Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case: Rajendra @ Rajappa & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka (26 March 2021)

Date of the Judgment: 26 March 2021

Citation: 2021 INSC 174

Judges: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. and R. Subhash Reddy, J.

Can a High Court overturn a trial court’s acquittal in a criminal case? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a family dispute that escalated into a fatal assault. The court examined the extent to which an appellate court can interfere with a lower court’s decision, particularly when the lower court has acquitted the accused. This judgment clarifies the principles that appellate courts must follow when reviewing acquittals. The bench consisted of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice R. Subhash Reddy, with the judgment authored by Justice R. Subhash Reddy.

Case Background

The case revolves around an incident that occurred on 02 February 2003, in the State of Karnataka. The complainant, Sheshamma (PW-1), and her husband were returning from work when they were attacked by the accused, who were armed with axes, sticks, and other weapons. The deceased sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. The accused included the complainant’s father, uncles, and other relatives. The prosecution alleged that the attack was a result of a family dispute over toddy tapping rights. The complainant, along with her mother and brother-in-law, were witnesses to the incident.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The trial court, Fast Track Court-IV, Gulbarga, acquitted the accused nos. 2 to 5 and accused no. 6 of all charges. The trial court cited inconsistencies in witness testimonies, discrepancies in the timing of the incident, and the fact that key witnesses were not examined. The State of Karnataka appealed this acquittal to the High Court of Karnataka. The High Court reversed the trial court’s decision, convicting accused nos. 2 to 5 for various offenses, including murder, while upholding the acquittal of accused no. 6. The High Court found the testimonies of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 to be consistent and trustworthy, and held that the trial court had erred in disbelieving their evidence. The accused then appealed to the Supreme Court of India against this conviction.

Legal Framework

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

• Section 143, IPC: Punishment for being a member of an unlawful assembly.
• Section 147, IPC: Punishment for rioting.
• Section 148, IPC: Rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon.
• Section 149, IPC: Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object.
• Section 302, IPC: Punishment for murder.
• Section 304-II, IPC: Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
• Section 324, IPC: Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.
• Section 326, IPC: Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means.
• Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Deals with appeals in case of acquittal.

The court examined the application of these sections in the context of the facts presented, particularly focusing on the concept of common intention under Section 149, IPC.

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellants (Accused):

• The trial court had correctly assessed the evidence and found material discrepancies, thus the High Court should not have reversed the acquittal.
• The trial court’s view was a possible view, and therefore, the High Court should not have interfered.
• The medical evidence and the post-mortem report contradicted the prosecution’s timeline of the incident. Specifically, the presence of undigested food in the deceased’s stomach suggested that he might have died much earlier than the time alleged by the prosecution.
• The case did not warrant a conviction under Section 302 of the IPC, as there was no intention to kill the deceased. At most, it could be a case under Section 304-II of the IPC.
• Reliance was placed on Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra (1973) 2 SCC 793, Kanhaiya Lal & Ors. etc. v. State of Rajasthan etc. (2013) 5 SCC 655, and V.N. Ratheesh v. State of Kerala (2006) 10 SCC 617 to argue that the High Court should not have overturned the acquittal unless there were substantial and compelling reasons.
• Reliance was placed on Moti & Ors. v. State of U.P. (2003) 9 SCC 444 to argue that the medical evidence contradicted the prosecution’s case.

Arguments by the Respondent (State of Karnataka):

• The trial court’s findings were perverse and erroneous, and the High Court was correct in re-appreciating the evidence.
• The discrepancies in the evidence were minor and should not be a ground to discard the testimony of the witnesses.
• PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3 were trustworthy witnesses, and their evidence was natural and consistent with the prosecution’s case.
• The accused shared a common object to commit murder, and therefore, the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC was justified.
• The High Court had rightly reversed the trial court’s judgment, as the trial court had misconstrued the evidence.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal recorded by the trial court.
2. Whether the High Court was correct in convicting the accused under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court considered Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra [CITATION], noting that rural witnesses should not be judged by the same standards as urban witnesses.
• The Court also considered Kanhaiya Lal & Ors. etc. v. State of Rajasthan etc. [CITATION] and V.N. Ratheesh v. State of Kerala [CITATION], but clarified that these cases do not preclude appellate courts from reversing acquittals when the trial court’s findings are perverse or erroneous.
• The Court distinguished Moti & Ors. v. State of U.P. [CITATION], stating that the specific facts of the case supported the prosecution’s version of events.
• The Supreme Court relied on Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra [CITATION], to clarify that minor contradictions in witness statements should not discredit their testimony.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the credibility of the witnesses and the consistency of their testimonies with the medical evidence. The Court emphasized that the trial court had erred in dismissing the testimonies of PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3 based on minor discrepancies and their relationship with the deceased. The Court found that the High Court had rightly re-appreciated the evidence and found the witnesses to be trustworthy. The court also noted that the accused were also closely related to the witnesses, and therefore, the trial court’s reasoning for disbelieving the witnesses was flawed. The Court also considered the fact that the assault was intentional, and the accused shared a common object to commit murder. The court also noted that the post-mortem report also supported the prosecution’s case.

Logical Reasoning:

The court considered the argument that the medical evidence contradicted the prosecution’s timeline, but it noted that the post-mortem report also supported the prosecution’s case. The court concluded that the trial court’s view was not a possible view, and the High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal. The Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with the High Court’s decision, and upheld the conviction of the accused under Section 302/149 of the IPC.

The court quoted from the judgment, “The trial court has disbelieved their testimony by referring to some minor contradictions” and “the findings, as recorded by the trial court in support of the acquittal, are contrary to evidence on record and the testimony of PWs-1, 2 and 3” and “From the evidence on record, it is clear that the assault was intentional which resulted in the death of the deceased and all accused – A-2 to A-5 – had a common object”

Key Takeaways

• Appellate courts can reverse acquittals when the trial court’s findings are perverse or erroneous.
• Minor contradictions in witness testimonies should not discredit their entire evidence, especially in cases involving rural witnesses.
• The relationship of witnesses to the deceased does not automatically make their evidence unreliable.
• If the assault is intentional and results in death, and the accused shared a common object, a conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC is justified.

Directions

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence imposed by the High Court. No specific directions were given.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that an appellate court can reverse an acquittal by a trial court if the trial court’s findings are perverse, erroneous, or contrary to the evidence on record. The judgment reaffirms the principles of appellate review in criminal cases and clarifies that minor contradictions in witness testimonies should not automatically discredit their evidence. There is no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court’s decision to convict the accused, stating that the trial court’s findings were not in line with the evidence presented. The court emphasized that the High Court was correct in re-appreciating the evidence and finding the witnesses to be credible. This case reinforces the principle that appellate courts can and should reverse acquittals when the trial court’s findings are flawed.