RAVASAHEB @ RAVASAHEBGOUDA ETC.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

                        [2023] 2 S.C.R. 965                            965


          RAVASAHEB @ RAVASAHEBGOUDA ETC.                              A
                                 v.
                    STATE OF KARNATAKA
             (Criminal Appeal Nos. 1109-1110 of 2010)
                         MARCH 16, 2023                                B
 [B. R. GAVAI, VIKRAM NATH AND SANJAY KAROL, JJ.]
      Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 – Victim was murdered – The trial
court and the High Court, despite most of the prosecution witnesses
turning hostile, found the prosecution case to be established beyond
                                                                       C
reasonable doubt through the unrefuted testimony of PW-1 and
convicted the accused persons – The only point for consideration
on appeal was, whether eight men can be convicted based on the
testimony of a solitary witness, who was the only eyewitness to the
crime – Held: Presence of the accused on the spot is not disputed
by anyone – Witness, despite being cross-examined extensively, is      D
consistent in his testimony to the effect that the accused caught
hold of the deceased and inflicted serious injuries upon his person
– Though, the witness is not clear as to which one of the accused
had assaulted the deceased after he fell down, but then he is
categorical with regard to the role played by each one of them –
                                                                       E
Testimony of the sole eyewitness PW-1 is worthy of credence,
trustworthy, truthful and believable and the prosecution had
established its case beyond reasonable doubt against all accused
persons – The findings of the trial court and the High Court upheld.
      Dismissing the appeals, the Court
                                                                       F
       HELD: 1. The presence of the accused on the spot is not
disputed by anyone of them. This Court may say so not only from
the line of their cross-examination of the witnesses but also it is
noticed hereinafter, to have come on record through the
testimonies of the witnesses, who despite not having supported
the prosecution on the issue of the accused having assaulted the       G
deceased, have supported on this count. Perusal of cross-
examination part of the testimony of PW-1 unrefutedly reveals
all the accused hiding in bushes at the spot. This witness, despite
being cross-examined extensively, is consistent in his testimony
to the effect that the accused caught hold of the deceased and         H
                                965
966            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2023] 2 S.C.R.


A     inflicted serious injuries upon his person. The accused had used
      chilli powder as a weapon to stop him from fleeing away and pushed
      him to the ground. Though, the witness is not clear as to which
      one of the accused had assaulted the deceased after he fell down,
      but then he is categorical with regard to the role played by each
      one of them. The questions in respect of the testimony of the
B
      sole eye-witness PW-1 being worthy of credence, trust-worthy,
      truthful and believable are answered in the affirmative. [Paras 12
      and 14][973-B-G]
            2. Merely because no recovery was made from anyone apart
      from accused Nos.2 and 4 would not mean that others were not
C     present at the scene of the crime; simply because a number of
      witnesses had turned hostile, does not on its own give a ground
      to reject the evidence of PW-1; and that PW-1 being the brother
      of the deceased and therefore, is an interested as well a chance
      witness, are untenable submissions. It is in the backdrop this
D     Court does not find favour with the submissions of senior counsel
      appearing for the appellants that the conviction of eight persons
      based on solitary evidence is not justified, particularly when there
      is no vagueness in his testimony with respect to the role ascribed
      to each one of the accused. [Para 21][978-F-H]
E            3. The role of PW-24 in drafting the complaint cannot be
      taken as negative simply because he was an advocate and so he
      paid attention to detail. PW-1 has stated in his complaint that he
      does not know how to read and write. The person to whom the
      role of summoning PW-24 to write the complaint may be attributed
      or the discrepancy in drafting either on the instructions of PW-1
F     or on the basis of the notes prepared by the police is not so stark,
      keeping in view the limited span of time within which all these
      activities took place for it to lend credence to the grounds urged
      in these appeals by special leave petitions with respect to the
      approach of the Sessions Judge being entirely erroneous or illegal.
G     The genesis of the prosecution case cannot be said to have been
      shaken or rendered doubtful. The complaint was alleged to have
      been drafted by an advocate (PW-24), and not by the petitioner
      with the help of the police personnel. Does it cast doubt on the
      prosecution case? In this Court’s considered view, none. For, as

H
   RAVASAHEB @ RAVASAHEBGOUDA ETC. v. STATE OF                      967
                  KARNATAKA

this Court has noticed the defence to have admitted their           A
presence on the spot and the independent witnesses ascribed a
specific role to each of the accused. [Para 22][979-A-D]
      4. The holding in the landmark Masalti, where four learned
judges have held that the prosecution need not prove specific
acts to specific persons. With neither the number nor the           B
presence of the accused being disputed, this Court cannot, within
law, hold that the accused have been wrongly convicted by the
courts below. [Para 24][980-A-B]
     Marudanal Augusti v. State of Kerala (1980) 4 SCC
     425; Chotkau v. State of U.P. (2022) SCC OnLine 1313;          C
     Mrinal Das v. State of Tripura (2011) 9 SCC 479 :
     [2011] 14 SCR 411; Rohtash Kumar v. State of Haryana
     (2013) 14 SCC 434 : [2013] 3 SCR 884; Bhagwan
     Jagannath Markad v. State of Maharashtra (2016) 10
     SCC 537 : [2016] 5 SCR 452; Karan Singh v. State of
     Uttar Pradesh (2022) 6 SCC 52; Karunakaran v. State            D
     of Tamil Nadu (1976) 1 SCC 434 : [1976] 2 SCR 708;
     Sadhuram v. State of Rajasthan (2003) 11 SCC 231;
     Bhagwan Jagannath Markad v. State of Maharashtra
     (2016) 10 SCC 537 : [2016] 5 SCR 452; Gopal Reddy
     v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1979) 1 SCC 355 : [1979]           E
     2 SCR 363; State of Rajasthan v. Doud Khan (2016) 2
     SCC 607 : [2015] 13 SCR 1131; Mehraj v. State of
     U.P. (1994) 5 SCC 188 : [1994] 3 SCR 592; Ombir
     Singh v. State of U.P. (2020) 6 SCC 378; Satpal Singh
     v. State of Haryana (2018) 6 SCC 610; Ram Gopal v.
     State of M.P. (2023) SCC OnLine 158; Lalji v. State of         F
     U.P. (1989) 1 SCC 437 : [1989] 1 SCR 130; Masalti v.
     State of UP AIR 1965 SC 202 : [1964] SCR 133; Atley
     v. State of UP AIR 1955 SC 807; Gurudutt Pathak v.
     State of U.P. (2021) 6 SCC 116; Geeta Devi v. State of
     U.P. 2022 SCC OnLine 57; Sharad Birdhichand Sarda              G
     v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 : [1985] 1
     SCR 88; Kalamani Tex v. P. Balasubramanian (2021) 5
     SCC 283; Bhajan Singh @ Harbhajan Singh v. State
     of Haryana (2011) 7 SCC 421 : [2011] 7 SCR 1;

                                                                    H
968            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2023] 2 S.C.R.


A           Jagdish v. State of Haryana (2019) 7 SCC 711 : [2019]
            11 SCR 22; Harbans Kaur v. State of Haryana (2005)
            9 SCC 195 : [2005] 2 SCR 450; Bhaskarrao v. State of
            Maharashtra (2018) 6 SCC 591 : [2018] 4 SCR 751;
            RajeshYadav v. State of U.P. 2022 SCC OnLine 150;
            State of Rajasthan v. Madan (2019) 13 SCC 653 –
B
            referred to.
                            Case Law Reference
      [2011] 14 SCR 411              referred to         Para 17.1 (c)
      [2013] 3 SCR 884               referred to         Para 17.2
C
      [2016] 5 SCR 452               referred to         Para 17.2
      [1976] 2 SCR 708               referred to         Para 17.3
      [2016] 5 SCR 452               referred to         Para 17.4
      [1979] 2 SCR 363               referred to         Para 17.5
D
      [2015] 13 SCR 1131             referred to         Para 17.6
      [1994] 3 SCR 592               referred to         Para 17.6
      [1989] 1 SCR 130               referred to         Para 17.8

E     [1964] SCR 133                 referred to         Para 17.8
      [1985] 1 SCR 88                referred to         Para 17.10
      [2011] 7 SCR 1                 referred to         Para 20
      [2019] 11 SCR 22               referred to         Para 23
F     [2005] 2 SCR 450               referred to         Para 25
      [2018] 4 SCR 751               referred to         Para 25
            CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
      Nos. 1109-1110 of 2010.

G           From the Judgment and Order dated 20.11.2009 of the High Court
      of Karnataka, Cirkcuit Bench at Dharwad in Crl.A.Nos. 546 and 599 of
      2006.
            With
            Crl. A. Nos. 1229, 1230 of 2011, 213 of 2012 and 682 of 2013.
H
    RAVASAHEB @ RAVASAHEBGOUDA ETC. v. STATE OF                                     969
                   KARNATAKA

      Nagamuthu S., Dr. K. Radhakrishnan, Sr. Advs., Rameshwar                      A
Prasad Goyal, C. M. Angadi, Manish Goswami, M. Venkatesulu,
Ms. Manisha Chava, Ms. Himani Pandey, Vairawan, Mrs. Rajani K.
Prasad, B. Krishna Prasad, Ms. N. Annapoorani, Ms. Sunita Singh, Ms.
Abha R. Sharma, Advs. for the Appellants.
      Shubhranshu Padhi, Vishal Banshal, Ms. Rajeshawari Shankar,                   B
Niroop Sukrithy, Mohd. Ovais, V. N. Raghupathy, Manendra Pal Gupta,
Advs. for the Respondent.
       The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
       SANJAY KAROL J.
                                                                                    C
       1. The only point which arises for consideration is whether on the
basis of testimony of a solitary witness, eight men can be allowed to
suffer incarceration for life, as has been concurrently bound to examine
as to whether the testimony of this sole eye-witness Yankappa
Panchagavi (PW-1) is worthy of credence; Is he trustworthy?; Has he
deposed truthfully?; Is his testimony believable and free from                      D
embellishments, improvements or material discrepancies so as to render
it shaky or doubtful?; and as to whether the prosecution has established
its case beyond reasonable doubt, against all accused persons or not?
All this is what we are called upon to examine.
        2. It is not in dispute that one Satyappa was found to have been            E
murdered in broad day light in village Kaltippi, Jamakhandi Taluka. It is
also not in dispute that in relation to the said incident, the very same day,
i.e., on 13.08.2004 at 04.00 p.m. a report was lodged with Terdal Police
Station, District Bagalkot, Karnataka. It is also not in dispute that the
I.O Shri Hanamappa Sangappa Keri (PW-32), who conducted the                         F
investigation reached the spot and after making preliminary inquiries
and conducting investigation, recovered the dead body and sent it for
post- mortem which was conducted by Dr. Shabbir Patel, PW-27. The
post-mortem report (Ex.P-25) duly proven by the said expert, does
establish the deceased to have sustained 21 stab injuries inflicted on
different vital parts of the body. The multiple injuries serious in nature,         G
were caused by sharp-edged weapon(s). They being on all the vital
parts of the body, resulted into the death of the deceased. Herein only,
this Court notices, that in relation to the said crime, the trial court convicted
all the eight accused persons, namely, Ramappa (accused No.1), Shanker
(accused No.2), Krishnappa (accused No.3), Gulappa Gavappa Karigar
                                                                                    H
970             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 2 S.C.R.


A     (accused No.4), Beerappa (accused No.5), Ravasaheb Laxman Patil
      (accused No.6), Yankappa Shivappa Naik (accused No.7) and Parappa
      @ Gulappa (accused No.8), for having committed murder of the deceased
      with the use of different weapons, i.e., jambia/jambe (sharp-edged
      weapon), button knives. Chilli powder was also used as a weapon of
      assault.
B
             3. In the considered view of the trial court, despite most of the
      prosecution witnesses (32 in number) having turned hostile, the prosecution
      case stood established beyond reasonable doubt, through the unrefuted
      testimony of PW-1 as supported by the unrefuted part of testimony on
      the hostile witness, namely, Shasappa Reddi (PW-7). Hence, the trial
C     court convicted the accused and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment
      as indicated in the tabular form hereunder :



D


            (A-4)



E
            (A-6)


            (A-7)




F
             The sentences, identical for all accused persons, were awarded
      to run concurrently.
             4. The High Court, while concurring with the reasons and findings
G     returned by the trial court, also took note of the factum of prior animosity
      inter se the parties in relation to a land/boundary dispute.
             5. Before us, only three accused, namely, (i) Ravasaheb @
      Ravasahebgouda (A-6), (ii) Yankappa Shivappa Naik (A-7) and (iii)
      Parappa @ Gulappa (A-8), have assailed the said judgment by way of
      these two appeals by special leave.
H
   RAVASAHEB @ RAVASAHEBGOUDA ETC. v. STATE OF                                   971
          KARNATAKA [SANJAY KAROL J.]

       6. Briefly, we may summarise that the deceased died as a result           A
of multiple injuries inflicted with sharp-edged weapons. For the sake of
brevity, we need not repeat, as already noticed supra, the injuries and
the incised wounds sustained by the deceased on different parts of the
body. Most of the spot witnesses or the witness to the events prior or
leading to the incident have not supported the prosecution. However,
                                                                                 B
that would not mean that the testimonies of all these witnesses would
automatically stand discarded, with the natural corollary being acquittal
of the accused.
       7. In the exercise of the power under Article 136 of the Constitution
of India, this Court, normally would not interfere with the concurrent
findings of fact, except in very special circumstances or in the case of a       C
gross error committed by the courts below. Only where the High Court
ignores or overlooks “crying circumstances” and “proven facts” or
“violates and misapplies well established principles of criminal
jurisprudence” or refuses to give benefit of doubt to the accused persons,
etc., would this Court step in to correct the legally erroneous decisions.       D
We are also not to interfere only for the reason that we may arrive at a
different conclusion, unless, of course, there are compelling circumstances
to tinker with conclusions drawn and that the accused were innocent/
guilty. Undoubtedly, there are limitations in interfering with the findings
of conviction, concurrent in nature.
                                                                                 E
      8. We are not dealing with a case of circumstantial evidence.
Here, the evidence is direct both in relation to the crime as also the
reason thereof.
        9. At this juncture, we may record the relationship between the
accused and the deceased who were far off cousins. Both the parties              F
were holding lands adjacent to each other. Deceased (Satyappa) is the
real brother of Yanakappa Panchagavi (PW-1). Accused Nos.4 and 5
are real brothers of accused No.1 and accused Nos.2 and 3 are sons of
accused No.1. Accused Nos.6 to 8 are all relatives of accused Nos. 1 to
5. It has come forth in the testimony of the witnesses especially PW-1,
which, to this extent stands unrefuted that there was a dispute inter se         G
the opposing parties with respect to the use of bullock cart road. In
relation to it, six months prior to the incident a quarrel had taken place
when accused No.1 had filed a complaint with respect thereto. The
dispute was resolved with the intervention of the elders of the family/
village. But nonetheless, allegedly, as per the statement of the said witness,   H
972             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2023] 2 S.C.R.


A     the dispute persisted. Shasappa Reddi (PW-7) who is also a relative of
      the parties, though initially stated that there was no dispute between the
      deceased Satyappa and accused but then, in the very same breath,
      clarifies that, 15 days prior to the incident, dispute in relation to the land
      had arisen and “as per my advise accused No. 1 Ramappa has not
      provided passers way to Satyappa”. Even Pandappa Sidareddi (PW-8)
B
      does depose the factum of the dispute between the parties in relation to
      the land. Thus, to our mind the findings of the courts below in relation to
      the factum of the inter se dispute cannot be said to be not borne from the
      material on record or incorrect appreciation of evidence led by the
      prosecution.
C            10. The next question which arises for consideration is as to who
      committed the crime, and in what manner. The courts below have
      concurrently, fully appreciating the testimony of PW-1, found the accused
      to have committed the same by using different weapons referred to
      supra.
D            11. Elaborating further, having perused the testimony of PW-1 we
      notice him to have deposed that on the fateful day, i.e, 13.08.2004 both
      he and the deceased had met at a place known as Terdal where the
      deceased handed him a sum of Rs.50,000/- which he had withdrawn
      from the Grameen Bank Sasalatti branch. The deceased, after purchasing
E     fodder started returning on his bicycle to the Kaltippi Village (Place of
      his residence). This witness along with a pillion rider, Ashok Mareguddi
      (PW-19), started following him. On the way, around 2.45 p.m. the witness
      found all the accused (Nos.1 to 8), who had been hiding in the jali kanti
      trees, running towards the deceased. Accused Nos.2 and 8 started
      abusing that ‘found satya Sulemagane Ninnanu Kondu Hakut teve’ (You
F     son of a whore, we will kill you). Noticing them, the deceased leaving
      his bicycle started running away from the spot with all the accused
      chasing him. Thereafter, accused No.8 Parappa @ Gulappa threw chilli
      powder on the face of the deceased; accused Nos.1 and 2 gave blows
      with jambia/jambe on the left side of the neck and chest of the deceased;
G     accused Nos.3 to 7 gave blows with button knives on various parts of
      the body, which led to the death of the deceased on the spot. Soon
      accused fled away towards Golabhavi village. The witness cried for
      help when Shasappa Reddi (PW-7), Pandappa Sidareddi PW-8), Shrishail
      (PW-11) and Ramappa (PW-12) arrived at the spot. Also, adjacent land
      owners, namely, Lakawwa Siddapur (PW-9) and Sushilawwa (PW-13)
H
   RAVASAHEB @ RAVASAHEBGOUDA ETC. v. STATE OF                               973
          KARNATAKA [SANJAY KAROL J.]

arrived. He got a complaint drafted through an Advocate, namely              A
Hanamant Bhimappa Reddi (PW- 24) and being illiterate, affixed his
thumb impression, and lodged report with the police.
       12. Here only, we may record that the presence of the accused
on the spot is not disputed by anyone of them. This we may say so not
only from the line of their cross-examination of the witnesses but also as   B
we would notice hereinafter, to have come on record through the
testimonies of the witnesses, who despite not having supported the
prosecution on the issue of the accused having assaulted the deceased,
have supported on this count. Perusal of cross-examination part of the
testimony of PW-1 unrefutedly reveals all the accused hiding in bushes
at the spot. This witness, despite being cross-examined extensively, is      C
consistent in his testimony to the effect that the accused caught hold of
the deceased and inflicted serious injuries upon his person. The accused
had used chilli powder as a weapon to stop him from fleeing away and
pushed him to the ground. Though, the witness is not clear as to which
one of the accused had assaulted the deceased after he fell down, but        D
then he is categorical with regard to the role played by each one of
them.
       13. PW-7, despite being hostile, in his undisputed testimony, has
recorded the presence of accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 on the spot. Immediately
after the incident they were seen fleeing towards Golabhavi Village.         E
Further he noticed the deceased to be inflicted with several injuries as
also chilli powder found on his body. Here only we may record that
Lakkappa Siddapur (PW-9) and Ashok Mareguddi (PW-19) though turned
hostile in Court, had in fact made statements to similar effect before the
police, with which they were confronted, which fact, in any event stands
proven through other prosecution witnesses.                                  F

      14. In view of the aforesaid, the questions in respect of the
testimony of the sole eye-witness PW-1 being worthy of credence, trust-
worthy, truthful and believable are answered in the affirmative.
        15. To answer the point of law as to whether the testimony of a      G
single eye-witness is sufficient to put all the eight persons behind bars,
for life or not, we must deal with the submissions made at the bar.
      16. It is stated that it is the quality and not the quantity of the
witnesses that matters and since, PW-1 is an interested witness being
the brother of the deceased, and that his statement is not “inherently
                                                                             H
974            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 2 S.C.R.


A     believable” or of “sterling quality” as recently held by this Court, in the
      presence of two possible versions, the one that favours the accused is
      required to be taken.
             In support of their submissions, the learned senior counsel rely
      primarily on Marudanal Augusti Vs. State of Kerala (1980) 4 SCC
B     425, specifically on the part where the learned Division Bench notes
      that 29 hours’ delay in the FIR reaching the Magistrate despite the same
      having been sent by express delivery, as a “serious infirmity”; and the
      recent judgment in Chotkau Vs. State of U.P. (2022) SCC OnLine
      1313. Both these cases have been cited to substantiate the submission
      that there is a delay in the FIR reaching the Magistrate.
C
             17. This Court has on numerous occasions considered cases similar
      in nature, and, from such consideration emanated various principles in
      deciding the cases. Some of the principles essential for the instant lis to
      be decided are –

D           17.1 Evidence of hostile witness:
              a) Corroborated part of the evidence of a hostile witness regarding
      the commission of offence is admissible. Merely because there is deviation
      from the statement in the FIR, the witness’s statements cannot be termed
      totally unreliable;
E           b) The evidence of a hostile witness can form the basis of
      conviction.
            c) The general principle of appreciating the evidence of eye-
      witnesses is that when a case involves a large number of offenders,
      prudently, it is necessary, but not always, for the Court to seek
F     corroboration from at least two more witnesses as a measure of caution.
      Be that as it may, the principle is quality over quantity of witnesses.
      [Mrinal Das Vs. State of Tripura (2011) 9 SCC 479]
            17.2 Effect of omissions, deficiencies:
            Evidence examined as a whole, must reflect/ring of truth. The
G     court must not give undue importance to omissions and discrepancies
      which do not shake the foundations of the prosecution’s case. [Rohtash
      Kumar Vs. State of Haryana (2013) 14 SCC 434; Bhagwan
      Jagannath Markad Vs. State of Maharashtra (2016) 10 SCC 537;
      and Karan Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022) 6 SCC 52]
H
   RAVASAHEB @ RAVASAHEBGOUDA ETC. v. STATE OF                               975
          KARNATAKA [SANJAY KAROL J.]

      17.3. Reliance on single witness:                                      A
      If a witness is absolutely reliable then conviction based thereupon
cannot be said to be infirm in any manner. [Karunakaran Vs. State of
Tamil Nadu (1976) 1 SCC 434; and Sadhuram Vs. State of
Rajasthan (2003) 11 SCC 231]
      17.4. Testimony of a close relative:                                   B

       A witness being a close relative is not a ground enough to reject
his testimony. Mechanical rejection of an even “partisan” or “interested”
witness may lead to failure of justice. The principle of “falsus in uno,
falsus in omnibus” is not one of general application. [Bhagwan
Jagannath Markad Vs. State of Maharashtra (2016) 10 SCC 537]                 C

      17.5 Preponderance of probabilities:
      To entitle a person to the benefit of a doubt arising from a duality
of views, the possible view in favour of the accused must be as nearly
reasonably probable as that against him. [Gopal Reddy Vs. State of           D
Andhra Pradesh (1979) 1 SCC 355]
      17.6 Delay in sending FIR:
       Unless serious prejudice is caused, mere delay in sending the FIR
to the Magistrate would not, by itself, have a negative effect on the case
of the prosecution. [[State of Rajasthan Vs. Doud Khan (2016) 2              E
SCC 607]
      One of the external checks against ante-dating or ante- timing an
FIR is the time of its dispatch to the Magistrate or its receipt by the
Magistrate. A dispatch of a copy of the FIR forthwith ensures that there
is no manipulation or interpolation in the FIR. [Mehraj Vs. State of         F
U.P. (1994) 5 SCC 188; and Ombir Singh Vs. State of U.P. (2020)
6 SCC 378]
      17.7 Last seen theory :
        On its own, last seen theory is considered to be a weak basis for
conviction. However, when the same is coupled with other factors such        G
as when the deceased was last seen with the accused, proximity of time
to the recovery of the body of deceased etc. The accused is bound to
give an explanation under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872. If he
does not do so, or furnishes what may be termed as wrong explanation
or if a motive is established – pleading securely to the conviction of the   H
976            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 2 S.C.R.


A     accused closing out the possibility of any other hypothesis, then a
      conviction can be based thereon. [Satpal Singh Vs. State of Haryana
      (2018) 6 SCC 610; and Ram Gopal Vs. State of M.P. (2023) SCC
      OnLine 158]
            17.8 Cases involving several accused Persons
B            A three judge bench of which one of us (B.R Gavai J.) was a
      member, observed as under in respect of the application of Section 149,
      of the Indian Penal Code, 1860-
            “30. Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code is declaratory of the
            vicarious liability of the members of an unlawful assembly for
C           acts done in prosecution of the common object of that assembly
            or for such offences as the members of the unlawful assembly
            knew would be committed in prosecution of that object. If an
            unlawful assembly is formed with the common object of committing
            an offence, and if that offence is committed in prosecution of the
D           object by any member of the unlawful assembly, all the members
            of the assembly will be vicariously liable for that offence even if
            one or more, but not all committed the offence. Again, if an offence
            is committed by a member of an unlawful assembly and that
            offence is one which the members of the unlawful assembly knew
            to be likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object,
E           every member who had that knowledge will be guilty of the offence
            so committed.” [Hari v. State of UP 2021 SCC OnLine SC
            1131; Shambhu Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1960 SC
            725]
             While overt act and active participation may indicate common
F     intention of the person perpetrating the crime, the mere presence in the
      unlawful assembly may fasten vicariously criminal liability under Section
      149. [Lalji Vs. State of U.P. (1989) 1 SCC 437]
            When a case involves large number of assailants it is not possible
      for the witness to describe the part played therein by each of such
G     persons. It is not necessary for the prosecution to prove each of the
      members’ involvement especially regarding which or what act. [Masalti
      Vs. State of UP AIR 1965 SC 202]
            17.9 Power of Court of Appeal:
            a) The Court of appeal has wide powers of appreciation of
H     evidence in an order of acquittal as in the order of conviction, along with
   RAVASAHEB @ RAVASAHEBGOUDA ETC. v. STATE OF                                977
          KARNATAKA [SANJAY KAROL J.]

the rider of presumption of innocence which continues across all stages       A
of a case. Such Court should give due importance to the judgment
rendered by the Trial Court. [Atley Vs. State of UP AIR 1955 SC
807]
      b) Referring to Gurudutt Pathak Vs. State of U.P. [(2021) 6
SCC 116] the judgment in Geeta Devi Vs. State of U.P. [2022 SCC               B
OnLine 57], this Court appreciated the law on this aspect and then
observed that the High Court, being the First Appellate Court must discuss/
re-appreciate the evidence on record. Failure to do so is a good ground
enough to remand the matter for consideration.
      17.10 Power of the Supreme Court under Article 136:                     C
       In the absence of very special circumstances or in the presence
of gross errors of law committed by the High Court, this Court does not
interfere with the concurrent findings of fact of the courts below. [Sharad
Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116]
       The limitations under Article 136 are self-imposed limitations where   D
in the ordinary course appreciation of evidence is not to be done in the
absence of manifest error or the judgment, subject matter of the special
leave, being ex facie perverse. [Kalamani Tex Vs. P.
Balasubramanian (2021) 5 SCC 283]
       18. Learned counsel for the appellants would have this Court hold      E
that the learned Trial Court and the High Court erred in convicting the
accused as PW-1’s statements, which are indirect in respect of number
of the accused in no way form a solid basis for the conviction to hold.
      19. Having considered the submissions across the Bar, the material
objects and the exhibits forming the record of the case, the learned Trial    F
Court observed that on the basis of the sole evidence of the complainant
PW-1 and the supporting evidence of PW-7 (a hostile witness) the
prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt. It was observed
as under:
             “The prosecution has proved its case against the accused         G
      persons by adducing acceptable evidence of the complainant and
      other witnesses referred to above and as such the accused persons
      are found guilty of the offences of unlawful assembly, commission
      of rioting who were armed with deadly weapons and they have
      abused the deceased Satyappa in filthy language and then they
                                                                              H
978             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2023] 2 S.C.R.


A            have committed murder of the deceased Satyappa on 13.08.2004
             in the afternoon at about 3.00 p.m., on a public road leading from
             Terdal to Kaltippi and as such they have to be punished
             accordingly.”
             The view stands affirmed by the High Court substantiating cogent
B     reasons, in full appreciation of entire evidence on record that the assistance
      of Hanamant Bhimappa Reddi (PW-24) in drafting the complaint does
      not put a question to its credibility; discrepancy in the time of entrustment
      of FIR to PW-28 as to the working hours being 8 a.m. to 8.00 p.m. does
      not dislodge the statement in the examination-in-chief where the time
      mentioned was 4.45 p.m.
C
             20. In regard to the delay in the FIR reaching the Magistrate, it is
      the settled position of law that each and every delay caused is not fatal
      to a case in the absence of demonstrated prejudice [Bhajan Singh @
      Harbhajan Singh Vs. State of Haryana (2011) 7 SCC 421]. In
      Chotkau (supra) it has been held that a Court is “duty bound to see the
D     effect of such delay on investigation and even the credit worthiness of
      the investigation.” In the present case, though, while there is reliance at
      the Bar on this principle no submission has been made to show prejudice
      having been caused to the accused. Statements sans adequate backing
      cannot sway the Court. Even the delay in the receipt of the FIR with the
E     concerned Magistrate cannot be a reason to disbelieve the prosecution
      case. It is not a case of non-compliance of provisions equally the delay
      is not inordinate so as to cast any doubt. For an FIR registered on
      13.08.2004 at 4.45 p.m. was immediately forwarded and received at
      1.15 a.m.

F             21. Merely because no recovery was made from anyone apart
      from accused Nos.2 and 4 would not mean that others were not present
      at the scene of the crime; simply because a number of witnesses had
      turned hostile, does not on its own give a ground to reject the evidence
      of PW-1; and that PW-1 being the brother of the deceased and therefore,
      is an interested as well a chance witness, are untenable submissions. It
G     is in the backdrop that we do not find favour with the submissions of Mr.
      Nagamuthu S., and Dr. K. Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel
      appearing for the appellants that the conviction of eight persons based
      on solitary evidence is not justified, particularly when there is no vagueness
      in his testimony with respect to the role ascribed to each one of the
H     accused.
   RAVASAHEB @ RAVASAHEBGOUDA ETC. v. STATE OF                                979
          KARNATAKA [SANJAY KAROL J.]

       22. The role of PW-24 in drafting the complaint cannot be taken        A
as negative simply because he was an advocate and so he paid attention
to detail. PW-1 has stated in his complaint that he does not know how to
read and write. The person to whom the role of summoning PW-24 to
write the complaint may be attributed or the discrepancy in drafting
either on the instructions of PW-1 or on the basis of the notes prepared
                                                                              B
by the police is not so stark, keeping in view the limited span of time
within which all these activities took place for it to lend credence to the
grounds urged in these appeals by special leave petitions with respect to
the approach of the learned Sessions Judge being entirely erroneous or
illegal. The genesis of the prosecution case cannot be said to have been
shaken or rendered doubtful. The complaint was alleged to have been           C
drafted by an advocate (PW-24), and not by the petitioner with the help
of the police personnel. Does it cast doubt on the prosecution case? In
our considered view, none. For, as we have noticed the defence to have
admitted their presence on the spot and the independent witnesses ascribed
a specific role to each of the accused.
                                                                              D
      That a murder has been committed, has been unequivocally and
concurrently held by both the courts below. It is then for the appellants
before us to establish the existence of special circumstances or any
equally probable version of facts opposite to the one taken by the courts,
they seek to challenge.
                                                                              E
       23. The primary submission led was that reliance on a solitary
witness to convict as many as eight people (now six, with proceedings
against two having abated on their death) is excessive. On a specific
query by the Court as to what the learned counsel can point to, to impeach
the veracity of PW-1’s testimony the answer was to say that looking at
a number of external factors as also the testimonies of other witnesses,      F
the elements to demolish the credibility are present – which to our mind
does not merit interference. For the heightened scrutiny requirement, as
observed by this Court in Jagdish Vs. State of Haryana [(2019) 7
SCC 711] to be held as unsatisfied, the surrounding evidence would
have to be called into credible question, which it was not. The admissions    G
made by PW-7 in his examination in chief have not been disputed and
neither has, as already observed earlier, the presence of any of the
accused been disputed. Keeping in view the principles noted in Mrinal
Das (supra), Rohtash Kumar (supra), Karan Singh (supra) and
Karunakaran (supra), the testimony of PW-1 can undoubtedly form
the basis of conviction of the accused persons.                               H
980              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2023] 2 S.C.R.


A            24. We have also noticed the holding in the landmark Masalti
      (supra), where four learned judges have held that the prosecution need
      not prove specific acts to specific persons. With neither the number nor
      the presence of the accused being disputed, we cannot, within law, hold
      that the accused have been wrongly convicted by the courts below.
B           25. PW-1 is an interested witness, being the brother of the
      deceased; as also he being the solitary witness upon which reliance is
      placed by the learned Trial Court is put forward as a ground before us to
      question the verdicts. The position of law as held in Harbans Kaur Vs.
      State of Haryana [(2005) 9 SCC 195] is clear in stating that there is
      no proposition of law which doubts the statement of a close relative
C     simply for that reason. There is a note of caution sounded in Bhaskarrao
      Vs. State of Maharashtra [(2018) 6 SCC 591] which is undoubtedly
      on point but we may also note the observation of this Court in Rajesh
      Yadav Vs. State of U.P. [2022 SCC OnLine 150] wherein it has
      been observed:
D            “30. Once again, we reiterate with a word of caution, the trial
             court is the best court to decide on the aforesaid aspect as no
             mathematical calculation or straightjacket formula can be made
             on the assessment of a witness, as the journey towards the truth
             can be seen better through the eyes of the trial judge. In fact, this
E            is the real objective behind the enactment itself which extends the
             maximum discretion to the court.”
            26. The courts below, as we have already observed, have found
      no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW-1. In fact, to the exact
      opposite it has relied on it. Keeping in view the holdings in Bhagwan
F     Jagannath Markad (supra), State of Rajasthan Vs. Madan [(2019)
      13 SCC 653], we cannot find ourselves in agreement with the learned
      counsel for the appellant in this regard.
             27. In view of the aforesaid background, submissions advanced,
      law appreciated and analysed we find the present appeals to be lacking
G     in merit and therefore, the same are dismissed. Accused, if on bail, are
      directed to immediately surrender before the Court concerned.
             Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.

      Ankit Gyan                                                  Appeals dismissed.
H     (Assisted by : Aarsh Choudhary, LCRA)