MALLIKARJUN AND OTHERS versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

MALLIKARJUN AND OTHERS versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

The Supreme Court held that the ocular testimony of PW-5 (mother) and supporting evidence of PW-7 were credible and corroborated by medical evidence; minor discrepancies and delay in FIR were satisfactorily explained; recovery of MO-1 is admissible despite hostile panch witnesses based on investigating officer's evidence; on the totality of evidence convictions of accused Nos.1 and 2 under Sections 302 r/w 34 and 448 r/w 34 IPC were upheld while serious doubts as to the presence of accused No.4 required giving him benefit of doubt and acquitting him.

Parties
Appellant Accused No.1: Mallikarjun; Appellant Accused No.2: Ravi; Co Accused No.3 (absconding): Maruti; Appellant Accused No.4: Balappa; Respondent: State of Karnataka
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
08 August 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court Against Conviction and Sentence (judgment on Appeal)
Outcome
Appeal partly allowed: convictions of accused Nos.1 and 2 affirmed; conviction of accused No.4 set aside and he is acquitted; appeal dismissed as to accused Nos.1 and 2.
Legal Topics
Eye Witness Appreciation, Expert/medical Evidence, Delay in FIR Registration, Recovery of Weapon/panch Witnesses, Benefit of Doubt, Conviction and Sentence
Criminal Law Evidence Eye Witness Appreciation Expert/medical Evidence Delay in FIR Registration Recovery of Weapon/panch Witnesses Benefit of Doubt Conviction and Sentence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mallikarjun

Appellant Accused No.1

Ravi

Appellant Accused No.2

Maruti

Co Accused No.3 (absconding)

Balappa

Appellant Accused No.4

State of Karnataka

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court Against Conviction and Sentence (judgment on Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the ocular evidence of PW-5 and PW-7 is reliable despite minor discrepancies
  2. 2 Whether the medical/expert evidence negates the possibility of injuries being caused as alleged by the prosecution
  3. 3 Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and delay in receipt by the Magistrate vitiates the prosecution case

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the ocular testimony of PW-5 (mother) and supporting evidence of PW-7 were credible and corroborated by medical evidence; minor discrepancies and delay in FIR were satisfactorily explained; recovery of MO-1 is admissible despite hostile panch witnesses based on investigating officer's evidence; on the totality of evidence convictions of accused Nos.1 and 2 under Sections 302 r/w 34 and 448 r/w 34 IPC were upheld while serious doubts as to the presence of accused No.4 required giving him benefit of doubt and acquitting him.

Court Disposition

Appeal partly allowed: convictions of accused Nos.1 and 2 affirmed; conviction of accused No.4 set aside and he is acquitted; appeal dismissed as to accused Nos.1 and 2.

Orders

  • Conviction and sentences of accused No.1 (Mallikarjun) and accused No.2 (Ravi) under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and under Section 448 IPC read with Section 34 IPC are confirmed.
  • Conviction of accused No.4 (Balappa) is set aside and he is acquitted of all charges.