he could not find him he sent a message to the Kaladagi
  . Police Station from the local post office. A suggestion was put to him that
    Rs. 200 were paid as bribe at his instance to the Ta/ati of the village by Al
    to get a loan ·sanctioned and because the same was not sanctioned Al was
    pressing his brother to get back the money, but he denied the suggestion.
    From his cross examination we find that nothing of consequence was
G elicited in his cross examination to discredit him. It is of course true that
    he did not give all the details in the phone message but it is of no
    consequence because he did intimate about the murder of Hanamappa.

           21. P.W. 8, a barber by profession, was near the village gate at about
H 12 noon that day and he saw both the accused coming there with the
    PANDAPPA HANUMAPPA HANAMAR v. STATE (M.K MUKHERJEE, J.]          543

severed head of the deceased and tying it to the village-gate in the manner A
stated by other witnesses. He identified it as that of deceased Hanamappa.
He also spoke of the presence of other witnesses referred to above. He
denied the suggestion in the cross-examination that his elder brother
Mutheppa had illicit connection with P.W. 1. Other suggestions to show
enmity towards the appellants were also denied by him. From his evidence B
we find that nothing of consequence could be elicited in his cross-examina-
tion so as to doubt his veracity.

       22. The last witness on the point is P.W. 11, who is also an agricul-
turist. He has his house about half a furlong away from the village gate. On
getting the information that Hanamappa was murdered he along with C
Handigeri and Shivalingappa went towards the village gate at or about 12
noon and saw both the accused going there with the severed head of the
deceased and then fixing it to the village gate. He admitted that he had not
gone to his land that morning but stated before Police that he had gone to
his land and returned by 12 noon. In .cross examination he admitted that D
Bharamappa, .a cow-boy, is the cousin of the accused persons but denied
that in his marriage he had consumed liquor and misbehaved for which Al
had beaten him. He also denied that for that reason he and Al were not
in talking terms. On the contrary he. asserted that .they were in talking
terms.
                                                                           E
       23. The principal ground which weighed with the trial Court to
disbelieve the evidence of P.Ws. 5, 6, 8 and 11 was that while testifying
before the Court they improved on their statements made before the police
during investigation. On perusal of the improvements referred to by the
trial Court, we find that they relate primarily to the manner in which the F
accused tied the severed head to the village gate details of which were not
disclosed to the police. The other improvements also relate to insignificant
omissions, some of which we may mention by way of illustration. While
discussing the evidence of P.W. 5, the trial Court commented upon his
having not stated before the police about the actual manner in which the
head was tied - though he gave those details in evidence - and that while G
proceeding along the road with the head they (the appellants) raised
slogans. Similarly, while criticizing the evidence of P.W. 6 the trial Court
observed that while in his testimony in Court he stated only three persons
had witnessed the tying of the severed head, in his statement before the
police he stated that a number of persons had assembled near the village H
    544                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [1997] 2 S.C.R.

A gate. The trial Court also laid much stress upon minor contradictions in
    the evidence of the above witnesses as would be evident from its comment
    that whereas P.Ws. 5 and 6 had seen only tying of.the severed head with
    pawada to the hair of the severed head, P.Ws. 8 and 11 said that along with
    pawada, cheri was also used.
B        24. In our considered view the trial Court was not at all justified in
  disbelieving the evidence of the above witnesses : firstly, because, they were
  all independent witnesses and nothing was brought out in cross-examina-
  tion to indicate that they were interested in the cause of the prosecution
  or inimically deposed towards the appellants and secondly, because, the
C improvements and contradictions referred to by the trial Court in their
  evidence were too insignificant to be taken notice of. Before we part with
  this aspect of the matter we may mention that the trial Court did not give
  any reason whatsoever to discard the evider>ce of P.W. 4. We have carefully
  gone through the evidence of the above five witnesses and we are of the
D opinion that there is no justifiable ground to disbelieve their testimonies.

          25. As stated earlier, another ground canvassed by the trial Court to
  disbelieve the prosecution· case was that there was material discrepancy
  regarding the actual time when the incident took place. The trial Court
  pointed out that in the charge framed against the appellants it was men-
E tioned that the incident took place at 1 P.M., but according to P.Ws. 1 and
  2 the incident took place at or about 10 AM., while the witnesses who
  spoke about the carrying of the severed head claimed to have seen it at or
  about 12 noon. In making these comments the trial Court gave undue
  importance to a mistake in the charge, ignoring both the ocular evidence
F and the medical evidence. It is also not clear on what basis it was stated
  in the charge that the incident had occurred at 1 P.M. nor was it necessary
  to refer to the time of incident therein. Be that as it may, the record does
  not indicate that the appellants capitalised on it nor can it be said that they
  were prejudiced thereby. P.W. 2 deposed that when Hanamappa was
  murdered it was about five hours after sun-rise and P.W. 1 said that she
G went to the land at or about 10 A.M. According to P.Ws. 4, 5, 6, 8 and 11
  it was about 12 noon, when both the appellants came to the village shouting
  "deen" and holding the severed head of the deceased. When considered in
  the context of the fact that the witnesses were village rustics, who do not
   testify about time by the watch, there is no contradiction, whatsoever
H regarding the time of the incident. Another conclusion of the trial Court
    PANDAPPA HANUMAPPA HANAMAR v. STAIB [M.K. MUKHERJEE,J.]              545

that the incident niust have taken place in the early morning of December A
16, appears to have been influenced by the opinion given by the doctor,
who held the autopsy. The Trial Court ought not have based its conclusion
on the opinion so given, when the witnesses have consistently stated that
the actual assault was round about five hours after sun-rise.

       26. As regards the criticism of the trial Court that the failure on the B
part of the prosecution to explain the injuries found on the person of the
two appellants by Dr. N~dagounda (P.W. 10) when he examined them in
the night of the incident made its case suspect, it must be said that in the
facts and circumstances of the instant case the prosecution owned no such
duty. P.W. 10 found one incised wound on the thigh of Al and one incised C
wound on the middle of the right palm of A2 measuring 1.1/4" x 1/4" and
skin deep. Such simple and minor injuries on the persons of the accused
could not outweigh the evidence of the large numl;Jer of independent
witnesses examined by the prosecution who consistently deposed about the
ghastly crimes committed by them in severing the head of the deceased,
parading with it along the village pathway and then tying it to the village- D
gate. We cannot lose sight of the fact that the appellants along with another
attacked the deceased with deadly weapons and inflicted twenty injuries on
his person. When such a ghastly murder is committed it was not unlikely
that the two appellants sustained those injuries accidently or owing to the
resistence which the deceased must have offered. In making this observa- E
tion we have drawn inspiration from the fact that the injury that was
suffered by A2 was on the right palm. At any rate there is nothing on
record that the deceased caused or could have caused those those injuries,
more so, when he was not armed with any weapon. We, therefore, find no
hesitation in concluding that the reliance of the trial court on the superficial F
injuries on the accused persons to distrust the prosecution case was wholly
unjustified.

       27. On a conspectus of the entire evidence on record we are, there-
fore, in complete agreement with the following observations and findings
recorded by the High Court, in setting aside the order of acquittal passed G
in favour of the appellants :

        "The learned counsel for the accused-respondents urged that we
        should be slow in interfering with the judgment of acquittal as the
        trial Court has adverted to all aspects of the case and has dis- H
                                                                                      ~·
    546                   SUPREMECOURTREPORTS.                     [1997] 2 S.C.R.

A           believed the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. We are aware
            that we should be slow when the accused have the benefit of
            acquittal in the hands of the trial Court. We have reappraised the
            evidence and found that the trial Court has grossly erred in
            disbelieving the testimony of the two eye witnesses and other
            witnesses in the village who actually saw the two respondents taking
B
            the severed head of the de..:eased and tying to the village gate. In
            such a situation from a small village like the one in question it may
            not be possible to expect any better evidence than the one given
            by the prosecution witnesses. When the two accused were carrying
            the severed head of the; deceased it is rather impossible to conceive
c           that any one could have interfered with this inhuman and ghastly
            act of theirs. Reaction of a witness in such a situation may not be
            uniform and one cannot expect the witnesses to behave in a
            particular manner. The entire incident is one and continuous from
            the stage of attack on the deceased till the severed head was tied
            to the village gate. Therefore the trial Court instead of hair-spliting
D
            evidence and depending on discrepancies which do not go to falsify
            the evidence of these witnesses ought not to have disbelieved them.
            Undue importance was attached to the difference in time factor
            referring to the one in the charge and the evidence of the prosecu-
            tion witnesses. We have no hesitation in finding. that the approach
E           of the trial court to the evidence is perverse and unreasonable. No
            other conclusion than of guilt can follow from the prosecution
            evidence. It was therefore not justified in acquitting the accused."

          In the result the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

F H.K.                                                         Appeal dismissed.