Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1385 (KAR)

Babu Basavanni Kurubar v. State Of Karnataka

2020-07-10

B.A.PATIL, M.G.UMA

body2020
JUDGMENT M.G.Uma, J. - Accused Nos.1 and 2 have preferred this appeal, aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.07.2015 passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Belagavi (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court'), passed in S.C.No.365/2012, convicting accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 326, 324, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, while acquitting him for the offence punishable under Section 114 of IPC and convicting accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC, while acquitting him for other offences. 2. We have heard the learned advocate Sri.S.S.Yadrami for the appellants/accused and learned Addl. SPP Sri.V. M. Banakar for the respondent-State. 3. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution is that; the first informant-Surekha, is the wife of accused No.1. Accused No.4 is his second wife. Accused Nos.2 and 3 are their sons, while PW2- Sheetal is the daughter of the informant through accused No.1. Deceased Bagawwa is the mother of the informant. PW3-Gangawwa is her sister and PW17-Chandrawwa is the mother of deceased- Bagawwa and PW3 Gangawwa. It is stated that the informant was residing in her house along with her mother-Bagawwa, grandmother-Chandrawwa, aunt- Gangawwa, daughter-Sheetal and grand daughter- Gayatri. Whereas the accused were residing in the neighboring house. There was dispute between both of them, in the matter of landed properties. 4. On 28.06.2012 at 7.00 am, the informant along with her mother deceased-Bagawwa, went to the floor mill belonging to Mahadeva Kakatikar. At that time, accused No.1 armed with sickle and accused No.2 with axe, came there. Accused No.1 abused the informant and the deceased in filthy language and proclaiming to take away their life assaulted the deceased Bagawwa with the sickle on her buttock and caused bleeding injury with an intention to cause her death. The injured Bagawwa fell down and when the informant started to run away, accused No.2 tried to chase her. In the meantime, PW2-Sheetal was coming towards the floor mill and accused Nos.1 and 2 leaving the informant, started chasing Sheetal. When Sheetal and the informant started running away, accused went near their house, where PW17-Chandrawwa-grand mother of the informant was sitting in front of the house with Gayatri-daughter of PW2 on her lap. In the meantime, PW2-Sheetal was coming towards the floor mill and accused Nos.1 and 2 leaving the informant, started chasing Sheetal. When Sheetal and the informant started running away, accused went near their house, where PW17-Chandrawwa-grand mother of the informant was sitting in front of the house with Gayatri-daughter of PW2 on her lap. Accused No.1 assaulted Chandrawwa on her back with the sickle and dragged PW3-Gangawwa out of the house, by holding her saree and assaulted her with the sickle, on her back, forehead and head, causing injuries with an intention to cause their death. In the meantime, accused No.3-Devendra dragged the little child- Gayatri by proclaiming that he will not spare her. PW17-Chandrawwa fell down to rescue the child and requested accused not to harm her. Accused No.4 was standing near the door of the house and was criminally intimidating to take away their lives. After the incident, the informant along with others went near the floor mill at 8.30 am and found Bagawwa lying on the spot and she found dead. In this regard, the first information as per Ex.P1 was lodged by the informant-Surekha against all the accused and on the basis of the said first information, Crime No.156/2012 of Marihal police station was registered against accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 326, 324, 504, 506 and 114 read with Section 34 of IPC. After investigating into the matter, charge sheet was came to be filed against all the four accused. Accused No.3 was a juvenile and was tried before the Juvenile Justice Board. It is stated that accused No.4 is reported to be dead and case against her is already abated. 5. The committal Court took cognizance of the offences and secured the presence of the accused. Since the offences alleged were exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, after following the procedure contemplated under Section 208 of Cr.P.C., committed the matter to Sessions Court at Belagavi by passing an order under Section 209 of Cr.P.C. The learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi made over the matter to the trial Court to try the accused for the offences. 6. The trial Court secured the presence of the accused and framed the charges against them for the above said offences. The accused have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. The trial Court secured the presence of the accused and framed the charges against them for the above said offences. The accused have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 29, got marked Exs.P1 to P38 and identified M.Os.1 to 14 in support of its contention. During cross examination of the witnesses, the accused got marked Ex.D1 to D6 in support of their contention. The statements of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. were recorded, but the accused have denied all the incriminating materials available on record but they have not chosen to lead any evidence in support of their defence. The trial Court after taking into consideration all these materials on record, came to the conclusion that accused No.1 is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 326, 324, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and accused No.2 is liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and they were acquitted of other offences. 7. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court, accused Nos.1 and 2 have preferred this appeal on various grounds. 8. Learned advocate for the appellants contended that the accused were falsely implicated in the matter due to ill-will, even though they have not committed any offence. The so called eyewitnesses were planted in order to strengthen the case of the prosecution. He submitted that the motive alleged against the accused for commission of the offence is very weak and the same is not proved by the prosecution. There are serious contradictions and inconsistencies in the version of the so called eyewitnesses to the incident. Even though the prosecution examined as many as 29 witnesses, it is only PW1, 2, 3 and 17, who have supported the case of the prosecution. The prosecution projected PW4 to 7, 9, 10 and 29 as eye witnesses, but they have not chosen to support the case. The so called recovery of the incriminating materials and drawing of the panchanama are not supported by the pancha witnesses. Even the medical evidence i.e. post mortem report and the evidence of PW15-the Doctor who conducted the post mortem examination, is not supporting the version of the prosecution. The so called recovery of the incriminating materials and drawing of the panchanama are not supported by the pancha witnesses. Even the medical evidence i.e. post mortem report and the evidence of PW15-the Doctor who conducted the post mortem examination, is not supporting the version of the prosecution. There are glaring material inconsistencies, which falsifies the contention of the prosecution. Even the version of the eye witnesses; PW1, 2, 3 and 17 is not consistent and they do not corroborate with each other. The prosecution has relied on the only related and interested witnesses and still it has not proved the guilt of the accused, beyond reasonable doubt. The sequence of the event as alleged, is highly improbable. Even though PW28 the CPI deposes that he received the MLC intimation at 8.30 am, the FIR was came to be registered on the date of the incident at 10.30 am. The inordinate delay in registering the FIR is not explained satisfactorily. There is also delay in submitting the FIR along with the first information, to the Jurisdictional Magistrate. The documents go to show that the FIR along with the first information, reached the Jurisdictional Magistrate at 6.00 pm. All these facts and circumstances also falsifies the case of the prosecution or atleast give rise to reasonable doubt, about the contention taken by the prosecution. 9. He further submitted that the prosecution failed to establish its contention and to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. But inspite of that, the trial Court proceeded to convict accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 326, 324, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC without any basis and even though there are absolutely no material against accused No.2, for having committed the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC, he was convicted for the said offence. 10. The learned advocate submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is illegal, perverse and the same is liable to be set aside by allowing the appeal and acquitting both the accused, in the interest of justice. 11. Per contra learned Addl.SPP supporting the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, submitted that the homicidal death of the deceased-Bagawwa was never disputed by the accused. There are two injured eye witnesses i.e. PW3 and 17, who have fully supported the case of the prosecution. 11. Per contra learned Addl.SPP supporting the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, submitted that the homicidal death of the deceased-Bagawwa was never disputed by the accused. There are two injured eye witnesses i.e. PW3 and 17, who have fully supported the case of the prosecution. PW1 and 2 i.e. the complainant and her daughter, are the natural eye witnesses and they have also supported the case of the prosecution. Even though other eye witnesses have not chosen to support the case for the reasons best known to them, the version of material eye witnesses, including the injured, establishes the guilt of the accused. He submitted that there is absolutely no inordinate delay either in registering the FIR or in submitted the FIR along with the first information, to the Jurisdictional Magistrate. The delay caused in submitting the FIR is properly explained by PW26, who carried the FIR and submitted to the Jurisdictional Magistrate. 12. He further submitted that the contention of the prosecution is substantiated by the medical evidence. PW14-the doctor who treated the injured Chandrawwa, Gangawwa and the little child Gayatri, has deposed before the Court that immediately after the incident, all the three injured were brought to Vijaya Hospital with the history of assault and she noted injuries on various parts of their body and she issued the wound certificates as per Ex.P10, 11 and 12. She has also given her opinion as per Ex.P13, after verifying the sickle-MO-7, with which accused No.1 had assaulted them. PW15 is the doctor who conducted post mortem examination on the body of the deceased and issued the post mortem report as per Ex.P14. There is absolutely no dispute that death of the deceased was homicidal one and PW15 has categorically stated that the injury found on the dead body could be caused with the sickle MO-7. Under such circumstances, the prosecution was able to successfully prove the guilt of accused Nos.1 and 2 for the above said offences and the trial Court after properly appreciating all the materials on record, came to a right conclusion to convict both the accused. 13. He fairly submitted that the State has not preferred any appeal against the acquittal of the accused Nos.1 and 2 for other offences and therefore the judgment of acquittal has reached finality. 13. He fairly submitted that the State has not preferred any appeal against the acquittal of the accused Nos.1 and 2 for other offences and therefore the judgment of acquittal has reached finality. Therefore he submitted that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court do not suffer from any irregularities and under such circumstances, the same is to be confirmed and the appeal preferred by the appellants is to be dismissed in the interest of justice. 14. We have perused all the materials on record including the trial Court records, in the light of the submissions made by both the counsels. 15. In so far as the allegations against accused Nos.1, the eye witnesses PWs1 and 2 and injured eye witnesses PW3 and 17 have fully supported the case of the prosecution. It is pertinent to note that PW1 is the first informant, who deposed before the Court that she along with her mother deceased-Bagawwa, had been to floor mill of Mahadev Kakatikar. Accused No.1 had come with a sickle, accompanied by accused No.2 and accused No.1 assaulted Bagawwa on her buttock with the sickle and abused them, as a result of which, Bagawwa fell down and the complainant managed to escape by running away. In the meantime, PW2- Sheetal was coming towards the floor mill and the accused leaving the complainant, started chasing Sheetal. As such, Sheetal also started running towards her house. Thereafter accused No.1 ran towards the house of the informant and assaulted Chandrawwa- PW17, who was sitting in front of the house along with the little girl Gayatri, on her back with the sickle and also pulled PW3-Gangawwa, by holding her saree and assaulted her with the same sickle and caused injuries. At that time, it was accused No.3 who tried to snatch the child Gayatri by proclaiming that he will not spare her. But PW17-Chadrawwa came and rescued her. In the meantime, even the little child got hurt and during these incidents accused No.4 was criminally intimidating and provoking the other accused, to take away the lives of these witnesses. This witness stated that when they came back near the floor mill, her mother Bagawwa had already dead and thereafter at about 9.00 am she gave her statement to the police as per Ex.P1, which was registered by the police as first information. This witness stated that when they came back near the floor mill, her mother Bagawwa had already dead and thereafter at about 9.00 am she gave her statement to the police as per Ex.P1, which was registered by the police as first information. Even though this witness was cross examined at length, nothing has been elicited to discard her version. Ofcourse it was elicited during cross examination that there were several houses near the floor mill and quite some persons have witnessed the incident. However this witness stated that the neighboring persons on seeing the incident, have went inside and closed the doors. A fatal suggestion was made to this witness by the learned advocate for the accused before the trial Court, that on the katta and the wall in front of the floor mill, where Bagawwa was standing, blood had splashed. This suggestion was admitted by the witness. 16. Pw2 who is also an eye witness deposed before the Court regarding the incident. Her version is that even though PW1 and deceased Bagawwa have been to the floor mill, they had not taken the money with them, to pay the floor mill charges and therefore she went towards the floor mill and saw her grand mother Bagawwa and mother Surekha standing on the katta in front of the floor mill. In the meantime, accused No.1 armed with sickle assaulted Bagawwa on her buttock. As a result of that, she sustained bleeding injuries and fell down. In the meantime, her mother-Surekha started running away to escape from the blow, when accused No.1 tried to chase her and thereafter on seeing PW2, he tried to chase her also and subsequently came near her house, where Chandrawwa-PW17 was sitting in front of the house with the child Gayatri on her lap. Accused No.1 assaulted PW17, caused injury to the little girl and dragged PW3 Gangawwa and assaulted her as well, with the very same sickle. Even though this witness was cross examined at length, nothing has been elicited from her to disbelieve her version. 17. Pw3 is the injured eye witness Gangawwathe sister of the deceased Bagawwa. This witness also speaks about the incident that had taken place in front of the house, where accused No.1 assaulted PW17- Chandrawwa, who was sitting in front of the house along with the child Gayatri. 17. Pw3 is the injured eye witness Gangawwathe sister of the deceased Bagawwa. This witness also speaks about the incident that had taken place in front of the house, where accused No.1 assaulted PW17- Chandrawwa, who was sitting in front of the house along with the child Gayatri. Witness stated that she was dragged by accused No.1, assaulted with the sickle and caused bleeding injuries. Ofcourse during cross examination, portions of her statement were confronted and got marked as per Ex.D1 to D3. Witness stated that she had not given such statement before the police. 18. We have considered these portions of the statement marked as per Ex.D1 to 3, which were disowned by the witness. The said portions of the statement do not go to the root of the matter. While considering the evidence of this witness-PW3, we have to take into consideration her social condition, age and also the seriousness of the incident that had taken place. She is a rustic villager, aged 61 years and is a house wife. Accused No.1 along with accused No.2 came running with the sickle in his hand, assaulted: PW17 Chandrawwa, who was sitting in front of the house, Chandrawwa raised hue and cry and when this witness Gangawwa comes out of the house, accused No.1 pulled her by holding her saree and assaults her, accused No.3 also tried to snatch the little girl Gayatri, from PW17-Chandrawwa and Chandrawwa somehow managed to save the child. All these incidents must have taken place within few minutes. The incident had taken place on 28.06.2012, but the witness was examined on 06.06.2013 that is after lapse of about a year. This witness was made to speak about the incident and under such circumstances, minor inconsistency is bound to happen. Unless such inconsistencies are material in nature and they go to the root of the matter, such inconsistencies are to be ignored. Except marking Ex.D1 to D3, nothing has been elicited from this witness and also to disbelieve her version and her say regarding the commission of the offence by the accused, is not shaken in the entire cross examination. 19. The next witness material to the case of the prosecution is PW17-Chandrawwa, who is also a rustic villager and the house wife, aged 87 years. Inspite of that the witness gave the account of the incident in detail. 19. The next witness material to the case of the prosecution is PW17-Chandrawwa, who is also a rustic villager and the house wife, aged 87 years. Inspite of that the witness gave the account of the incident in detail. However, Ex.D4 and 5 were got marked during cross examination of this witness, by eliciting from the mouth of the witness that she had not given the said statement before the police. These are the stray sentences in the statement of this witness recorded by the police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C and denial of the witness of these portions also do not go to the root of the matter, when the incident had occurred within few minutes as a splash and the accused assaulting one after the other with the sickle in his hand, accompanied by accused No.2, who was also said to have holding an axe. PW3 and 17 have sustained injuries on their body and under such circumstances, we cannot accept them to give every minute details of the assault by accused No.1 on each part of their body. Therefore we are of the opinion that Ex.D4 and 5 do not shake the version of this witness regarding commission of the offence by accused No.1. During the searching cross examination, her version in the chief examination was never shaken and she successfully withstood the cross examination, even though she was aged 87 years and even though the incident had occurred about a year ago, while she was deposing before the Court. 20. The version of PW3 and 17 the injured witnesses and also the version of PW1 and 2 the eye witnesses are supported by PW14-the Doctor, who treated the injured Chandrawwa, Gangawwa and also the injured girl Gayatri. PW17-Chandrawwa had sustained cut lacerated would measuring 6cm x 2cm over supra scapular margin right active blood + muscles cut and exposed. The injury was fresh and the doctor is of the opinion that the same could be caused with a sharp object. The wound certificate is as per Ex.P10. 21. The child Gayatri was also examined by the doctor and noticed a cut lacerated wound measuring 6cm x 2cm over post aspect of right shoulder, bone deep and active bleed +ve posterior fibres of deltoid muscle are cut. The wound certificate is as per Ex.P10. 21. The child Gayatri was also examined by the doctor and noticed a cut lacerated wound measuring 6cm x 2cm over post aspect of right shoulder, bone deep and active bleed +ve posterior fibres of deltoid muscle are cut. The doctor has given her opinion that this injury was also grievous in nature and could be caused with sharp edged weapon. She issued wound certificate as per Ex.P11. 22. This witness further stated that on the same day she had examined the injured Gangawwa i.e. PW3, who came with similar history of assault and she had noticed in all, six injuries, five of which are cut and lacerated wounds over various parts of the body and tenderness over chest. She had sustained fracture of 3rd and 4th right ribs, which was grievous in nature. She opined that all these injuries were fresh and could be caused with sharp edged weapon. She issued wound certificate as per Ex.P12. 23. It is pertinent to note that the incident had taken place on 28.06.2012 at 7.00 am and PW14 examined all the three injured at 9.00 am on the same day and all the injured have come with the history of assault. This witness verified MO-7 and stated that injuries mentioned in the wound certificates could be caused with the said weapon. She has also issued her opinion regarding the injury, as per Ex.P13. 24. The prosecution also examined PW15, the doctor who conducted autopsy over the body of the deceased. This witness speaks about only one external injury i.e. stab wound measuring 6 inch x 2 inch present over gluteal region, illiptical in shape with sharp edge with injury to gluteal vissels. He has given his opinion that the injury might have caused as a result of stab with sharp double edged weapon. Further this witness examined MO-7-sickle and given his opinion as per Ex.P15, stating that the tip of this weapon is sharp edged. In his evidence he specifically stated that the sickle MO-7 could cause the injury found on the dead body of the deceased. This witness was cross examined at length regarding his opinion that the deceased had sustained stab injury. But the witness has denied the suggestion that MO-7 sickle is not having a pointed tip. In his evidence he specifically stated that the sickle MO-7 could cause the injury found on the dead body of the deceased. This witness was cross examined at length regarding his opinion that the deceased had sustained stab injury. But the witness has denied the suggestion that MO-7 sickle is not having a pointed tip. Witness specifically stated that the injury found on the dead body could be caused by MO-7-sickle, as such injury will result depending upon the force and angle with which it was used. We do not find any exaggeration in the evidence of this witness. Ex.P15 the opinion given by this witness also has the picture of the sickle MO-7, which is not disputed. On verifying the nature of the weapon and with regard to its sharp tip, definitely said injury mentioned in Ex.P14 could be caused as rightly stated by the witness depending upon the force and angle with which it was used and the portion of the body on which it was used. 25. Even though the prosecution examined PW4 to 7, 9, 10 and 29 as eye witnesses to the incident, they have not supported the case of the prosecution for the reasons best known to them. Merely because these witnesses have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution, it cannot be concluded that the case of prosecution is either false or false implication of accused No.1. When we have the version of the injured eye witnessees, which stand on the higher pedestal and without there being any reason to disbelieve their version, the same cannot be discarded. Further we have the version of two eye witnesses PW1 and 2, who have also corroborated the evidence of injured eye witnesses-PW3 and 17. 26. The contention of the learned advocate for the accused that all these witnesses i.e. PW1, 2, 3 and 17 are related witnesses and therefore their version cannot be believed, has no merits. It is trite of law that simply because eye witnesses are the relatives, their version is to be discarded. There is no rule that the evidence of related witnesses has to be corroborated by the evidence of independent witnesses. Only if the version of the related eye witnesses is found to be incredible and not trustworthy, then only the Court can look for the independent witness. There is no rule that the evidence of related witnesses has to be corroborated by the evidence of independent witnesses. Only if the version of the related eye witnesses is found to be incredible and not trustworthy, then only the Court can look for the independent witness. This proposition of law is laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in KRISHNEGOWDA AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA connected with NANJE GOWDA AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA, (2017) 13 SCC 98 "32. .. there is no absolute rule that the evidence of related witnesses has to be corroborated by the evidence of independent witnesses, it would be trite in law to have independent witnesses when the evidence of related eyewitnesses is found to be incredible and not trustworthy. The minor variations and contradictions in the evidence of eyewitnesses will not tilt the benefit of doubt in favour of the accused but when the contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses proves to be fatal to the prosecution case then those contradictions go to the root of the matter and in such cases accused gets the benefit of doubt. 27. Pw1 and 2 being the close relatives of the deceased and the injured eye witnesses, fully supported the case of the prosecution. As per the contention of the learned advocate for the accused, they are the interested witnesses and therefore their version cannot be believed. But this is not the position of law. A related witness need not be interested witness. An interested witness means a witness who is having the interest to see that the accused somehow or the other convicted for some animus or for some other reason. This proposition of law was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court KARTIK MALHAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR, (1996) 1 SCC 614 whereunder it is held that: "15.As to the contention raised on behalf of the appellant that the witness was the widow of the deceased and was, therefore, highly interested and her statement be discarded, we may observe that a close relative who is a normal witness cannot be regarded as an interested witness. The term 'interested' postulates that the witness must have some direct interest in having the accused somehow or the other convicted for some animus or for some other reason. The term 'interested' postulates that the witness must have some direct interest in having the accused somehow or the other convicted for some animus or for some other reason. In Dalbir Kaur (Mst) v. State of Punjab, (1976) 4 SCC 158 it has been observed as under: "Moreover, a close relative who is a very natural witness cannot be regarded as an interested witness. The term 'interested' postulates that the person concerned must have some direct interest in seeing that the accused person is somehow or the other convicted either because he had some animus with the accused or for some other reason. Such is not the case here." 28. It is true that the independent eye witnesses examined by the prosecution have not supported the case for the reasons best known to them. Simply because the independent witnesses do not support the case of the prosecution, its versions cannot be disbelieved. The materials on record disclose that there was enmity between the accused and complainant party since long, and that may be the reason for the villagers for not supporting the case of the prosecution. When natural witnesses support the case of the prosecution and when there are no reasons to suspect them or their version, same may be the basis of the conviction. This proposition of law was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SATBIR SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, (2009) 13 SCC 790 whereunder it is held: "25. The long-standing enmity between two branches of the same family stands admitted. It is, therefore, unlikely that other villages would come to depose in favour of one of the parties or the other. 26. It is now a well-settled principle of law that only because the witnesses are not independent ones may not by itself be a ground to discard the prosecution case. Of the prosecution case has been supported by the witnesses and no cogent reason has been shown to discredit their statements, a judgment of conviction can certainly be based thereupon. 29. It is pertinent to note that PWs3 and 17, even though the relatives of the deceased, are the injured eye witnesses. There is no serious dispute with regard to the fact that these witnesses have sustained injuries on the date of the incident. There is no explanation by the accused about the injuries sustained by these witnesses. 29. It is pertinent to note that PWs3 and 17, even though the relatives of the deceased, are the injured eye witnesses. There is no serious dispute with regard to the fact that these witnesses have sustained injuries on the date of the incident. There is no explanation by the accused about the injuries sustained by these witnesses. It is the trite of law that the version of the injured witness cannot be ignored easily unless there are strong grounds. The presence of these witnesses at the scene of offence cannot be disputed and their version cannot be discarded. Moreover the version of these witnesses is fully corroborated by the version of PWs1 and 3 who are the eye witnesses and also by the medical evidence. The credence that is to be given to the injured witness was highlighted by the Hon'ble Apex Court in BALRAJE ALIAS TRIMBAK Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, (2010) 6 SCC 673 whereunder it is held: "30. In law, testimony of an injured witness is given importance. When the eye witnesses are stated to be interested and inimically disposed towards the accused, it has to be noted that it would not be proper to conclude that they would shield the real culprit and rope in innocent persons. the truth or otherwise of the evidence has to be weighed pragmatically. The court would be required to analyse the evidence of related witnesses and those witnesses who are inimically disposed towards the accused. But if after careful analysis and scrutiny of their evidence, the version given by the witnesses appears to be clear, cogent and credible, there is no reason to discard the same. Conviction can be made on the basis of such evidence." 30. On perusal of the evidence of material witnesses including the injured eye witnesses, we are of the firm opinion that even though there are minor variations and contradictions in their evidence, it is not sufficient to discard their evidence, nor it can be held that they are deposing falsely against the accused. Under such circumstances, we do not find any reason to look for the corroboration by independent witnesses. On perusal of the materials on record including the medical evidence, which corroborates the versions of the injured eye witnesses, the balance will not tilt infavour of the accused. On the other hand, it strengthens the case of the prosecution. Under such circumstances, we do not find any reason to look for the corroboration by independent witnesses. On perusal of the materials on record including the medical evidence, which corroborates the versions of the injured eye witnesses, the balance will not tilt infavour of the accused. On the other hand, it strengthens the case of the prosecution. Even though the learned advocate for the appellant drawn our attention to various portions of the evidence, spoken to by these witnesses, the same are not material contradictions, nor they are fatal to the case of the prosecution, to tilt the benefit to the accused. We may also place our reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Thoti Manohar Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2012) 7 SCC 723 wherein the Court after referring to its several earlier judgment held as under: "29. We find that the evidence of the injured witnesses who are close relatives to the deceased have really not embellished or exaggerated the case of the prosecution. They are the most natural witnesses and there is nothing on record to doubt their presence at the place of occurrence. By no stretch of imagination, it can be stated that the presence of the said witnesses at the scene of the crime and at the time of occurrence was improbable. Their version is consistent and nothing has been suggested to bring any kind of inherent improbabilities in their testimonies. 30. No evidence can ever be perfect for man is not perfect and man lives in an imperfect world. Thus, the duty of the court is to see with the vision of prudence and acceptability of the deposition regard being had to the substratum of the prosecution story." 31. The learned advocate for the appellant also drawn our attention to Ex.P1 and stated that there is a correction while mentioning the time of the incident. Earlier it was written as 8.00 am, but subsequently it is corrected as 7.00 am. In this regard the scribe of Ex.P1 was examined by the prosecution as PW8. During cross examination this witness admitted that there is correction and further stated that he himself corrected the timing while writing the complaint on the basis of the say of the complainant PW1. 32. In this regard the scribe of Ex.P1 was examined by the prosecution as PW8. During cross examination this witness admitted that there is correction and further stated that he himself corrected the timing while writing the complaint on the basis of the say of the complainant PW1. 32. The learned advocate for the appellant also drawn our attention and contended that even though FIR said to have been registered at 10.30 am, it has reached the Jurisdictional Magistrate only at 6.00 pm and therefore there is every possibility of embellishment. In this regard, we have given our thoughtful consideration to the first information-Ex.P1, FIR-Ex.P23 and the endorsement found therein. It is true that the incident had occurred at 7.00 am and the FIR was registered at 10.30 am on the same day i.e. 28.06.2012. Even though it is stated that the FIR was dispatched at 11.30 am, it was submitted to the Jurisdictional Magistrate at 6.00 pm on the said date. In this regard, the prosecution has examined PW26, who carried the FIR and submitted to the Jurisdictional Magistrate. Witness specifically stated in his evidence that after receiving the FIR at 3.00 pm, he went to Belagavi and submitted the same. During cross examination, it was suggested to this witness that the FIR was entrusted to him at 5.00 pm, but the said suggestion was denied by the witness. It is also suggested to the witness that he is deposing falsely at the instance of his higher officers. The said suggestion was also denied by the witness. There is absolutely no suggestion that there was embellishment in the first information. No such suggestion was made to the investigating officer examined as PW28. Under such circumstances, the contention of the learned advocate for the appellant regarding undue delay caused in submission of the FIR to the Magistrate, cannot be accepted. 33. The next submission made by the learned advocate for the appellant is that PW1 and 2 are the planted witnesses. The discussion held above reveals that PW1 was accompanied the deceased Bagawwa, who were the mother and daughter. PW2 is the daughter of PW1 and her child-Gayatri was also found injured in the incident. The first incident had taken place in front of the floor mill, whereas the second incident had taken place in front of the house of these witnesses. PW2 is the daughter of PW1 and her child-Gayatri was also found injured in the incident. The first incident had taken place in front of the floor mill, whereas the second incident had taken place in front of the house of these witnesses. Further nothing has been elicited from these witnesses to conclude that they are the planted witnesses. Under such circumstances, we do not find any merit in such contention. 34. It is also contended by the learned advocate for the appellant that accused No.1 is falsely implicated. But nothing has been elicited from any of the witnesses, including the investigating officer, that he was implicated falsely. For false implication of the accused, there must be a strong motive either for the first informant or for the investigating officer. No such suggestions were made either to PW1 or to PW28. No case is made out to form an opinion regarding false implication of accused No.1. The materials placed before us do not suggest that PWs.1, 2, 3 and 17 or the investigation officer had any strong reason to falsely implicate accused No.1, leaving the real assailants who caused the death of the deceased and assaulted PWs.3, 17 and the little child-Gayatri. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the grounds urged by the appellant/accused No.1 to seek interference in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence has no merits and the same is liable to be rejected. 35. The learned advocate for the appellant alternatively submitted that the incident might have occurred in the spur of moment. Even according to the case made out by the prosecution, the deceased Bagawwa had sustained only one injury and even as per the version of PW1, accused No.1 had assaulted her with only one blow on her buttock and under normal circumstance, it will not result in the death of the injured. He further submitted that as per the post mortem report Ex.P14, the deceased was aged 65 years. Therefore she might have succumbed to the injuries due to her old age. But unfortunately, no such materials are placed before the Court to strengthen such submission. There is not even a suggestion to PW15 to contend that the injury found on the dead body was not sufficient to cause her death in normal circumstance, but for her old age. Therefore she might have succumbed to the injuries due to her old age. But unfortunately, no such materials are placed before the Court to strengthen such submission. There is not even a suggestion to PW15 to contend that the injury found on the dead body was not sufficient to cause her death in normal circumstance, but for her old age. However, when we consider the evidence of PW1, the eye witnesses to the incident, she specifically stated that accused No.1 came armed with the sickle and suddenly assaulted the deceased Bagawwa on her buttock, causing bleeding injury. Her version is strengthened by post mortem report Ex.P14, where only one external injury i.e. stab wound (bone deep) measuring 6 inch x 2 inch present over gluteal region, illiptical in shape with sharp edge with injury to gluteal vissels, was found. The materials on record discloses that accused No.1 had not stopped there but on the other hand, he chased PW1 and 2 and when he could not reach them, he assaulted PW17 Chandrawwa and also dragged PW3-Gangawwa and assaulted her as well, with the same sickle. In the incident along with PW3 and 17, even the little girl Gayatri also sustained injuries. This sequence of incident spoken to by the witnesses, including the injured eye witnesses, do not suggest that accused No.1 had acted in spur of moment or that he was not having either the intention or the knowledge of causing the death of the deceased Bagawwa or grievous hurt to any of the injured witnesses. Under such circumstances, the submission of the learned advocate for the appellant cannot be accepted. 36. The discussions held above discloses that accused No.1 armed with sickle assaulted Bagawwa and caused bleeding injuries which has resulted in her death and thereby he has committed the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Further he assaulted PW17 Chandrawwa and PW3 Gangawwa with the same sickle with an intention to cause their death and caused grievous hurt and also caused hurt to Kum.Gayatri and in the meantime, he criminally intimidated the injured to do away with their lives and thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 326, 324, 504 and 506 of IPC. 37. 37. On going through the first information and the ocular evidence of the material witnesses i.e. PW1, 2, 3 and 17, it is noticed that they have not stated that accused No.2 had criminally intimidated any of them at the time of the incident. On the other hand, these witnesses have deposed that accused No.2 was holding an axe. But admittedly he had not assaulted any of the witnesses with the axe nor threatened or criminally intimidated them. Under such circumstances, we do not find any material against accused No.2 to convict him for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC. Therefore we are of the opinion that the trial Court, even though rightly acquitted accused No.2 for other offences, committed an error in convicting him for the offence punishable under section 506 of IPC. Therefore we are of the opinion that accused No.2 is liable to be acquitted and the appeal preferred by him is to be allowed. 38. We have gone through the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court. Even though the trial Court committed an error in convicting accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC, it has properly appreciated the materials on record with regard to the offence committed by accused No.1 and we do not find any reason to interfere with the same. Therefore we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court is required to be confirmed, in so far as accused No.1 is concerned, but the said impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against accused No.2 is liable to be set aside. 39. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal is allowed in part. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.07.2015 passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Belagavi in S.C.No.365/2012 against accused No.1-Sri.Babu Basavanni Kurubar, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 326, 324, 504 and 506 of IPC is confirmed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.07.2015 passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Belagavi in S.C.No.365/2012 against appellant No.2/accused No.2 Sri.Rajkumar @ Kumar s/o Babu Kurubar is set aside and he is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.07.2015 passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Belagavi in S.C.No.365/2012 against appellant No.2/accused No.2 Sri.Rajkumar @ Kumar s/o Babu Kurubar is set aside and he is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC. The bail bond of accused No.2 and surety bond stand cancelled. The learned Sessions Judge is hereby directed to refund the fine amount, if any, deposited by appellant No.2/accused No.2, on proper identification and acknowledgment. The trial Court is directed to secure the presence of appellant/accused No.1 Sri.Babu Basavanni Kurubar to serve the sentence. Registry is directed to send back the trial Court records, forthwith.