VENKATESHAversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

                     [2013] 2 S.C.R. 613


                       VEN KAT ES HA                                 A
                             v.
                  STATE OF KARNATAKA
             (Criminal Appeal No. 135 of 2005)
                      JANUARY 8, 2013
                                                                     B
     [T.S. THAKUR AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA,· JJ.)

     Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302, 307, 427 rlw s. 34 -
Explosive Substances Act, 1908 - s. 3 rlw s. 34 /PC -
Prosecution under - Bomb planted by A3 at the instruction C
of A1 and A2 at the shop ofPW-14 with intention to kill him -
Resulted in death and injuries to the employees of PW14 .:...
A3 was granted pardon and examined as approver -
Conviction of A 1 and A2 by courts below - Appeal by A2 -
Held: Prosecution case is supported by the eye-witnesses, o
injured witnesses and the ~/)prover - Motive established -
Conviction justified.

     Evidence Act, 18'?2 - s. 133 - Evidence of accomplice
- Evidentiary value - A conviction cannot be held illegal
merely because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated                   E
testimony of a~ accomplice - But it is established rule of
practice that it is unsafe to record a conviction on the testimony
of an approver unless the same is co"oborated in material
particulars by some untainted and credible evidence - In the
instant case, the evidence of approver was duly com:iborated         F
in the form of oral depositions as also forensic evidence.

     The appellant-accused No.2, along with accused No.
1, was prosecuted for offences punishable ulss. 302, 307,
427 r/w s. 34 IPC and s. 3 of the Explosive Substances               G
Act, 1908 rlw · s. 34 IPC. As per the prosecution, in
furtherance of a common intention to kill PW-14, A-3, at
the instruction of A-1 and A-2, kept a tape recorder loaded
with an explosive substance (bomb) at the shop owned
                            613

                              '
    614      SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2013] 2 S.C.R.


A by PW-14. The explosion of the tape recorder resulted in
  death of one employee of PW-14 and injuries to two other
  employees ie. PW-1 and PW-7. The motive for killing PW-
  14 was that A-1 carried the impression that his domestic
  troubles were because of interference of PW-14. A-1 had
B also threatened PW-14 to kill him. Appellant-A-2 had
  joined him in extending that threat. A-3 was granted
  pardon u/s. 306 Cr.P.C. and was treated as an approver
  and accordingly examined as PW-2.Trial court found A1
  and A2 guilty and convicted them for the alleged
C offences. The trial court order was upheld by the High
  Court.

          Dismissing the appeal, the Court

       HELD: 1. There is no perversity or miscarriage of
o justice arising out of appreciation of evidence by the trial
  court or the High Court to warrant interference. There is
  nothing irrational or perverse in the findings recorded by
  the trial Court and the High Court on the question of
  motive for the commission of offence, which was
E intended to target PW-14 but claimed the life of the
  deceased who was innocent and an un-intended victim
  of the crime. The depositions of PW-4, PW-8, PW-10, PW-
  11, the Approver- PW-2 and the injured witnesses, all
  support the prosecution case. [Paras 13 and 28] [621-B-
F D; 630-C-D]
       2.1 Though s. 133 of the Evidence Act, makes an
  accomplice a competent witness against the accused
  person and declares that a conviction shall not be illegal
  merely because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated
G testimony of an accomplice, the established rule of
  practice is that it is unsafe to record a conviction on the
  testimony of an approver unless the same is
  corroborated in material particulars by some untainted
  and credible evidence. This practice is treated as a rule
H of law. Courts, therefore, not only approach the evidence
      VENKATESHA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA                615


of an approver with caution, but insist on corroboration A
of his version before resting a verdict of guilt against the
accused, on the basis of such a deposition. The juristic
basis for that requirement is the fact that the approver is
by his own admission a criminal, which by itself makes
him unworthy of an implicit reliance by the Court, unless s
it is satisfied about the truthfulness of his story by
evidence that is independent and supportive of the
version given by him. That the approver's testimony
needs corroboration cannot, therefore, be doubted as a
proposition of law. [Para 15) [621 ·G-H; 622-A·C]            c
    2.2 Regarding the question of corroboration of the
deposition of the approver in the instant case, the courts
below concurrently held that the same was available in
abundance in the form of the depositions of PW-1, PW-
3, PW-4, PW-7, PW-9, PW-21 and PW-27. The High Court D
has, upon a careful and detailed reappraisal of the
evidence, concurred with the view taken by the trial Court
and rightly held that there was sufficient corroboration to
the version of the approver, both in the form of oral
depositions of the witness as also forensic evidence, that E
clearly support the prosecution case that the injuries
resulting in the death of the deceased were caused by
an explosive substance planted by A-1 and A-2 to kill PW·
14. The medical evidence and the nature of the injuries
caused, is also supportive of the prosecution version that F
the deceased died on account of an explosion. [Paras 16,
21 and 25) [622-D-E; 625-G-H; 626-A; 628-G-H]

    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 135 of 2005.
                                                             G
    From the Judgment & Order dated 16.03.2004 of the High
Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No. 511
Jf 2000.
    Tanuj Bagga Sharma (A.C.) for the Appellant.             H
    616      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 2 S.C.R.


A      Gurudatta Ankolekar, Azeem A. Kalebudde, V.N.
    Raghupathy, Sanjay R. Hedge for the Respondent.

          The Jl,ldgment of the Court was delivered by

          T.S. THAKUR, J. 1. The appellant in this appeal by
B   Special Leave was tried and convicted for offences punishable
    under Sections 302, 307, 427 read with Section 34 of the IPC
    and Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 read with
    Section 34 of the IPC by the XXI Additional City Civil &
    Sessions Judge, Bangalore. For the offence of murder
C   punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC
    the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment
    for life and a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment whereof
    a further simple imprisonment for three months was awarded
    to the appellant. Similarly, for the offence punishable under
D   Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC the appellant was
    sentenced to undergo five years' rigorous imprisonment and a
    fine of Rs.1000/-. In default of payment of fine the appellant was
    awarded a further simple imprisonment for a period of one
    month. For the offence punishable under Section 427 read with
E   Section 34 IPC the appellant was awarded a sentence of one
    year's rigorous imprisonment while a sentence of ten years'
    rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2000/- was awarded
    to the appellant under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances
    Act read with Section 34 of the IPC. Criminal Appeal No.514/
F   2000 filed by the appellant before the High Court against the
    judgment and order of the trial Court having failed the appellant
    has filed the present appeal to assail his conviction and the
    varying sentences awarded to him, for different offences
    mentioned above.

G       2. Prosecution case in brief is that in furtherance of a
    ~ommon intention to kill Muniraju (PW-14), Hanif (A-3) kept a
    tape recorder loaded with an explosive substance (bomb) at
    what was known as "Friends Hair Style" shop owned by
    Muniraju (PW-14) situated oh the 6th Cross of
H   Someshwaranagar in Bangalore. When the tape recorder was
       VENKATESHA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA                       617
                [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
switched on by the deceased-Shankar, who was employed by             A
Muniraju (PW-14) to work as a barber in the shop, the bomb
planted in the same exploded causing injuries to the said
Shankar that culminated in his death. Injuries were also caused
to Krishna (PW-1) and Shivaram (PW-7), two others similarly
employed to work in the shop. The use of the bomb, according         B
to the prosecution, was with the intention and knowledge and
under circumstances that if by that act it had caused the death
of Krishna (PW-1) and Shivaram (PW-7) also the accused
would have been guilty of murder.

      3. After completion of investigation and filing of             C
 chargesheet but before committal of the case to the Sessions
· C9urt competent to try the same the committal Court by its order
  dated 6th January, 1998 allowed an application filed on behalf
  of Hanif (A-3) under Section 306 of the Cr.P.C., granted pardon
 to him and treated him as an approver in the case. A-3 was          D
  accordingly examined at the trial as an Approver. Briefly stated
 the prosecution case and the genesis of the occurrence that
 led to the killing of deceased-Shankar and injuries to Krishna
 and Shivaram was as under:
                                                                     E
      4. G. Venkatesh Murthy (A-1) was married to Alamelu
(PW-8), daughter of PW-10. While PW-8 was living with her
husband A-1 at his Kanakapura house, there were frequent
quarrels between the husband and wife. In an attempt to sort
out the differences and restore conjugal harmony between the         F
two, the parents of PW-8 accompanied by Muniraju (PW-14)
visited the house of A-1 and his wife to advise them not to
quarrel with each other. Despite the efforts made by the
parents of PW-8 and Muniraju (PW-14) the relationship
between the husband and wife had continued to remain sour            G
forcing PW-8 to return to her parents' house. Matrimonial
disharmony between the couple eventually led the parties to
report the matter to the police, in which connection Muniraju
(PW-14) also played a role in support of the wife l;W-8.

     5. The prosecution case is that A-1 carried the impression      H
    618     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 2 S.C.R.


A that his domestic troubles were largely because of the role
  played by PW-14. Its further case is that A-1 had threatened
  that he would finish PW-14 within a week. Venkatesha (A-2)
  appears to have joined him in extending that threat. These
  events are said to constitute the motive for the incident in
B question which was in reality intended to eliminate Muniraju
  (PW-14) but instead resulted in the death of the deceased-
  Shankar, in a sequence of events that may be summarised
  below:

C       6. On the 2nd of April, 1996, the fateful day, (PW-7) along
  with (PW-1) and (PW-5) and the deceased-Shankar opened
  the hair cutting saloon at about 6.00 a.m. in the morning as
  instructed by Muniraju (PW-14) who was going away to Chikka
  Tirupathi. Around 9.00 a.m. in the morning (PW-1) is alleged
  to have gone for breakfast to the house of PW-14. Shortly
D thereafter Hanif (A-3) came to the saloon to have a shave. He
  brought along with him a cardboard box and kept the same on
  the table in the saloon. The deceased-Shankar attended to A-
  3 and gave him a shave while PW-5 and PW-7 were also
  present in the saloon and inquired about the contents of the
E cardboard box which he had brought with him and kept on the
  table in the saloon. Hanif (A-3) said that the box contained a
  tape recorder. He also told them that he did not know about
  the price and the same had been given to him by a friend. Hanif
  (A-3) left the shop after getting the shave leaving behind the
F card board box, saying that he would return to collect the same
  later.

        7. Krishna (PW-1) in the meantime returned to the saloon
  after taking his breakfast, whereafter at about 11 or 11.30 a.m.
G in the morning (PW-5) left the shop to have his breakfast. Shortly
  after his departure from the shop the deceased-Shankar told
  PW-7 that he should switch on the tape recorder contained in
  the box. The deceased-Shankar accordingly opened the
  cardboard box left behind by A-3 and switched the same on.
  Smoke started coming out of the box which exploded with a
H
      VENKATESHA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA                      619
               [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
huge sound damaging the shop and several articles lying A
around. As a result of the blast the deceased-Shankar as well
as PW-1 and PW-7 who were. present in the shop sustained
injuries. PW-1 and PW-7 were rushed to the NIMHANS hospital
in an auto-rickshaw from where they were shifted to the Victoria
hospital. Shankar-deceased was also rushed to the Victoria B
hospital in an ambulance but succumbed to the injuries
sustained by him. Muniraju (PW-14) who was away from
Bangalore rushed back after hearing about the bomb blast in
his shop. A first information report about the occurrence was
lodged by PW-1 that set the investigation rolling. In the course    c
of investigation Hanif (A-3) offered to make a confession and
was tendered pardon as already mentioned .above and later
examined as PW-2 at the trial.

      8. It is in the above background that G. Venkatesh Murthy
(A-1), son of Gopala, and the appellant-Venkatesha (A-2), son       D
of Gurappa were tried for the offences referred to earlier, found
guilty and sentenced by the Trial Court and which conviction and
sentence has been upheld by the High Court as noticed above.

     9. When the matter came up before us on 14th March,            E
2012 learned counsel for the respondent-State placed on
record a communication dated 13th March, 2012 stating that
G. Venkatesh Murthy son of Gopala appellant in Criminal
Appeal No.134 of 2005 has since been released prematurely
on 15th August, 2006 in terms of order dated 14th August,           F
2006. Appellant-Venkatesha son of Gurappa in Criminal Appeal
No.135 of 2005, however, continues in custody and has
undergone 12 years' imprisonment. It was in the light of the said
statement that Criminal Appeal No.134 of 2005 was dismissed
as infructuous in the light of the subsequent development while     G
Criminal Appeal No.135 of 2005 was set down for final.t\ecirihg.
                                                    \

    10. We have heard Ms. Tanuj Bagga Sharma, Advocate
(Amicus Curiae) appearing for the appellant and counsel
appearing for the State at some length who have taken us
through the ,judgment and order under challenge and the             H
    620      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2013] 2 S.C.R.

A   material portion of the evidence adduced at the trial. Both the
    courts below have found on a detailed appraisal of the evidence
    on record that the prosecution had successfully proved the
    charges framed against the appellant.

          11. Dealing with the question of motive for the commission
8
    of offence, the trial Court held:

          "24 ........... I have considered the evidence tendered by
          the witnesses before the court and looking to their oral
          evidence, I am of opinion that the prosecution has clearly
C         established that the accused _no.1 was quarrelling with PW-
          8 Alamelu ~nd PW-14 Muniraju also used to advice A-1
          and once he had been to the house of A-1 to lead a happy
          martial life with PW-8 Alamelu and the prosecution has
          also established that PW-14 Muniraju. PW-10, PW-4 and
D         PW-11 and also A-1 and A-2 gathered in Kanakpura
          Police Station and in the Kanakpura Police Station, A-1
          posed life threat to Muniraju on the ground that he is
          interfering in his family affairs and A-2 in support of A-1
          also posed life threat to PW-14 Muniraju. Hence looking
E         to the evidence of the above mentioned prosecution
          witness, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has
          established the alleged motive against A-1 and A-2."

        12. The High Court has affirmed the above finding on a re-
    appraisal of the evidence led at the trial. The High Court has
F   added:

          "It is to be seen therefore from the above materials placed
          on record by the prosecution that all was not well between
          the accused and PW-14 Muniraju at the relevant time of
G         this incident. There were strained or bitter feelings between
          them. When the Prosecution has succeeded in showing
          that there was some sort of enemity, hatredness or hostility
          between the parties, the inability on the part of the
          prosecution to further put on record the manner in which
H         such hostility would have swelled up in the mind of the
      VENKATESHA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA                      621
               [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
     accused to such a degree as to impel him to commit the        A
     offence cannot be construed as a fatal weakness of the
     prosecution."

      13. There is nothing irrational or peiverse in the findings
recorded by the trial Court and the High Court on the question
                                                                  8
of motive for the commission of offence, which was intended
to target Muniraju (PW-14) but claimed the life of Shankar who
was totally innocent and an un-intended victim of the crime. The
depositions of M. Venkatesh (PW-4), Smt. Alamelu (PW-8),
Smt. Venkatalakshamma (PW-10) and Ramachandru (PW-11) C
all support the prosecution case that the accused had an
animus towards Muniraju (PW-14) and that the planting of the
bomb, was actually intended to kill him, rather than Shankar the
deceased. So also the fact that Hanif was deputed to carry the
cardboard box to the shop of Muniraju (PW-14) and to leave
the same there on the pretext that he would collect it from there D
later is proved by the depositions of the Approver-Hanif
examined at the trial as PW-2 and the injured witnesses
examined at the Trial.

     14. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that an       E
approver's evidence is unsafe for recording a finding of guilt
against the accused unless the same is corroborated by other
evidence in material particulars. This corroboration was not,
according to the learned Amicus Curiae, forthcoming in the
present case; which should, argued the learned counsel, entitle    F
the appellant to an acquittal.

      15. Section 133 of the Evidence Act, makes an
accomplice a competent witness against the accused person
and declares that a conviction shall not be illegal merely
because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony of an        G
accomplice. Even so, the established rule of practice evolved
on the basis of human experience since times immemorial, is
that it is unsafe to record a conviction on the testimony of an
approver unless the same is corroborated in material particulars
by some untainted and credible evidence. So consistent has         H
     622       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2013] 2 S.C.R.


 A   been the commitment of the courts to that rule of practice, that
     the same is now treated as a rule of law. Courts, therefore, not
     only approach the evidence of an approver with caution, but
     insist on corroboration of his version before resting a verdict
     of guilt against the accused, on the basis of such a deposition.
 B   The juristic basis for that requirement is the fact that the
     approver is by his own admission a criminal, which by itself
     makes him unworthy of an implicit reliance by the Court, unless
     it is satisfied about the truthfulness of his story by evidence that
     is independent and supportive of the version given by him. That
c    the approver's testimony needs corroboration cannot, therefore,
     be doubted as a proposition of law. The question is whether
     any such corroboration is forthcoming from the evidence
     adduced by the prosecution in the present case.

         16. Dealing with the question of corroboration of the
 D   deposition of Hanif, the Approver, both the Courts below have
     concurrently held that the same was available in abundance in
     the form of the depositions of Krishna (PW-1 ), Lamboo
     Venkatesh (PW-3), Venkatesh (PW-4), Shivaram (PW-7),
     Thyagaraja (PW-9), P.R. Jayaramu (PW-21) and Dr.
·E   Shivannagouda (PW-27). The trial Court has while dealing with ·
     the question of corroboration of the approver's version
     observed:

           "So looking to the evidence of these three witnesses, the
 F         doctors who examined the deceased Shankar and also the
           injured PW-1 Krishna and PW-7 Shivaram, have clearly
           opined that the injuries they have mentioned in the PM
           report and also the injury certificate respectively can be
           caused by bomb blast. Even PW-21 stated in his evidence
           that articles 1-5 contained explosive substance. He has
G
           also stated that when the articles were sent to him, the
           seals were intact and he opened these seals and
           examined these articles 1-7. PW-21 denied the suggestion
           that if the glycerine reacts with the soap, it will produce
           nitroglycerine and he has also denied the suggestion that
H
      VENKATESHA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA                     623
               [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
    articles 1-5 are not the explosives. PW-27 doctor             A
    examined the dead body of the deceased Shankar alias
    Ravi, clearly stated in the re-examination that injury No.1
    could be necessarily caused by bomb blast. In the cross
    examination of these three witnesses, nothing has been
    elicited from their mouth by the learned advocate for A-1     B
    and A-2 so as to disbelieve their version that the injuries
    sustained by deceased Shankar, Krishna PW-1 and
    Shivaram PW-7 are because of the bomb blast."

    17. The Trial Court has while appraising the deposition of    C
Thyagaraja (PW-9) noticed the role played by the appellant and
observed:

    "18. PW.9 Thyagaraja deposed in his evidence in the
    examination-in-chief that he knows pw.3 Lamboo
    Venkatesh and during April, 1996, himself and A.2             D
    Venkatesh had been to Anekal to calf pw.3 Lamboo
    Venkatesh. At that time, pw.3 was not at all there in his
    house and while himself and A.2 were returning. they had
    meals at Dhaba at Bannerghatta and at that time. A.2 told
    him that himself and A.1 made arrangement for the bomb        E
    blast in the hair cutting saloon of CW.5 Muniraju and he
    also told that the person they had expected did not expire
    and also asked him not to disclose this fact to others. A.2
    also told him that himself and A.1 intended to kill CW.5
    Muniraju. He enquired with A.2 Venkatesh what is the          F
    enmity between himself, A.1 and CW.5 Muniraju and A.2
    also told him that CW.5 Muniraju is interfering in the
    matrimonial affairs of pw.8 Alamelu and A.1
    Venkateshamurthy and he also told him that galata also
    took place one week prior to the incident at Kanakapura       G
    police station."

    18. PW-3 - Lambu Venkatesh made a detailed deposition
about A.1 to A.3 and the box changing its hands. The following
had been noted by the Trial Court.
                                                                  H
    624       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2013] 2 S.C.R.


A         " ... On enquiry, A.1 told that some person from Harohalli
          has to pay the amount and he wants to collect the money
          and asked him to accompany him. Thereafter A.1 took him
          on his TVS near his shop. Then A.1 opened the lock of
          his shop and opened the door and brought a box like
B         article from his shop. Thereafter, A.1 took him to the bus-
          stand. At that time, A.2 Venkatesh was in the bus-stand.
          A.1 kept the said box in the bus-stand and asked him to
          wait near the same and went away saying that he has to
          meet some person. At about 7 or 7-15 a.m., A.1 and A.2
c         returned!."

        19. The deposition of PW-3 in his cross-examination, is
                                                                        -
    noted by the Trial Court in the following words:

          " ... During the journey A.1 and A.2 were not conversing
D         with A.3. Even in the autorickshaw also, when they got
          down at the TB Hospital, they were not conversing with
          each other. A.1 and A.2 gave Rs.105/- and also the box
          into the hands of A.3 Hanif. After getting down from the
          autorickshaw, he handed over the box to A.1
E         Venkateshmurthy. Then A.1 and A.2 asked A.3 Hanif to
          keep Rs.100/- with him and to have the shave with Rs.5/-
          and also they have told that they will come within half an
          hour. A.1 and A.2 paid the amount and the box to A.3 at
          the grave yard. A.1 and A.2 took A.3 stating that they wilt
F         show the shop. He enquired with A.1 and A.2 that they have
          brought the taperecorder from Kanakapura and now it is
          not there ar.d what is the matter. Then A.1 and A.2 told them
          that there in one bomb in that box and it is kept in the shop
          of his enemy and if anybody filed a case. they will look after
          the same. He enquired who is that enemy and then A.1
G
          and A.2 told him that CW.5 Muniraju is their enemy."

         20. The Trial Court has similarly dealt with the deposition
    of Lamboo Venkatesh (PW-3) and observed:

H         " ... Even pw.3 Lambu Venkatesh also deposed in his
      VENKATESHA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA                     625
               [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
    evidence that he too accompanied A.1 and A.2 and Hanif         A
    to Bangalore along with the box in the saloon shop of
    PW.14 Muniraju and A.1 gave Hanif Rs.105/- and asked
    Hanif that after keeping the box in the shop, to have the
    shave and come back. Looking to the cross examination
    of both pw.2 and pw.3, so far as they coming to                B
    Bangalore from Kanakapura on 2-4-1996 and this Hanif
    taking the box into the shop, nothing has been elicited from
    the mouth of pw.2 and pw.3 by the learned counsel
    appearing for A.1 and A.2 so as to disbelieve their
    version .... But, it has come on record in the evidence of     c
    pw.2 and pw.3 that when they came back to Kanakapura
    after leaving the box in the shop of pw.14 Muniraju and
    when questioned at Kanakapura by pw.2 and pw.3, A.1
    and A.2 confessed before them that they have kept the
    bomb in the said box to take the life of their enemy- pw.14
                                                                   0
    Muniraju and threatened them not to disclose this fact
    before anybody and if they disclosed the same, they will
    also be involved in this case.

    xxxxxx
                                                                   E
    ... But, as I have already discussed above, regarding the
    leaving of the box in the shop of pw.14 Muniraju and also
    regarding the extrajudicial confession made by A.1 and
    A.2, it is not only the evidence of the approver that is
    available on record, but the said facts have also been         F
    independently proved with the evidence of another witness
    pw.3 Lambu Venkatesh ... "

      21. The High Court has, upon a careful and detailed
reappraisal of the evidence, concurred with the view taken by
the trial Court and, in our view, rightly held that there was      G
sufficient corroboration to the version of the Approver, both in
the form of oral depositions of the witness as also forensic
evidence, that clearly support the prosecution case that the
injuries resulting in the death of Shankar were caused by an
                                                                   H
    626       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013) 2 S.C.R.


A   explosive substance planted by A-1 and A-2 to kill Muniraju
    (PW-14). The High Court has held:

          "In the instant case, we are not satisfied with the
          submission that the conviction of the accused is solely
          based upon the testimony of the witness PW-2 and his
B
          deposition is not corroborated in material particulars. The
          direct as well as circumstantial evidence produced in the
          case is sufficient to connect the accused with the
          commission of the crime. It does not lead to any other
          inference than the one of their involvement in the crime."
c
         22. The High Court additionally notes the testimony of
    Puttaswamy (PW-25) who was a Police Inspector at CCB and
    who ultimately came to investigate the matter under orders of ·
    the IJCP (Crime). In his testimony he has mentioned CW-15
D   and PW-20, who had identified A.1 and A.2 as having bought
    gelatine sticks and detonators and the tape recorder
    respectively. The High Court noted:

          "... As per the voluntary statement of Accused Nos.1 and
          2, he had searched for one Honnegowda and he came to
E
          know that he is dead, but the colleague of Honnegowda
          by name Boregowda identified the accused and reported
          that accused had collected the gelatin sticks and electric
          detonator on the pretext of catching the fish at the pond.
          Accordingly he recorded the statement of the said
F         Boregowda CW-15. After receiving the information that
          Honnegowda belongs to the village Bheemagondanahalli,
          he secured Muniyappa CW-16 who is the brother of
          Honnegowda and also one Srinivas CW-17 and recorded
          their statements and from their statements, it was
G         transpired that Honnegowda is dead. The accused
          persons A 1 and A2 took him and his staff near one
          Thattekare village and shown the spot as the one where
          they had experimented the gelatin stick and the electric
          detonator with the help of the batterv.
H
      VENKATESHA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA                     627
               [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
    )()()()()()()()()(                                             A

    There the accused persons A 1 and A2 took them to the
    shop of one Mahadeswar Radio and Musical Stores and
    identified one Madappa PW-20 as the proprietor of the
    said shop stating that they had purchased one tape             8
    recorder from PW-20 which was used in the commission
    of the crime in this case. The said fact he learnt from the
    proprietor of the shop viz., Madappa PW-20. He examined
    and recorded the statements of the said Madappa PW-
    20 in this regard."
                                                                   c
   23. The High Court further noted the testimony of PW-3,
Lamboo Venkatesh :

    " ... Thereafter the Accused No.1 took him on his TVS
    moped near his shop. Then the Accused No.1 opened the          0
    lock of his shop and brought a box like article from inside
    his shop. Thereafter the Accused No.1 took him to the bus
    stand. At that time A2 Venkatesh was in the b1.1s stand. The
    Accused No.1 kept the said box in the bus stand and
    asked him to wait near the same and while so saying, he        E
    went therefrom saying that he has to meet some person.
    At about 7 or 7.15 a.m. both A 1 and A2 returned back. At
    about the same time, the Accused No.3 also came there.

    )()()()()()()()()(
                                                                   F
    The accused persons A 1 and A2 gave Rs.105/- and also
    the box into the hands of A3 Haneef.. After getting down
    from the auto. he had handed over the box to Accused
    No.1. Then Accused no.1 and Accused no.2 asked
    Accused no.3 Haneef to keep Rs.100/- with him and to G
    have the shave with the help of Rs.5/- and they also told
   ·that they will come within half an hour. Accused no.1 and
    Accused no.2 paid the amount and gave the box to
    Accused no.3 at the graveyard ... Then Accused no.1 and
    Accused no.2 took Accused no.3 stating that they will show H
    628      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 2 S.C.R.


A         the shop. After about half an hour Accused no.1 and
          Accused no.2 returned back and when he asked them
          about Accused no.3, they told him that he is getting the
          shave and he will come. He has further stated that he made
          enquiries with Accused no.1 and Accused no.2 that they
B         have brought the tape recorder from Kanakapura and now
          that the same is not available with them and for that he was
          told by Accused no.1 and Accused no.2 that there was
          one bomb in that box and the same has been kept in the
          shop of their enemy and if anybody were to file the case,
c         they will look to tl)e same. He enquired as to who is that
          enemy and for that he was told by Accused no.1 and
          Accused no.2 that PW-14 is their enemy."

        24. The High Court accepted the testimony of PW-3 and
    noted that:
D
          "It is to be seen therefore that PW-3 Lamboo Venkatesh
          is a relative of both A-1 and A-2 and he has no axe to grind
          against them. No doubt, he is also a relative of PW-14.
          But it appears that they were not on visiting terms to each
E         others houses frequently. Be that as it may be. There is
          no reason for PW-3 to falsely implicate the Accused in such
          ghastly crime, more so, when he happened to be their
          relative. Therefore, we find no good reason to discard the
          evidence of PW-3. The circumstances brought out in the
          evidence of PW-3 Lamboo Venkatesh would substantially
F
          support the evidence of PW-2 in the case. . . . There is
          nothing to disbelieve the version of PW-3 given in Court
          and he has absolutely no reason to depose falsely against
          the accused."

G       25. The medical evidence adduced at the trial and the
    nature of the injuries caused is also supportive of the
    prosecution version that the deceased died on account of an
    explosion. The medical evidence comprising the deposition of
    Dr. Shivannagouda (PW-27) has described the injuries
H   sustained by the deceased as under:
     VENKATESHA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA                      629
              [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
    "1) Extensive laceration over front of lower part of the      A
    abdomen and front of both thighs, measuring 40 cm x 35
    cm. x muscle deep, exposing lacerated muscles, vessels
    and nerves, covered by burnt piec.es of plastic wires and
    metal pieces.
                                                                   B
     2) Multiple abrasions, and lacerations over front of trunk,
     inner aspect of right axilla, right arm and forearm and lower
   · part of chin, inner aspect of left arm and outer aspect of
     left forearm. Abrasions measuring 4 cm. x 2 cm. to 1 cm.
     x 0.5 cm and lacerations ranging from 3 ems x 2 ems and C
     muscle deep to 1 cm x 0.5 ems skin deep.

          On dissections of the dead body, I did not find any
    internal injuries."

    26. So, also the injuries sustained by injured witnesses. 0
PWs 1, 5 and 7 were, according to the medical evidence,
caused because of the explosion. Dr. Shivannagouda (PW-27)
has testified to that effect and specifically stated so.

    27. Not only that, the forensic evidence led by the
prosecution in the instant case also shows that there was an      E
explosion. This is evident from the report of the Sri P.R.
Jayaramu (PW-21), Scientific Officer in the FSL at Bangalore.
The relevant portion whereof is to the following effect:

    ".... Article no.1 contained metal pieces, 2 pin plug with    F
    wire pieces and a piece of magnet spring. Article no.2
    contained metal piece condenser and 10 debris of a
    suspected transistor/cassette player. Article no.3
    contained yellow coloured torn polythene piece, light green
    rexin seat cover, a torn cloth piece and a torn old printed   G
    story book, a piece of cord wire with 2 pin plug and broken
    metal pieces and small piece of debris collected from the
    crime spot. Article no.4 contained one blood stained torn
    half sleeved shirt and a light green coloured torn old pant
    of an injured person. Article no.5 contained one multi        H
    630       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2013) 2 S.C.R.


A         coloured torn shirt of an injured person. Article no.6
          contained a cotton swab of the wound of the deceased
          Shankin. Article no. 7 contained one sealed small bottle
          said to contain foreign material recovered from the wound
          of the injured person. After opening all these above
B         mentioned articles, he examined them and found the
          presence of nitro glycerine, nitro cellulose and ammonium
          nitrate. That is to say, the presence of nitro glycerine, nitro
          cellulose and ammonium nitrate were detected in article
          nos. 1 to 5 and it is highly explosive .. ."
c        28. There is, in our opinion, no perversity or miscarriage
    of justice arising out of appreciation of evidence by the trial
    Court or the High Court to warrant interference. In the result this
    appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

D   K.K.T.                                        Appeal dismissed.