Read Time: 14 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court on September 18, 2024, set aside the Karnataka High Court's judgment which reversed the acquittal of two men in a case of murder of a property dealer in Bengaluru in 2005.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Aravind Kumar said once the trial court found no evidence to convict the accused, the burden was upon the high court, while reversing the said judgment, to record clear findings in relation to each of the charges and, more particularly, the charge of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC. 

However, no such exercise was undertaken by the high court, the bench said, allowing an appeal filed by one Ramesh and another person against the high court's judgment of March 29, 2011.

The high court had held all five accused as guilty in the case for offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 120B and 302 read with 149 IPC.

All five men filed appeal before the apex court, which dismissed it in 2012 as they failed to surrender. The appeal was restored and admitted in 2016 upon the surrender of Ramesh, Kumara and Praveen Alexander. However, Praveen died during the pendency of the matter.

The court decided the appeal only with regard to Ramesh and Kumara.

According to the prosecution, five accused hatched a criminal conspiracy to murder Babureddy, the deceased, and attacked him with deadly weapons on February 07. 2005 at about 7:30 AM. The attack was stated to have taken place near Hullahalli Gate Bus Stand in Bangalore Rural District. The deceased, who was into real estate business, died en route to the hospital.

The bench noted that the trial court duly took note of the discrepancies and contradictions in depositions of the witnesses. 

The fact that none of the witnesses tried to intervene and rescue the deceased weighed with the trial court. Their conduct in not informing the police despite having mobile phones was also taken note of. The trial court noted that none of the witnesses had anything to say about the autorickshaw in which accused came, the bench recorded.

Significantly, the police recorded the statement of this witness, autorickshaw driver, one month and two days after the date of the incident. No explanation was offered by the police as to how they detected the whereabouts of this witness and the role played by him in the incident. The credibility of this witness was found to be highly suspected, given the delay in his surfacing and the contradictions in his evidence, the bench noted.

"If he was waiting near the bus stand, he would have himself witnessed the actual attack on the deceased, but he did not state so. He merely said that the accused returned ‘after half an hour’ with blood-stained clothes," the court pointed out.

The bench also said that the contradiction in the testimonies of the so-called eyewitnesses as to when the Spot Mahazar was recorded by the police was one more factor to dilute their credibility. 

"Each of the so-called eyewitnesses had a different time to offer in that regard. This clearly cast a suspicion on their presence at the spot and indicated clear possibility of manipulation of the evidence to suit the prosecution’s case. No independent witness was found by the Investigating Officer except for related witnesses, who were projected as eyewitnesses to prove the prosecution’s case. No effort was made to seize the clothes of these so-called eyewitnesses, which were stated to have been stained with the blood of the deceased while they were lifting him into the Maruti Van," the court said.

It also said that more damaging was the fact that the statements of the so-called eyewitnesses, were recorded under Section 161 CrPC one month after the date of the incident. This delay on the part of the Investigating Officer in recording their statements weighed heavily against the prosecution, the court pointed out.

Court also highlighted that the trial court also noted the fact that, in his complaint lodged with the police in the first instance, M Ramaiah (PW-1) did not name accused nos 2 and 5 but in the course of his deposition, he not only named them but also furnished minute details of the attack by each of them. 

Even the motive attributed to the accused stood diluted as the Investigating Officer admitted that he had not obtained any record in proof of the deceased mediating the alleged sale transaction between Ramesh, appellant no 1 and Narayanareddy (PW-10), it said.

"It was in these circumstances that the trial court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and extended the benefit of such doubt to them," the bench pointed out.

However, in appeal, the bench pointed out, that the high court merely summed up the depositions of the so-called eyewitnesses and baldly concluded that the presence of the eyewitnesses, PWs 1 to 3, could not be doubted.

"Surprisingly, despite the trial court detailing, at great length, the contradictions and discrepancies in their depositions, the High Court observed that the trial court had not pointed out any major contradictions which would discredit the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and the evidence of other witnesses. According to the High Court, the evidence adduced by the prosecution outweighed the findings recorded by the trial court, but no reasons worth the name were recorded by the High Court to support this conclusion," the bench said.

On the strength of these cryptic observations, the high court deemed it fit to reverse the judgment of acquittal; hold the accused guilty of the offences as charged and sentence them to imprisonment for life, the bench said.

Court also cited Chandrappa and others Vs State of Karnataka (2007), regarding the power of the appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against a judgment of acquittal. 

Referring to Rajendra Prasad Vs State of Bihar (1977), the bench said, "It has been observed in an appeal against acquittal, it would not be legally sufficient for the High Court to take a contrary view about the credibility of witnesses and it is absolutely imperative that the High Court convincingly finds it well-nigh impossible for the trial court to reject their testimony. This was identified as the quintessence of the jurisprudential aspect of criminal justice". 

"The brusque approach of the High Court in dealing with the appeal, resulting in the conviction of appellant nos 1 and 2, reversing the cogent and well-considered judgment of acquittal by the trial court giving them the benefit of doubt, cannot be sustained," the bench said, allowing the appeal and setting aside the high court's judgment.

Case Title: Ramesh and another Vs State of Karnataka