Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1059 (KAR)

State Of Karnataka v. Vasantha Poojary

2020-06-12

B.VEERAPPA, PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

body2020
JUDGMENT B.Veerappa, J. - The unsuccessful State/Prosecution has filed the present appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 30th March, 2013 made in Sessions Case No.39/2011 acquitting accused Nos.1 to 7 (respondent Nos.1 to 7) for the offences punishable under the provisions of Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 302 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Puttur, Dakshina Kannada. I The factual matrix of the case 2. It is the case of the prosecution that one Mr. P.K. Peraddi, who is the husband of P.W.6-complainant was a retired school teacher and doing agriculture, money lending in and around Belthangady Taluk. He had owned a house situated near Forest Guest House at Karkala-Guruvayankere Main Road, Naravi Village, Belthangady Taluk. He had two wives. C.W.4 Smt. Sharada, the first wife and P.W.6 Smt. Nalini, the second wife. He was staying with his second wife at Naravi house and the children were staying in the hostel for their education. In connection with the business of money lending and also the property dealings, he had filed several cases before the various Courts and hence, drew several enemies. In order to attend Court litigations, he used to move around the Courts at Belthangady, Mangalore and also Bangalore. He had also filed a case with regard to cheque bounce which landed up to the High Court. It is the further case of the prosecution that he had leased a shop at Naravi to accused No.2 and in order to evict him, he had filed a case for eviction. There was also a land dispute between himself and accused Nos.2, 3 and 6 and therefore, accused Nos.1 to 4 and 6 having common enmity with the deceased, along with accused Nos.5 and 7, who were close relatives of accused Nos.3, 4 and 6, formed an unlawful assembly and with a common object, hatched a plan to commit murder of the deceased and therefore, they were waiting for an opportunity by watching the movements of the deceased. When the things stood thus, on the fateful day of 15.12.2010, when the deceased went to attend the cheque bounce case which was pending before the High Court (Bengaluru) and was to return on 16.12.2010, accused No.1 coming to know about it, called the remaining accused, joined together in a Toofan vehicle bearing registration No. KA 19 B 4044 belonging to accused No.1 and was waiting near the house of the deceased on the early hours on 16.12.2010 for the arrival of the deceased. At about 5.45 a.m. the deceased arrived and reached Naravi Guest House in a bus and on seeing him, soon after passing of the bus, when the deceased was walking towards his house, at that time, accused No.1 drove the Toofan Vehicle along with other accused and hit at the back of the deceased. When he tried to run, accused No.1 tried to dash the Toofan vehicle against him and while doing so, the vehicle was caught in the road side trench and the deceased fell on the foot path. Soon after, accused Nos.1 to 7 holding iron pipes and iron rods alighted from the Toofan Vehicle, assaulted the deceased physically and inflicted severe head injuries, due to which, the deceased died on the spot. It is the further case of the prosecution, that P.W.6 Smt. Nalini second wife of the deceased, who was waiting for the arrival of her husband inside the compound of her house and an eye witness to the incident along with P.W.1 Vishwanatha raising hue and cry, rushed to the spot and saw the overtacts of each of the accused persons in committing the murder of the deceased. After committing the murder of the deceased, all the accused persons tried to pull out the Toofan vehicle from the trench and at that time P.Ws. 1 and 7 chased them. By abandoning the Toofan Vehicle, all the accused persons ran away towards Naravi and disappeared. On the complaint made by P.W.6, the jurisdictional police, Belthangady registered a case in Crime No. 92/2010 for the offences punishable under the provisions of Sections 143, 341, 147, 148, 302 r/w 149 of IPC. 1 and 7 chased them. By abandoning the Toofan Vehicle, all the accused persons ran away towards Naravi and disappeared. On the complaint made by P.W.6, the jurisdictional police, Belthangady registered a case in Crime No. 92/2010 for the offences punishable under the provisions of Sections 143, 341, 147, 148, 302 r/w 149 of IPC. P.W.21-Sri M. Sudharshan, the Circle Police Inspector of Belthangady Circle conducted the inquest, subjected the dead body to autopsy, visited the spot and seized the Toofan Vehicle, collected the evidence available at the spot, arrested the accused persons and recorded their statements, seized the weapons used for the offence at the instance of the accused and all the accused were subjected to judicial custody. After getting the Forensic Science Laboratory report and on completion of other formalities of the investigation, he has filed the final report. 3. After receipt of the charge sheet, the learned Civil Judge and JMFC., Belthangady registered a case in C.C.No.73/2011 and thereafter in compliance of the provisions of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, committed the case to the Court of Sessions. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 21, got marked the documents Exs.P.1 to 36 and material objects M.Os.1 to 16. There was no defence, on behalf of the accused, except marking of Ex.D1- a portion in Ex.P.12 complaint, during the cross examination. 5. Considering both oral and documentary evidence on record, the Sessions Court though recorded a finding that the prosecution was able to prove the homicidal death of the deceased on the morning of 16.12.2010, but has failed to prove the motive against accused Nos.1 to 7. 5. Considering both oral and documentary evidence on record, the Sessions Court though recorded a finding that the prosecution was able to prove the homicidal death of the deceased on the morning of 16.12.2010, but has failed to prove the motive against accused Nos.1 to 7. It has also recorded a finding that the prosecution failed to prove that on 16.12.2010 at about 5.15 a.m. while the deceased after alighting the bus on Karkala-Guruvayanakere road in front of Forest Guest House at Naravi, moving towards his house situated nearby, accused Nos.1 to 7 came to the said place with common object of committing murder of the deceased in a Toofan Cruiser bearing registration No.KA 19 B 4044 driven by accused No.1, dashed on the back of the deceased and as soon as he alighted from the said vehicle, all the accused armed with iron rods and pipes formed an unlawful assembly, wrongfully restrained the deceased by holding him physically and inflicted injuries all over his body resulting in fatal death of the deceased. Further it has recorded a finding that the prosecution has failed to prove the commission of offences by accused Nos.1 to 7 under the provisions of Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 302 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, by the impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 30th March, 2013, the Sessions Court acquitted all the accused persons for the offences punishable under the provisions of Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 302 r/w 149 IPC. Hence, the present appeal is filed by the prosecution-State. 6. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties to the lis. II - Arguments advanced by the learned HCGP for the State 7. Sri S. Rachaiah, learned High Court Government Pleader contended with vehemence that the trial Court has failed to consider the evidence of the star witness P.W.6 - second wife of the deceased; P.W.7 the cousin brother of the deceased, P.W.4 doctor, who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased; P.W.19 the doctor, who submitted the Forensic Science Laboratory report; and P.W.21 the Investigating Officer, who recovered the material objects M.Os.9, 10, 11 and 12 on the voluntary statements of accused Nos.2, 3, 5 and 7 as per Exs.P.29, 30, 31, 33 and 34 and also the material documents Exs.P.15 and 16. Therefore, the Sessions Court has committed an error in acquitting all the accused and therefore, the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is liable to be set-aside by convicting the accused persons. 8. The learned HCGP has further contended that though the prosecution has established its case by proving the motive and enmity between the accused No.1 and other accused persons, through the evidence of P.W.6 - the eye witness, the same has been ignored by the Sessions Court and on that ground alone, the impugned judgment and order of acquittal cannot be sustained. He further contended that though the prosecution proved the seizure mahazar Exs.P.15 to 18 through the evidence of witnesses P.Ws.11 to 13 and 18, who turned hostile, their evidence ought to have been considered in view of the deposition of P.W.21, but the Session Court has acquitted all the accused persons of all the charges leveled against them arriving on an erroneous and wrong conclusion resulting in substantial miscarriage of justice. He would further contend that though the P.W.4 the doctor has supported the case of the prosecution by deposing that there is possibility of causing injury resulting in death of the deceased by using the weapons M.Os.9 to 12 for the alleged crime, the same has not been considered by the Sessions Court. He would further contend that with regard to Exs.P.18 and 19 - the seizure mahazars, drawn for seizing the articles - Iron Rod and Iron Splinter at the instance of accused Nos.3 and 2, the version of the Investigating Officer P.W.21 is that the deceased though was a rowdy sheeter, the accused persons have committed the murder of him as there was dispute between accused Nos.1 to 3 with regard to money lending transactions between them. He would further contend that as per the evidences of P.W.3 Sri Shreedhara Poojary who has turned hostile and P.W.7 Nithyananda Poojary, who has deposed that as per Ex.P.8 the sketch, there was street light where the time of the incident was visible. He would also contend that the Session Court proceeded to acquit all the accused persons ignoring the evidence of independent witnesses. 9. He would also contend that the Session Court proceeded to acquit all the accused persons ignoring the evidence of independent witnesses. 9. In support of his contentions, the learned HCGP relied upon the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mallikarjun and Others vs- State of Karnataka, (2019) 8 SCC 359 at paragraph-23 to the effect that there is no merit in the contention that merely because the panch witnesses have turned hostile, the recovery of the weapons would stand vitiated. It is fairly well settled that the evidence of the investigating officer can be relied upon to prove the recovery, even when the panch witnesses turned hostile. Therefore, he sought to allow the appeal by convicting accused Nos.1 to 7 for the offences registered against them. III Arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for respondents-accused 10. Per Contra, Sri Nishit Kumar Shetty, learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1, 2, 5 and 6 (accused Nos.1, 2, 5 and 6) contended that P.W.1, who is the alleged eye witness and relative of the deceased and P.W.10, who is an independent eye witness have turned hostile to the prosecution case. He contended that P.W.7, who is relative of the deceased and also the witness to the spot mahazar though has supported the prosecution case, the prosecution has failed to proved its case against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the Sessions Court was justified in acquitting all the accused persons. He further contended that the direct evidence of P.Ws.6 and 7 relied upon by the prosecution cannot be accepted and the Sessions Court was just and proper in not accepting their evidence as P.W.6, who claims to be the eye witness to the incident and first informant as per Ex.P.12-the complaint has mentioned the name accused No.1 Vasantha Poojary as having hit the deceased on the head with iron rod and nothing is mentioned against accused Nos.2 to 7. He also contended that P.W.6 in her cross-examination has admitted the transaction between the deceased and accused Nos.1 to 7. She has also deposed that accused No.1 was not holding any weapon and has not hit the deceased. He further contended that though there is no mention in the complaint about presence of P.Ws.1 to 7, but with regard to mentioning of names of P.W.10 and C.W.7, she has not been cross-examined. She has also deposed that accused No.1 was not holding any weapon and has not hit the deceased. He further contended that though there is no mention in the complaint about presence of P.Ws.1 to 7, but with regard to mentioning of names of P.W.10 and C.W.7, she has not been cross-examined. He would further contend that though the learned HCGP has relied upon Ex.P.8 the spot mahazar and the evidence of P.W.9 Sri Shivaprasad, Assistant Engineer of P.W.D., Belthangadi Sub Division to show that there was street light, the same has been considered by the Sessions Court while passing the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. 11. The learned Counsel for the respondents further contended that in his statement recorded under the provisions of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, accused No.1 has specifically stated that the police had seized the Toofan Vehicle at about 9.30 p.m. on 16.12.2010 from his house, P.W.2 Sri Praveen, who is the photographer has stated that he had taken the photos from 9.00 a.m. to 10.30 a.m., P.W.7 who is the eye witness to the spot mahazar has denied the suggestion that the existence of Toofan vehicle on the spot. The evidence of P.W.21 the Investigating Officer, who drew the spot mahazar at 4.00 p.m. to 6.00 p.m. as per Ex.P.7 is inconsistent with the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 7 and therefore, the Sessions Court was right in acquitting all the accused persons. He would further contend that P.W.6-complainant has stated in her complaint that at the time of the incident, her daughter was also present along with her, who was the eye witness to the incident, but the prosecution has failed to examine her daughter. He would further contend that P.W.10 Sri Sudhakara Bhandary, who has given his voluntary statement under the provisions of Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Police that he was the eye witness to the incident and in his evidence he has stated that the deceased was lying in the trench. He would further contend that P.W.6 in her evidence has admitted that even though there is a Government Hospital adjoining to her house and the doctor Dr. Anand, is residing in quarters adjacent to the hospital, she and her daughter had taken the deceased to the Karkala Government Hospital which is about 20 Kms. He would further contend that P.W.6 in her evidence has admitted that even though there is a Government Hospital adjoining to her house and the doctor Dr. Anand, is residing in quarters adjacent to the hospital, she and her daughter had taken the deceased to the Karkala Government Hospital which is about 20 Kms. away , which clearly goes to show that P.W.6 and her daughter were not eye witness to the incident. He would further contend that as per the evidence of P.W.2, the police took him along with accused Nos.2, 3, 5 and 7 and recovered the material objects - M.Os.9 to 12 at their instance and though the same was suggested to P.W.21-the investigating officer in his cross-examination, he has denied the same. Therefore, he contended that except the said statement, there is no other corroborative evidence for prosecution to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt and as such, the Sessions Court was justified in passing the impugned judgment and order of acquittal against accused Nos.1 to 7 holding that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the appeal. 12. In support of his case, learned Counsel for accused Nos.1, 2, 5 and 6 relied upon the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kashiram and Others vs- State of M.P, (2002) 1 SCC 71 regarding paragraph-21 to the effect that if two views are reasonably possible, one supporting the acquittal and the other recording a conviction, the High Court would not interfere merely because it feels that sitting as a trial Court, its view would have been one of recording a conviction. It is obligatory on the High Court while reversing an order of acquittal to consider and discuss each of the reasons given by the trial Court to acquit the accused and then to dislodge those reasons. Failure to discharge this obligation constitutes a serious infirmity in the judgment of the High Court. IV Arguments advanced by the learned amicus curiae for respondent-accused No.7 13. Sri Santhosh B., learned amicus curiae appearing for respondent No.7 while supporting the arguments of Sri Nishit Kumar Shetty, learned Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 6/accused Nos.1 to 6 contended that the name of accused No.7 was not mentioned in the FIR and even in the evidence of P.W.6, nothing is elicited against accused No.7. Sri Santhosh B., learned amicus curiae appearing for respondent No.7 while supporting the arguments of Sri Nishit Kumar Shetty, learned Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 6/accused Nos.1 to 6 contended that the name of accused No.7 was not mentioned in the FIR and even in the evidence of P.W.6, nothing is elicited against accused No.7. He further contended that P.W.21 in his examination-in-chief has stated that neither any weapon was used in the crime nor recovered from accused No.7 except the material object M.O.32- motor cycle which has no relevance to the present case. He further contended that as there is inconsistency in the version of P.W.6 in the complaint Ex.P.12 and her evidence and the evidence of P.W.21-the Investigating Officer which were contrary to the case of the prosecution, the same has not been accepted by the Sessions Court as the prosecution has not proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the appeal against accused No.7. V - Points for determination 14. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned Counsel for the parties, the points that arise for determination are:- i) Whether the learned Sessions Judge is justified in acquitting accused Nos.1 to 7 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 302 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code in the facts and circumstances of the present case? ii) Whether the prosecution-State Government has made out any prima facie case to interfere with the findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge in exercise of powers under the provisions of Section 378(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure? VI - Consideration 15. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire material including the original records carefully. 16. Before adverting to appreciate the reasons recorded by the learned Sessions Judge in the impugned judgment and order of acquittal, we would like to have brief look at the evidence of the prosecution witnesses particularly P.Ws.6, 7, 19 and 21 relied upon by the learned HCGP for the State. 17. P.W.1 Sri Vishwanatha has deposed that the deceased P.K. Pereddi is his uncle and since several years, C.W.4 is residing separately at Manipal and the distance between his and his uncles house is 10 kms. 17. P.W.1 Sri Vishwanatha has deposed that the deceased P.K. Pereddi is his uncle and since several years, C.W.4 is residing separately at Manipal and the distance between his and his uncles house is 10 kms. One year back in the morning at 5.00 a.m., P.W.1 called to his mobile and asked him to come to the hospital since she has taken him to the Karkala Hospital as the deceased has got injury to his head. So he went to the Karkala Hospital in the morning at 8.30 a.m., where he saw the dead body of his uncle. He did not see in what way his uncle got injuries. He had no acquaintance with P.W.2. He does not know who assaulted his uncle. He knows all the accused. He has not stated before the Police that he has seen the accused assaulting his uncle. In the cross-examination, he has denied the suggestion that on 16.12.2010, he has seen C.W.1 waiting for the bus coming from Bengaluru in the morning at 5.45 a.m. He saw C.W.1 by raising hue and cry running away from the house towards the road in the morning at 5.45 a.m. and he also went behind her. At that time, accused Nos.1 to 7 not only pushed the deceased, but assaulted him with iron pipe and iron rods and also were stamping him due to which the deceased collapsed. Thereafter, since the accused persons were not able to lift the Toofan vehicle, they ran away towards Naravi Town. However, he and C.W.2 tried to catch hold of the accused, but they ran away. He has denied the suggestion that at about 10.15 a.m., when he went to Karkala, he heard from C.W.1 that the deceased had died. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he does not know whether the deceased used to give loan to accused Nos.1 and 2 and for non payment of the said loan, the deceased had lodged a complaint against them before the Court. He has also admitted there was a dispute between the deceased and accused Nos.3, 4 and 6 in respect of a land and the dispute was pending before the Court against accused Nos.3, 4 and 6, but has denied the suggestion that accused No.5 and 7 being relatives of the deceased had illwill against him and therefore, they have committed the murder of the deceased. He has denied the suggestion that if the weapons used for assaulting the deceased were shown, he would identify the them. 18. P.W.2 Sri Praveena, who is the photographer has stated that as per the request of the Police, he went to the spot at 16.12.2010 and took about four to five photographs in his digital camera which are marked as Exs.P.2, 3 and 4. After four days, he was taken to Marodi in the jeep by the four police along with two accused persons where the accused persons showed an object which was like a rod. At the instance of the police along the accused, he has taken photographs. Thereafter they went to a house which was nearly about 1 klms far away. There he took a photo of the house and no objects were taken from that place. In the cross examination, he has admitted the police neither asked for memory chip from him nor he has given and after taking the video, it is little bit difficult to change it when compared to photos. He has also denied the suggestion that he has not taken any photos on 16.12.2010. 19. P.W.3, who was working as a loader in a lorry has deposed that the police had called him to the police station at Venuru and asked him to sign on two documents as per Exs.P.7 and 8 and his signatures are marked as Exs.P.7(a) and 8(a). He has also deposed that he is not aware of what is written in Exs.P.7 and 8 and that he was not taken to nor was shown any place near the house of the deceased-Peraddi. In the crossexamination, he has admitted that on 16.12.2010 at about 4.00 p.m. the police had come to the place of incident, which was near the house of the deceased- Peraddi. 20. P.W.4 Dr. Jyanesh Kamath, the doctor who conducted the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased has deposed that on the basis of the requisition made by the police, he has conducted the postmortem and has submitted the report as per Ex.P.9, and opined about the weapons used for the offence as per Ex.P.10. He has also deposed that on examination of the material objects M.Os.9 to 12, the wounds on the deceased are possible due to assault by those objects which could cause the death of the deceased. 21. He has also deposed that on examination of the material objects M.Os.9 to 12, the wounds on the deceased are possible due to assault by those objects which could cause the death of the deceased. 21. P.W.6 the Complainant-second wife of the deceased has stated in her complaint Ex.P.12 that she is an eye witness to the incident that occurred on 16.12.2010. She has further complained that there was an enmity between the deceased-her husband and accused No.1 and others with regard to money transactions. She has deposed in her evidence that when the incident occurred, P.W.7 also came to the spot along with P.W.10. In the morning at about 5.45 a.m., when her husband alighted from the bus, the bus went off and soon after that, a Toofan Cruiser came behind her husband and dashed against him due to which, her husband fell down. But on one hand in her complaint, she has categorically stated that accused No.1, Vasanth Poojary, has hit her husband on his head by iron rod and on the other hand, in her evidence, she has specifically stated in connection with the money lending business, that there were several cheque bounce cases against several persons other than accused Nos. 1 to 4. In her cross-examination at paragraph-21, she has stated that at the time of incident, accused No.1 was not holding any weapons and has not hit her husband which is contrary to her own statement given in the complaint that accused No.1 had hit her husband. She further admits that she has given the said statement out of fear which reads as under: "IMAG" 22. On careful perusal of the evidence of P.W.6, who is called as the eye/star witness on behalf of the prosecution, at one breadth, she states in her complaint that accused No.1 alone has hit the deceased on his head by using iron rod and at another breath, in her cross-examination she admits that accused No.1 was not holding any weapons at the time of the incident and the statement given by her in the complaint was because of fear. Therefore, the contention of the learned HCGP that in view of the consistent statement given by P.W.6, who is the eye witness that all the accused have to be convicted, cannot be accepted. 23. Therefore, the contention of the learned HCGP that in view of the consistent statement given by P.W.6, who is the eye witness that all the accused have to be convicted, cannot be accepted. 23. P.W.7 Sri Nithyananda Poojary, who is the son of the brother of the deceased, has deposed that when he was coming near the house of the deceased, he heard hue and cry of P.W.6 and the Toofan vehicle was slanting towards the trench and seven people were trying to lift that vehicle. He then followed them from behind and at that time, all the seven people left the vehicle and ran away. In his entire evidence, he has not stated his presence at the spot and was an eye witness to the incident. In the cross-examination, he has tried to improve the case of the prosecution by deposing that his bike was parked about 2 kms. away as the petrol tank of his bike was empty and therefore, by walking, he reached the house of the deceased. He has also stated that he neither enquired about the deceased nor verified whether there was any need of assistance or whether the deceased was dead or alive. He further states that P.W.6 did not ask him to take care of her husband or to give water to him and to take him to the Hospital which was close by. After fifteen minutes, when he came to the spot, he came to know that the deceased died due to the head injuries on the way to the Karkala Government Hospital. Thereafter, he went back to his house and changed his dress and reached the hospital. Therefore, from the evidence of P.W.7, we can make out that he is not an eye witness to the scene of offence as contended by the learned HCGP. 24. In so far as the evidence P.W.19 Dr. Geetha Laxmi, who is the Scientific Officer of Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Mangalore is concerned, she has stated that she received the material objects - M.Os. 1 to 4 and 9 to 16 and found the blood stains on them. On chemical and serological examination, she found the presence of blood stains on M.Os.13 to 16 particularly 'A' group human blood. She has also stated that 'A' Group human blood were also carried on M.O.3 Brain Pieces and M.O.11 Iron Splinter, M.O.12 Iron Rod. 1 to 4 and 9 to 16 and found the blood stains on them. On chemical and serological examination, she found the presence of blood stains on M.Os.13 to 16 particularly 'A' group human blood. She has also stated that 'A' Group human blood were also carried on M.O.3 Brain Pieces and M.O.11 Iron Splinter, M.O.12 Iron Rod. She has further stated that M.Os.3, 13 to 16 belong to the deceased and quite natural that his blood stains are found on those objects. M.O.9 is said to have been seized at the instance of accused Nos.5 and M.O.10 at the instance of accused No.4, the material objects which create nexus between the death of the deceased and accused Nos.4 and 5. 25. The prosecution has mainly relied upon the evidence of P.W.21 the investigating officer, who has stated in his examination-in-chief that he investigated the case and arrested all the accused persons on different dates. He secured P.W.11-the mahazar witness and P.W.12 witness to the seizure mahazar to the police station and showed accused Nos.4, 5 and 7, who together left the police station wherein accused No.5 took them to his house situated at Bailumane, Kanil nagara of Karimanelu village, Belthangady Taluk and showed the vehicle bearing registration No. KA-19- UF-1247 - Bajaj CT 100 Motor Cycle as found in Ex.P.32 photo and also M.O.9-Iron Rod which has been seized under Ex.P.15 mahazar. He has further deposed that accused No.4 took him to his house situatated at Subbarottu of Maroli village, went behind his house, brought and produced blood stained Iron Rod M.O.10 which was seized under Ex.P.16 mahazar in presence of P.Ws.11 and 12, who are witnesses to the mahazar and seizure. He has further given his evidence that accused No.9 took him to his house situated at Maroli village and showed TVS Motor Cycle bearing registration No.KA 19 S 507 which was seized as per Ex.P.17 in presence of P.W.11 and 12. He has further stated that on 25.1.2011, he secured P.Ws.13 and 18 and introduced them to accused Nos.2 and 3 and from there, himself, panchas and accused Nos.2 and 3 went to Naravi where accused Nos.2 and 3 took them to the shop of one Mr. Sadananda Hegde situated near Government Hospital. He has further stated that on 25.1.2011, he secured P.Ws.13 and 18 and introduced them to accused Nos.2 and 3 and from there, himself, panchas and accused Nos.2 and 3 went to Naravi where accused Nos.2 and 3 took them to the shop of one Mr. Sadananda Hegde situated near Government Hospital. Thereafter accused No.3 went on the back of the shop and produced M.O.12 iron rod which was lying on the trunk of Boghi tree which has been seized under Ex.P.18. From there, accused No.2 took them to his house situated at Panalu road of Naravi, at the sit out of the house and showed Hero Honda Motor Cycle bearing registration No.KA-21-H-1875 as per Ex.P.35 photo from inside the hen-coop situated beside the house and showed the Splinter M.O.11 which was seized under Ex.P.19. During the course of cross-examination, he has denied the suggestion that accused Nos.2 to 5 and 7 did not lead him to any place as narrated in Exs.P.15 to 19 or produced M.Os.9 to 12 and also motor cycle as per Ex.P.32 and Ex.P.35 Photos. 26. The material on record clearly depicts that there is no whisper from the mouth of P.W.6 that these are the only accused persons, who were prosecuting enmity against her husband-deceased. She had no occasion to know through her husband whether the accused persons were hatching a criminal conspiracy against his life. P.W.7, who is the person having natural affinity towards the deceased knew nothing about the persons, who had enmity towards the deceased and he has not stated anything about the background of the dispute, whether the accused persons were grinding an axe/any illwill against the accused. Therefore, his evidence is not helpful to the prosecution to explain the motive. 27. The deceased though was a retired teacher by profession was doing money lending business and had filed several cheque bounce cases against several persons other than accused Nos.1 to 4 and was involved in a rape case in Crime No.183/1986. P.W.1 has given his evidence that the deceased was a rowdy sheeter and a case was registered against him in Venoor Police Station. It is also the fact that he had left the first wife C.W.4 and got the second marriage with P.W.6 the complainant. 28. P.W.1 has given his evidence that the deceased was a rowdy sheeter and a case was registered against him in Venoor Police Station. It is also the fact that he had left the first wife C.W.4 and got the second marriage with P.W.6 the complainant. 28. On careful perusal of the evidence of P.Ws.6 and 7, makes clear that the deceased had no enmity with accused Nos.1 to 7 and because of several disputes, the deceased had earned unknown enemies and therefore, the oral and documentary evidence relied upon by the prosecution does not inspire any confidence of this Court and accordingly, the prosecution has failed to explain the transformation of the dispute between the deceased and accused persons into enmity, which had resulted in forming an unlawful assembly with a common object to commit murder of the deceased. Though the case of the prosecution stands on the direct evidences of P.W.6 the second wife of the deceased, P.W.1 the cousin brother (relative) of the deceased, P.W.7 the close associate of the deceased and P.W.10 an independent person of the village, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Though the learned HCGP contended that on the basis of Ex.P.29-the confession statement of accused No.4, Ex.P.30- the confession statement of accused No.5, Ex.P.31 confession of accused No.7, Ex.P.33 confession statement of accused No.2 and Ex.P.34 confession statement of accused No.3, the material objects M.Os.9 to 12 - weapons used for the commission of offence and Ex.P.32 recovery of Motor cycle were recovered, mere recovery of the material objects by P.W.21 the CPI at the instance of the accused in the absence of any eye witnesses and documents to prove that the accused persons were involved in the incident of murdering the deceased, cannot be accepted. 29. It is also not in dispute that P.W.10- Sudhakara Bhandary an independent eye witness, P.W.7 - Nithyananda Poojary the close associate of the deceased and witness to the mahazars Exs.P.15 to 17, P.Ws. 13 mahazar witness to recovery of M.Os.11 and 12 under Exs.P. 18 and 19 and also P.W.18 who is a mahazar witness to Exs.P.15 to 17 and recovery of material objects M.Os.9 to 12 have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. 13 mahazar witness to recovery of M.Os.11 and 12 under Exs.P. 18 and 19 and also P.W.18 who is a mahazar witness to Exs.P.15 to 17 and recovery of material objects M.Os.9 to 12 have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. Even from the evidence of P.Ws.2, 3, 7 and 21, we have four different versions regarding holding of spot inspection firstly between 9.00 and 10.30 a.m., secondly at 6.00 p.m., thirdly between 4.00 and 6.00 p.m. and the last one was at the police station. Therefore, with regard to time of the spot inspection as there is discrepancy, their evidence has to be discarded. 30. In order to appreciate the evidence on record, it is relevant to state that a criminal trial is not like a fairytale wherein one is free to give flight to one's imagination and fantasy. It concerns itself with the question as to whether the accused arraigned at the trial is guilty of the crime with which he is charged. Crime is an event in real life and is the product of interplay of different human emotions. In arriving at the conclusion about the guilt of the accused charged with the commission of a crime, the court has to judge the evidence by the yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic worth and the animus of the witnesses. Every case in the final analysis would have to depend upon its own facts. Although the benefit of every reasonable doubt should be given to the accused, the courts should not at the same time reject evidence which is ex facie trustworthy on grounds which are fanciful or in the nature of conjectures. 31. A criminal trial cannot be equated with a mock scene from a stunt film. Such trial is conducted to ascertain the guilt or innocence of the accused arraigned and in arriving at a conclusion about the truth; the courts are required to adopt a rational approach and judge the evidence by its intrinsic worth and the animus of the witnesses. A criminal trial cannot be equated with a mock scene from a stunt film. Such trial is conducted to ascertain the guilt or innocence of the accused arraigned and in arriving at a conclusion about the truth; the courts are required to adopt a rational approach and judge the evidence by its intrinsic worth and the animus of the witnesses. The hyper technicalities or figment of imagination should not be allowed to divest the court of its responsibility of sifting and weighing the evidence to arrive at the conclusion regarding the existence or otherwise of a particular circumstance keeping in view the peculiar facts of each case, the social position of the victim and the accused, the larger interests of the society particularly the law and order problem and degrading values of life inherent in the prevalent system. The realities of life have to be kept in mind while appreciating the evidence for arriving at the truth. The courts are not obliged to make efforts either to give latitude to the prosecution or loosely construe the law in favour of the accused. The traditional dogmatic hyper technical approach has to be replaced by a rational, realistic and genuine approach for administering justice in a criminal trial. Criminal jurisprudence cannot be considered to be a utopian thought but have to be considered as part and parcel of the human civilization and the realities of life. The courts cannot ignore the erosion in values of life which are common features of the present system. Such erosions cannot be given a bonus in favour of those who are guilty of polluting society and mankind. 32. Keeping in mind the above principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the catena of decisions and having considered the oral and documentary evidence in the present case in proper perspective, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt. After reassessing the entire material on record including the original records, we are of the considered opinion that the well crafted judgment rendered by the learned Sessions Judge and order of acquittal of respondents/accused Nos.1 to 7 for the offences punishable under the provisions of Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 302 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code is just and proper. 33. 33. Though the learned HCGP for State to substantiate his contentions laid emphasis on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mallikarjun and Others vs- State of Karnataka, (2019) 8 SCC 359 to the effect that the evidence of the investigating officer can be relied upon to prove the recovery, even when the panch witnesses have turned hostile wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court relying upon the dictum in the case of Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta vs- State of Maharashtra, (2010) 13 SCC 657 has held that "while appreciating the evidence, the Court has to take into consideration whether the contradictions/omissions had been of such magnitude that they may materially affect the trial. Minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements, on trivial matters without affecting the core of the prosecution case should not be made a ground to reject the evidence in its entirety. The Sessions Court after going through the entire evidence, must form an opinion about the credibility of the witnesses and the appellate court in normal course would not be justified in reviewing the same against without justifiable reasons. Therefore, the said judgment is in no way assistance to the case of the prosecution to allow the appeal against acquittal. 34. Though M.Os.9 to 12 were recovered by the Investigating Officer P.W.21, mere recovery of certain weapons iron rods, we cannot come to the conclusion that the accused persons are involved in the murder of the deceased-husband of P.W.6, which cannot be accepted in the absence of any independent witnesses as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondents/accused. The evidence of the eye witness is inconsistent with the statement made in the complaint. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the provisions of Sections 378 and 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in an identical circumstances in the appeal against acquittal, has held that the High Court has the power to reappraise the evidence and interfere with the order of acquittal and where two views are possible, the High Court should not interfere only because it feels that sitting as a trial Court, it would have preferred conviction. Our view is fortified by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kashiram and Others vs- State of M.P, (2002) 1 SCC 71 at paragraph- 21, it has been held as under: "21. Our view is fortified by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kashiram and Others vs- State of M.P, (2002) 1 SCC 71 at paragraph- 21, it has been held as under: "21. We find the judgment of the High Court suffering from several infirmities. The High Court was dealing with an appeal against acquittal. Though the High Court while hearing an appeal against an acquittal has powers as wide and comprehensive as in an appeal against a conviction and while exercising its appellate jurisdiction the High Court can reappraise the evidence, arrive at findings at variance with those recorded by the trial court in its order of acquittal and arrive at its own findings, yet, the salutary principle which would guide the High Court is if two views are reasonably possible, one supporting the acquittal and the other recording a conviction, the High Court would not interfere merely because it feels that sitting as a trial court its view would have been one of recording a conviction. It follows as a necessary corollary, as has been held by this Court in Chandu v. State of Maharashtra, (2001) 4 Scale 590 it is obligatory on the High Court while reversing an order of acquittal to consider and discuss each of the reasons given by the trial court to acquit the accused and then to dislodge those reasons. Failure to discharge this obligation constitutes a serious infirmity in the judgment of the High Court." VII - Conclusion 35. On re-appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence on record and for the reasons stated above, the first point raised in the present appeal is held in the affirmative holding that the Sessions Court is justified in acquitting respondents-accused Nos.1 to 7 for the offences punishable under the provisions of Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 302 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code and with regard to second point the prosecution-State Government has not made out any prima facie case to interfere with the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Court in exercise of powers under the provisions of Section 378(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 36. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the State against the judgment and order of acquittal is dismissed as devoid of merits. 37. 36. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the State against the judgment and order of acquittal is dismissed as devoid of merits. 37. Appreciating the services rendered by the learned Amicus Curiae, we direct the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority to pay an honourarium of Rs.10,000/- to him within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.