0

“The Supreme Court has acquitted the defendant, citing the unreliability and lack of corroboration in the eyewitness accounts, as well as the questionable nature of the recovered evidence, which casts doubt on the entirety of the prosecution’s case.”

Blog, Supreme court

Case Title – Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and Others Vs. State of Karnataka

Case Number – Criminal Appeal No. 985/2010

Dated on – April 19, 2024

Quorum – Justice Mehta

 FACTS OF THE CASE

In The Case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and Others Vs. State of Karnataka, the appellants namely Babu Sahebagouda (A-1), Alagond Sahebagouda Rudragoudar (A-2) and Gadegappa Rudragoudar (A-3) along with Sahebagouda Gadegappa Rudragoudar (A-4), Basappa Avvanna (A-5) and Basappa Dundappa (A-6) herein are tried and charged under IPC Section 143, Section 147, Section 48, Section 506(2), and Section 302 read with Section 149. In The Case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and Others Vs. State of Karnataka, the complainant, Chanagouda (PW-1) is the owner of an agricultural land and a house in the village named Babanagar, Bijapur, Karnataka. In this case, the prosecution alleges that in the morning of September,19,2001, the deceased, Malagounda along with the labourers Revappa (PW-2), Siddappa (PW-3, Hiragappa (PW-4) and Suresh (PW-5) had gone to put up a dam check on their land. At around 12 in the afternoon, the complainant (PW-1) packed up some lunch for these five people and headed towards the field where the farming procedures were undertaken. The work lasted till 3:30 P.M. Afterwards, the PW-2,3,4 and 5, along with Malagounda, the deceased in the said case and the PW-1, headed back to the village. They reached near the land belonging to Ummakka Kulkarni by around 4:00 PM. Abruptly, A-1, A-2, A-3, and A-4 appeared and menaced the group. They declared their intention to avenge Sangound’s murder by inflicting the same punishment on the complainant’s party. Armed with a Jambai, two axes and a sickle, A-1, A-2, A-3, and A-4 respectively attack Malagounda, causing him to collapse to the ground. The attackers then threatened the complainant that if he dared to intervene, he would suffer the same fate as his son. Being threatened for his life, the complainant fled from that location and hid behind the bushes to avoid being beaten by the accused.

The said case was tried in the Sessions Court, Bijapur where the accused pleaded not guilty of the charges imposed on them and requested for a trial. The trial court concluded that the opinion of the Medical Officer regarding the time of the death of the deceased in the said case was totally a contradiction to the case set up by the prosecution witness in their evidence regarding the time of the incident. Thus, an acquittal was provided to the accused. Further, an instant appeal was instituted by the complainants for challenging the acquittal of the accused.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANTS

  1. The appellants, through their counsel in the said case, contented that the High Court disregarded the established legal principles set by the Sessions Court regarding appeals against acquittals.
  2. The appellants, through their counsel in the said case, contented that the eyewitness accounts of the case are suspicious. They stated that the PW-1,2,3,4, and 5 supposedly witnessed the brutal attack on Malagounda. However, they allegedly did nothing to help him get out of that situation. They neither checked on his conditions nor did they report the said crime right away to the police and suggests that the accusation is based on simply a pre-existing feud and not on concrete evidence.
  3. The appellants, through their counsel in the said case, contented that the Medical Officer performed an autopsy on the victim’s body around 9 Am on 20th September,2001 which resulted the time of death of the victim was more than 24 hours which was a contradiction to the statement given by the eyewitnesses.
  4. The appellants, through their counsel in the said case, contented that the Investigating Officer provided false testimony regarding the disclosure statements made by the accused and the subsequent recovery of the weapons, as the PW-1 clearly stated in his testimony that the police had shown him the weapons on the same day as the day of the incident and that neither the disclosure statement nor the recovery memo contains any signatures or thumb impressions of the accused, thus making it impossible to attribute the recoveries to them.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

  1. The respondents, through their counsel in the said case, contented that the Court, in reviewing the appeal against the acquittal, scrupulously re-evaluated the evidences presented to it and arrived at an independent and well-considered conclusions that the testimony of the witnesses were compelling and devoid of significant contradictions or weaknesses and that this assessment led them to disagree with the trial court’s decision to disregard their testimonies and to acquit the accused of the charges.
  2. The respondents, through their counsel in the said case, contented that there was no significant delay in filing the FIR that could have raised the doubts about the credibility of the prosecution’s account. The contradictions and discrepancies alleged, highlighted by the trial court in the eyewitnesses’ testimonies were minor and inconsequential and that the acquittal of the accused, based on the trial court’s dismissal of the eyewitness testimonies, was flawed, and had an unacceptable reasoning.
  3. The respondents, through their counsel in the said case, contented that the decision of the High Court in overturning the acquittal of the accused in the judgment challenged was justified and that there is no ground for interference in this appeal, as the High Court judgment stands on solid grounds.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

  1. Section 143 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, prescribes the Punishment for Unlawful Assembly. It states that whoever is a member of an unlawful assembly shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.
  2. Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, prescribes the Punishment for Rioting. It states that whoever is guilty of rioting shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
  3. Section 48 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, prescribes the definition of “Vessel”.
  4. Section 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, prescribes the Punishment for Criminal Intimidation which mentions “If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.”
  5. Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which prescribes the Punishment for Murder. It states that whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable for fine.
  6. Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which states “Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object”.

ISSUES

  1. The main issue of the case revolved around whether for the purpose of conviction of the appellant for the offenses of unlawful assembly, rioting and murder, the statement of the eyewitnesses furnished was enough?
  2. Whether the disparity between the time of the death of the victim as determined by the autopsy performed by the Medical Officer and false testimony of the Investigating Officer regarding the statement of disclosure and the recovery of weapons are a basis of doubt on the credibility of the narrative of the prosecution?
  3. Whether the delay in filing FIR and contradictions in eyewitnesses’ testimonies affect the credibility of the case of the prosecution?
  4. Whether the decision of the High Court in overturning the acquittal of the accused was justified, considering the evidences and the legal principles applied?

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT

The court in the case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and Others Vs. State of Karnataka, the court observed that there are strict limitations when a court of appeal can overturn a lower court’s decision to acquit a defendant. The court observed that it can only happen when the lower court’s decision is clearly wrong or illogical, there has been utter ignorance or misinterpretation on the part of the lower court while taking into consideration the furnished evidences, the furnished evidences leave no room for reasonable doubt and is direly suggestive of the guilt of the defendant. The court analysed that the conviction of the defendants in the present case by the High Court violated the aforementioned conditions. The court observed that the case of the prosecution is suspicious and that the presence of the deceased and their servants at the crime scene at that specific time is unexplained. The court interpreted that the members of the prosecution might have fabricated the accounts of the witnesses and might have hidden the true cause of the events as well. The court specified that the precedents have established that a motive can be a double-edged sword. The fact that the members of the prosecution were previously accused of murder could also explain the reason behind why they falsely implicated the defendants in this case. Further the court observed that the evidences furnished to convict the defendants are unreliable. Neither the statements of the witnesses nor the supposed recovered weapons were proven authentically. The weapons were found in open areas, raising doubts about their connection to the crime. Additionally, no scientific testing was conducted to link the weapons to the scene of crime as such. The court stated that since the accounts of the eyewitnesses are not reliable and uncorroborated and the recovered evidence is questionable, the entire case of the prosecution is doubt-casted. Therefore, the court agreed with the decision of the lower court to acquit the defendants. The court believed the judgment of the lower court was apt and reasonable and was duly supported by the evidences. The court, finally, reversed the decision of the High Court and acquitted the defendants of all the charges levied on them and were set free on bail and they did not need to surrender. The court discharged the bail application of the defendants in the said case, thus, allowing the appeal and considered any pending applications related to the case as settled.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Sruti Sikha Maharana

Click Here to View Judgment