The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Sri Chikkegowda & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka, has upheld a judgment of the Karnataka High Court that convicted seven individuals for murder and other offences, thereby overturning a trial court’s prior acquittal. The bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta, reiterated the settled legal principle that the testimony of an injured eyewitness holds primacy over conflicting medical evidence unless the ocular account is found to be wholly unreliable.
The Court dismissed the criminal appeals filed by the convicted accused, affirming their life sentences under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Background of the Case
The case originates from an incident on March 16, 2003, at approximately 6:00 a.m., when one Mohan Kumar was allegedly assaulted with dangerous weapons by sixteen accused persons. His wife, Smt. Annapurna (PW-1), who intervened to save him, also sustained life-threatening injuries. The attack was attributed to pre-existing enmity between the parties.
Mohan Kumar and Smt. Annapurna were taken to the Primary Health Centre (PHC) at Gandasi, where Dr. Sunil Kumar (PW-18) referred them to the District Hospital due to the severity of their injuries. At J.C. Hospital in Hassan, Mohan Kumar was declared brought dead. While at the PHC, Smt. Annapurna dictated a complaint to the police, which formed the basis of the First Information Report (FIR).
Following an investigation, a chargesheet was filed against the accused. The Trial Court in Sessions Case Nos. 144 and 196 of 2003 acquitted all fifteen surviving accused (one had died during the trial) of all charges.
The State of Karnataka and the informant (PW-1) filed appeals before the High Court. The High Court, in its judgment dated October 29, 2014, partly allowed the appeals. It confirmed the acquittal of eight accused but convicted accused Nos. 1 to 6 and 11 for offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, and 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC. Aggrieved by this conviction, the seven accused appealed to the Supreme Court.
Arguments of the Parties
Learned senior counsel for the appellants primarily argued that the High Court had erred in two respects. First, it did not record a finding that the trial court’s view in acquitting the accused was not a “probable view,” which they contended is a prerequisite for reversing an acquittal. Second, they argued that the testimony of the injured informant, PW-1, was unreliable due to a contradiction with medical evidence regarding the time of death and a defense theory suggesting her complicity in the crime.
Conversely, counsel for the respondent-State of Karnataka submitted that the High Court had extensively detailed the “patent fallacies” and “perverse” findings of the trial court. The State argued that the testimony of PW-1, an injured witness, was rightly relied upon, as her injuries were undisputed. It was contended that an injured witness would not falsely implicate the appellants while shielding the real assailants who had murdered her husband.
Court’s Analysis and Decision
The Supreme Court conducted a thorough review of the evidence and the judgments of the lower courts.
On Reversal of Acquittal: The Court addressed the appellants’ argument that the High Court had failed to explicitly state that the trial court’s view was not probable. Justice Vikram Nath, writing for the bench, observed, “Even if the High Court omitted to write a single line stating that the view taken by the Trial Court could not have been a probable view, it would be unfair and unjust to hold that the judgment of the High Court could be faulted on this ground.” The Court found that the High Court had meticulously analyzed and exposed grave errors in the trial court’s reasoning, effectively demonstrating its lack of tenability.
On Ocular vs. Medical Evidence: The central issue was the trial court’s decision to discard PW-1’s testimony based on a statement made by Dr. K.K. Hebbar (PW-17) during cross-examination, suggesting the death could have occurred between 3:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m., contradicting PW-1’s account of a 6:00 a.m. incident.
The Supreme Court held this approach to be erroneous, stating the established legal principle: “It is well settled that if there is a conflict in the ocular testimony and the medical testimony/evidence, it is the ocular evidence which will prevail unless found to be totally unreliable.” The judgment cited the case of Darbara Singh v. State of Punjab, among others, to affirm that oral evidence holds primacy unless it is totally irreconcilable with medical evidence.
The Court found PW-1’s testimony to be consistent and unshaken during cross-examination. It noted that the post-mortem report itself, which estimated the time of death as 10 to 12 hours prior to the autopsy conducted between 3:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m., corresponded with the time stated by PW-1.
On the Defense Theory: The Supreme Court heavily criticized the trial court for giving credence to the defense’s unsubstantiated theory that PW-1 had an illicit relationship with another witness (PW-3) and had conspired to murder her husband. The Court noted that the defense never put this suggestion to PW-1 during her cross-examination. It concluded, “What inspired the Trial Court to rely upon such a theory set up by the defense, which had no supporting documents or evidence is not understood. The Trial Court ought to have condemned the conduct of the defense in unnecessarily casting aspersions upon PW-1.”
Finding no grounds to interfere with the “balanced view” taken by the High Court, the Supreme Court concluded that the conviction was justified. “For all the reasons recorded above, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court convicting the appellants,” the bench ruled.
The appeals were dismissed, and the appellants were directed to continue serving their sentences as per law.
