Supreme Court reduces sentence in assault case due to delay: Venkategowda & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka (2006)

Citation: Appeal (crl.) 851 of 2006
Judges: A. K. Mathur & Lokeshwar Singh Panta

In a case involving a violent assault, the Supreme Court of India addressed the question of whether the High Court was justified in convicting the accused based on the evidence presented, and also considered the impact of delay in lodging the First Information Report (FIR). The case revolves around an incident where several individuals were accused of forming an unlawful assembly and causing the death of one person while injuring two others. The Supreme Court, after reviewing the evidence, partly allowed the appeal, reducing the sentence for some of the accused while acquitting others due to lack of sufficient evidence. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justices A. K. Mathur and Lokeshwar Singh Panta.

Case Background:

The incident occurred on November 4, 1986, around 6:30 p.m. when Rajanna (P.W.1), Kenchaiah (P.W.3), Lakshmana (P.W. 10), and the deceased Venkatesh were returning from the Co-operative Society at Chowdanapalya after collecting food grains. They were confronted by Venkategowda (A-1), who initiated a quarrel regarding their work in Thimmappa Gowda’s garden despite being asked not to. The situation escalated, leading to a violent assault.

Govindappa (A-4) assaulted Rajanna (P.W.1) with a spear, and Govindaiah (A-5) used a club. Shivanna (A-3) assaulted the deceased Venkatesh with a club, while Venkategowda (A-1) and Muddegowda (A-2) attacked the deceased with choppers. As a result, Venkatesh collapsed at the scene. Lakshmana (P.W.10) managed to escape, while Rajanna (P.W.1) and Kenchaiah (P.W.3) were persuaded to leave the injured Venkatesh behind.

Rajanna (P.W.1) filed a complaint at Kudur Police Station on November 5, 1986, which was registered as Crime No. 177/1986. The police visited the scene and found Venkatesh with injuries. Venkatesh was then taken to various hospitals, eventually passing away on February 4, 1987. The cause of death was determined to be respiratory failure resulting from complications related to the fractured thigh bone.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings:

The trial court acquitted all the accused due to delays in lodging the FIR and contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses. However, the High Court of Karnataka overturned this decision, convicting all the appellants under Sections 143, 148, and 326 IPC read with Section 149 IPC, sentencing them to five years imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000 each.

Legal Framework:

The case involves several sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC):

• Section 143, IPC: Deals with the punishment for being a member of an unlawful assembly.
• Section 147, IPC: Addresses the offense of rioting.
• Section 148, IPC: Concerns rioting while armed with a deadly weapon.
• Section 324, IPC: Relates to voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.
• Section 302, IPC: Defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 149, IPC: Specifies that if an offense is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offense, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offense.

Arguments:

Arguments by the Appellants:

• The trial court rightly acquitted the appellants due to prior enmity and false implication after deliberation.
• There were discrepancies and improvements in the versions of Rajanna (P.W.1), Moodalagiri (P.W.2), and Kenchaiah (P.W.3).
• The High Court erroneously convicted the appellants without properly noticing the contradictions in the ocular evidence.

Arguments by the Respondent-State:

• The evidence of the injured witnesses and the eyewitness, corroborated by medical evidence, should not be rejected.
• The High Court has a duty to reconsider the evidence and correct the error committed by the trial court.
• The conviction of Venkataramanaiah (A-6) and others cannot be justified due to a lack of satisfactory evidence.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in convicting the appellants based on the evidence presented.
2. Whether the delay in lodging the FIR impacts the veracity of the prosecution case.
3. Whether the discrepancies in the testimonies of the witnesses are significant enough to doubt the prosecution’s case.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court: “The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues”

Authorities:

The court considered the following authorities:

• Peddireddy Subbareddi And Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh [AIR 1991 SC 1356] – Relied upon by the appellants to argue that delay in lodging the FIR casts doubt on the prosecution case. The Supreme Court distinguished this case, noting that in Peddireddy, the testimony of the sole witness was clouded with strong suspicion, and the delay of 15 hours in lodging the FIR raised concerns about false implication.
• Amar Singh v. Balwinder Singh And Others [(2003) 2 SCC 518] – Cited to argue that delay in lodging the FIR does not automatically render the prosecution case doubtful. The court reiterated that the impact of delay depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, including the condition of the informant, the nature of injuries, and the distance to the police station.

Judgment:

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Peddireddy Subbareddi And Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh [AIR 1991 SC 1356]: The court distinguished this case, emphasizing that the facts in Peddireddy involved suspicious testimony and significant delays, which were not as pronounced in the present case.
• Amar Singh v. Balwinder Singh And Others [(2003) 2 SCC 518]: The court followed the principle that delay in lodging the FIR does not automatically invalidate the prosecution’s case, and the impact of delay depends on the specific circumstances.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?:

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by several factors, including the reliability of the eyewitness testimonies, the corroborating medical evidence, and the explanation provided for the delay in lodging the FIR. The court found that the discrepancies in the testimonies were minor and did not undermine the core of the prosecution’s case against Venkategowda (A-1), Muddegowda (A-2), Shivanna (A-3), Govindappa (A-4), and Govindaiah (A-5). However, the lack of sufficient evidence connecting the other appellants to the crime led to their acquittal.

Fact:Law

The court emphasized the factual aspects of the case, particularly the eyewitness testimonies and medical evidence, while also considering the legal principles related to delay in lodging the FIR and the burden of proof.

Logical Reasoning:

For the issue of whether the High Court was justified in convicting the appellants, the court’s logical reasoning can be summarized as follows:

Evidence Presented -> Reliability of Eyewitness Testimony -> Corroborating Medical Evidence -> Explanation for Delay in FIR -> Sufficient Evidence for Some Appellants -> Justified Conviction for Venkategowda (A-1), Muddegowda (A-2), Shivanna (A-3), Govindappa (A-4), and Govindaiah (A-5) ↓
Lack of Evidence for Other Appellants -> Unjustified Conviction for Venkataramanaiah (A-6), Rajashekaraiah (A-7), Lakkegowda (A-8), Rama (A-9), Shivanna (A-10), Mahadeva (A-11), Ganghahanumaiah (A-12), Singraiah (A-13), Annaiah (A-14), Bettegowda (A-15), Chikkanna (A-16), Govindaiah (A-17), and Rama (A-18)

The court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them based on the weight of the evidence and the specific circumstances of the case. The final decision was reached by carefully balancing the factual and legal aspects, ensuring that the conviction was supported by credible evidence.

The court’s reasoning included the following key points:

• The eyewitness testimonies of Rajanna (P.W.1), Kenchaiah (P.W.3), and Moodalagiri (P.W.2) were found to be reliable and trustworthy.
• The medical evidence corroborated the injuries sustained by the victims, supporting the eyewitness accounts.
• The delay in lodging the FIR was adequately explained and did not undermine the prosecution’s case.
• There was a lack of sufficient evidence to connect the other appellants to the commission of the offenses.

“The discrepancies, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, are minor and insignificant.”

“There was no basis for Rajanna (P.W.1), Moodalagiri (P.W.2) and Kenchaiah (P.W.3) to falsely implicate the appellants Venkategowda (A-1), Muddegowda (A-2), Shivanna (A-3), Govindappa (A-4) and Govindaiah (A-5) in the present case.”

“It is settled law that the delay in lodging the FIR will not be fatal in every case if the ocular version of the eyewitnesses is reliable and trustworthy.”

Key Takeaways:

• Delay in lodging an FIR is not always fatal to the prosecution’s case if the eyewitness testimony is reliable and the delay is adequately explained.
• The credibility of eyewitness testimony is a critical factor in determining the guilt of the accused.
• Medical evidence that corroborates eyewitness accounts strengthens the prosecution’s case.
• Convictions must be based on sufficient evidence, and mere conjectures or surmises are not enough to sustain a conviction.

Directions:

The court directed that Venkataramanaiah (A-6), Rajashekaraiah (A-7), Lakkegowda (A-8), Rama (A-9), Shivanna (A-10), Mahadeva (A-11), Ganghahanumaiah (A-12), Singraiah (A-13), Annaiah (A-14), Bettegowda (A-15), Chikkanna (A-16), Govindaiah (A-17), and Rama (A-18) be released from jail forthwith if not required in any other case.

Development of Law:

The ratio decidendi of the case is that while delay in lodging an FIR can be a factor in assessing the credibility of the prosecution’s case, it is not fatal if the eyewitness testimony is reliable and the delay is adequately explained. This reinforces the principle that the courts must consider the totality of the circumstances in each case when evaluating the impact of delay in lodging the FIR.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, upholding the conviction of Venkategowda (A-1), Muddegowda (A-2), Shivanna (A-3), Govindappa (A-4), and Govindaiah (A-5) under Section 326 read with Section 149 IPC and Sections 143 and 148 of the IPC, but reducing their sentence from five years to one year rigorous imprisonment. The court acquitted Venkataramanaiah (A-6) and others due to lack of sufficient evidence, emphasizing that convictions must be based on concrete evidence rather than mere conjectures.