Holding

The Supreme Court held that the High Court was correct in relying on the victim’s and eyewitnesses’ testimony and convicting the appellant under Section 307 IPC; the trial court’s dismissal of such evidence was untenable.

Summary

The appellant, A-1, assaulted the victim PW-3 with a weapon, causing injuries that were classified as simple hurt. The trial court acquitted A-1, discarding the testimony of several eyewitnesses on the ground that they were friendly with the victim and deeming their evidence not cogent. On appeal, the Karnataka High Court rejected the trial court’s reasoning, held the eyewitness and victim testimony credible, and convicted A-1 under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, sentencing him to two years’ rigorous imprisonment. The appellant challenged the High Court’s reliance on the eyewitnesses and argued that the injuries did not amount to an attempt to murder. The Supreme Court held that the trial court’s blanket rejection of interested witnesses was untenable, that the evidence established the requisite intention for Section 307, and that the High Court was correct in upholding the conviction. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the conviction affirmed.

Issues considered

Whether the trial court erred in discarding the testimony of eyewitnesses solely on the basis of their relationship with the victim.
Whether the injuries inflicted, being simple hurt, suffice to sustain a conviction under Section 307 IPC.
Whether the High Court was justified in relying on the victim’s and eyewitnesses’ evidence to convict the appellant.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 307

Subjects

Section 307 IPCattempt to murdereyewitness testimonyinterested witnesssimple hurtappellate review

Judgment

.!
R. PRAKASH A
v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA

FEBRUARY I I, 2004

[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.J B

Penal Code, 1860-Section 307:

-· Accused persons assaulted the victim and injured him-Trial Court
acquitted them holding prOSf!CUlion witnesses as interested witnesses and their C
evidence not cogent and credible-High Court affirming acquittal ofall except
A-I-Convicted and sentenced him under Section 307-0n appeal, Held:
Eyewitnesses related to deceased/injured-Raising doubts/suspicion on their
evidence without any supporting material-Though these eyewitnesses resiled
from evidence to some extent, their evidence does not get wiped out in toto, D
and their evidence can not be discarded~Hence, the High Court rightly acted
on such evidence to convict the accused

Conviction under Section 307-Courl has to see that whether the overt
act was committed with the intemionlknow/edge and under the circumstances
as mentioned in the Section--Evidence clearly established commission ofoffence E
uls 307-Merely because injuries inflicted on the victim were in the nature of
simple hurt, acquittal of accused not justified.

Accused persons quarreled with the victim, PW3. Appellant-Accused
(A-1) brought a weapon (Machu) and assaulted him on his head. The
victim fell down, and he was taken to a hospital. A complaint was lodged F
and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted. Trial
Court did not rely on the evidence of eyewitnesses on the ground that they
were friendly with the victim, and thus interested witnesses. It also found
their evidenc~ not very cogent and credible, and acquitted them. On
appeal, High Court confirmed acquittal of all but A-1, and convicted and G
sentenced him for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC.. Hence
the present appeal.

It was contended for the appellant-accused (A-1) that since cogent
reasons were given to discard evidence of the injured witness/v!ctim and
281' - . H
282 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] 2 S.C.R.

A some of the eyewitnesses did not support the case of the prosecution, order
of the Trial Court acquitting Al ought not to be interfered with by the
High Court; that the genesis of the controversy had not been established;
and that offence under Section 307 IPC was not made out.

On behalf of the respondent-State, it was submitted that the High
B Court arrived at its findings· only on the basis of cogent and credible
evidence of the victim; that the evidence of eyewitnesses/victim was
discarded on unsustainable grounds.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

C HELD: 1.1. The Trial Court referred to the evidence of the
eyewitnesses and discarded on the ground th~t the eyewitnesses were
friendly with PW3, the victim. Trial Court did not indicate any plausible
reason as to how their evidence suffer from any infirmity otherwise. It is
a fairly well settled position in law that the evidence of a witness who is
o. related to either the deceased or the injured not to be automatically
rejected, notwithstanding the fact th·at it is cogent, credible and
trustworthy. The reasons indicated by the Trial Court to discard the .
evidence have no acceptable or supportable basis. So far as genesis of
controversy is concerned, the Trial Court itself with reference to the
evidence came to hoid that there was exchange of hot words between the
E accused and the victim. The Trial Court has even gone to the extent that
there was no ostensible reason for vietim to abuse A-1 during the course
of such occurrence. It cannot be said that genesis of the occurrence has
not been. established. Ttie Trial Court's observation is merely a cryptic
observation .of general f!atu're that.it appears to be suspicious, is without
F any material t~ support the conclu.sion an~ is'lndefensible. The High Court
has rightly acted on the evidence of victim and other eyewitnesses. Even
though PWsl and ~ had resiled from the statements made during
investigation to some extent, their evidence does, not ge~ wiped out in toto.
f285-A, El

G 1.2. The .evidence of the eyewitnesses go _to show that they tried. to
intervene and save the victim from being assaulted by A-1 but he.continued
to assault him. The first blow was on a vital part, that is on the temporal
. region. Even though other. blows \\;~re on .. non.-vital parts, that docs not
take aw~y the rigor of Section 3.07 WC; that in spite of interference by
five persons, tl~e accused c~nti~ued -to assault the victim. This clearly
H. indicates the intention of A-1. It is sufficient to justify a conviction. Court
R. PRAKASH v. STATE OF KARNATAKA [PASAYAT, J.] 283

h.as to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the ·A
intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the Section.
Therefore; it is not appropriate to acquit an accused of the charge under
· the Section merely because the injuries inflicted on the victim were in the
nature of a simple hurt. As rightly held· by the High Court, evidence on
record clearly establishes commission of offence punishable under Section B
307 IPC. The sentence of two years cannot be said to be in any manner
higher or disproportionate. 1285-F-G; 286-B-D)

State of Maharashtra v. Bairam Rama Patil and Ors., 119831 2 SCC 28
and Girija Shankar v. State of V.P., (2004) 3 SCC 793.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION I: Criminal Appeal No.1179 C
of 1997.

From the Judgment and dated 20.8.96 of the Karnata.ka High Court
in Crl. A.No. 485 of 1994.

Mrs. M. Qamaruddin for the Appellant. D

. Sanjay R. Hegde for the Respondent.

The Judgment of Court was delivered by

ARIJIT PASA VAT, J. The High Court ofKamataka found the appellant E
· guilty of offences punishable under ·Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (in short 'the IPC') and sentenced him to undergo rigorous Imprisonment
for two years, by upsetting the order of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court.
Three accused persons were acquitted, but the High Court did not interfere
with the order of the acquittal of two other persons (A-2 and A-3), who are p
brothers of the appellant and faced trial with him.

Factual scenario giving rise to the present appeal is as follows:

On l.5.90, between 11.00 to l l.30 a.,n. PWs. l, 3 and 6 to 9 had gone
to a hotel to take tea. While they were taking tea, appellant (A-1) came there. G
The sister of the three accused persons was supposed to be the mistress of
one Narasimha@ Dasi. When A-1 reached near PW-3 and the others, he was

- questioned by PW-3 as to why he and his brothers had assaulted Narasimha.
There was verbal exchange between P-3 and A-l. A-1 left the place. After
taking tea, PW-3 and others went towards Vishvas Cut-piece Stores. Suddenly,
three accused persons reached there, and quarreled with PW-3 and stated that H
284 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) 2 S.C.R.

A it was none of his business, if Narasimha was assaulted. A-2 and A-3 held
·shirt collar of ~W-3 and in turn PW-3 also held his collar. While pulling and
pushing was going on, the appellant went out and brought a weapon (Machu)
and assaulted PW-3 on his head, left hand and thigh. On receiving the
injuries, PW-3. fell down and he was taken to the hospital where he was
treated by doctor (PW-10). Oral complaint was lodged by Krishna (PW-I)
B which was reduced to writing by the officer-in-charge (PW· I I). He visited
the place of occurrence, and started investigation. On the next day, A-1 gave
information ab.out the concealment of weapon by him and he took PW- I I
and other witnesses to the place where weapon of assault (Machu) was
concealed in a pushcart. The same was seized. After completion of
c investigation charge sheet was placed. Accused persons pleaded innocence
and faced trial. ' l

The Trial Court did not .believe the evidence of PWs I, 3 and 6 to 9
on the ground that being friendly with PW-3 were interested witnesses. It is
noted that PWs I and. 8 resiled from their statements made during investigation
D partially. Holding that the evidence of PW-3 was not very cogent and credible,
the order of acquittal, as noted above, was recorded~ The State of Karnataka
filed an appeal before the High Court which by the impugned judgment
confirmed the acquittal of A-2 and A-3 but held acquittal of A-I was uncalled
for, convicted him for the offences punishable under Section.307 IPC, and.
sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for two years.
E
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the High Court ought
not to have interfered with the well-reasoned order of the Trial Court. Cogent
reasons were given to discard the evidence of the injured witness and PWs
I, and 6 to 9 who claimed to be the eyewitnesses. Significantly, PWs l and
F 8 did not support the prosecution version. That being so, the judgment of the
High Court is vulnerable. The genesis of the controversy has not been
established in view of the admission of PW-3 that he had not met Narasimha,
and therefore the question of his asking A- I about the differences between
the accJJsed and Narasimha is highly improbable. It is also submitted that
'offence under Section 307 IPC is not made out:"
G
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State submitted that the
High Court noticed the infirmities in the conclusions arrived at by the Trial
Court. It noticed that the cogent evidence of the injured witness and the
eyewitnesses was discarded on unsustainable grounds. Therefore, there is no
scope for interference with the impugned judgment.
R.PRAKASH v. STATEOFKARNATAKA [PASAYAT,J.] 285
It is to be noted that the Trial Court referred to the evidence of the A
eyewitnesses, and observed that only on the ground that the eyewitnesses
were friendly with PW-3, their evidence was not to be discarded. It is strange
that the Trial Court having observed that their evidence was not to be discarded
only on the ground of friendship, did so without indicating any plausible
reason as to how their evidence suffers from any infirmity otherwise. It is a B
fairly well settled position in law that the evidence of a witness who is related
to either the deceased or the injured is not to be automatically rejected,
notwithstanding the fact that it is cogent, credible and trustworthy. The reasons
indicated by the Trial Court to discard the evidence have no acceptable or
supportable basis. So far as genesis of controversy is concerned, it is to be
noted that the Trial Court itself with reference to the evidence came to hold C
that there was exchange of hot words between accused and PW-3. The Trial
Court has even gone to the extent that there was no ostensible reason for PW-
3 to abuse A-1 during the course of such occurrence. Therefore, the plea that
if genesis of occurrence has not been established is clearly without substance,
and High Court has rightly not accepted it. The Trial Court though referred
D
to the evidence of PW-3 the injured witness did not indicate any reason as
to why his evidence was not worthy of credence. Mere cryptic observation
of general nature that it appears to be suspicious is without any material to
support the conclusion and is indefensible.

The High Court has rightly acted on the evidence of PW-3 and other E
----
.....
eyewitnesses. We find no infirmity in their evidence. Even though PWs-1
and 8 had resiled from the statements made during investigation to some
extent, their evidence does not get wiped out in toto, as the evidence of such
witnesses does not get washed off.

Therefore, the only question which needs to be dealt with telates to the F
applicability of Section 307 IPC. The evidence of the eyewitnesses goes to
show that they tried to intervene and save PW-3 from being assaulted by the
appellant A-1, but he continued to assault PW-3. The first blow was on a
vital part, that is on the temporal region. Even though other blows were on
non-vital parts, that' does not take away the rigor of Section 307 IPC. It is G
to be noted that in spite of interference by five persons, appellant continued
to assault PW-3. This clearly indicates the intention of the appellant A-1.

- It is sufficient to justify a conviction under Section 307 if there is
present an intent coupled with some over tact in execution thereof. It is not
essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. H
286 SUPREME COURT REPORTS .[2004] 2 S.C.R.

A Although the nature of inju·ry actually caused may often give· considerable \
assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused, such
intention may also be deduced from other circumstances, and may even, in
some cases, be asce1tained without any reference at all to actual wounds. The
Sections makes a distinction between the act of the accused and its result, if
B any. The Court has. to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done
with the intention or knowledge and under circumsta.nces mentioned in the
Section.~ Therefore, it is not correct to acquit an ·accused .of the charge under -
Section 307 !PC merely because the injuries inflicted on the victim were in
the nature .of a simple hurt.

C: Tl.1e above position was highlighted in State of Mt;tharashtra v. Bairam
Bama Patil and Ors., [1983] 2 SCC 28 and in (Criminal appeal N.o. I 034 of
1997 decided on 4.2.2004).
' . . ' .
As rightly held by the Hjgh Court, evidence on record clearly establishe~
commissfon ofoffence punishable under Section 307 IPC. The sentence of
D' tvyo years as awll:rded cannot be called to be in any manner !1igher or
disproportionate. The appeal i~ dismissed. The appellant who is on bail is
directed to surrender to custody to serve. remainder of his sentence.

S.K.S. Appeal dismissed.