Ningappa vs The State of Karnataka

The convicted accused nos. 1 to 3 in S.C. No. 117/2009 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Bagalkot, preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court in convicting them for the offences punishable under Section 302, 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for brevity hereinafter referred to as "IPC").

Before adverting to the grounds urged before this Court, it is just and necessary to bear in mind few facts that emanate from the records. P.W. 1-Rayappa Basappa Goudar is the complainant, resident of Bommanagi village along with his wife and deceased Nirmala who is the daughter. The said Nirmala was given in marriage to a person by name Hanamant Jummana Gouda. About a year after the marriage, the said Hanamant Jummana Gouda died. During the lifetime of Jummana Gouda, he had lands measuring 21 acres and 30 guntas in Sy. No. 49. Out of that extent, 6 acres of land was given to his sister''s son by name Dhariyappa and remaining lands were looked after by the said Nirmala after the death of her husband for her livelihood. In this context, the deceased Nirmala filed an application to get her name mutated in the relevant revenue records before the Tahsildar Bagalkot. The accused No. 1 in fact who is none other than the relative of Jummana Gouda, filed a counter application in order to obstruct the mutation entries to be in the name of Nirmala. In this context, admittedly there is a civil suit and also revenue proceedings pending between the parties. Inspite of the pending litigation, the complainant Rayappa and his daughter Nirmala were cultivating the lands. A criminal complaint is also pending between the parties with regard to attempted trespass and dispossession of the deceased from the land by the accused No. 1. In this background of the case it is alleged that in order to do away with the life of deceased Nirmala to usurp the properties from the said Nirmala, accused nos. 1 to 3 have hatched a plan amongst themselves and in pursuance of the same they decided to eliminate Nirmala.

On the ill fated day, i.e., on 11.08.2009 the said Nirmala and P.W. 1 Rayappa (complainant) were to attend the revenue Court at Bagalkot. They boarded a TOMTOM (Auto) vehicle from their village in order to go to Kudalasangama to catch the train to go to Bagalkot. Accused No. 3 was also in the said vehicle. The villagers by name Chandanagouda Ramaswamy Goudar, Ningappa Chandanagouda Goudar and some others have also boarded the said TOMTOM vehicle. All of them got down at a place called Manahalli cross. From there, they have to walk some distance to reach Kudalasangama Railway Station. Accused No. 3 who was also going along with the deceased and P.W. 1, went ahead talking in his mobile. The complainant and deceased and others walked about half a kilometer towards Kudalasangama. When they reached near the land of one Gangamma (P.W. 5), accused nos. 1 and 2 suddenly came across the road from a adjacent land holding choppers in their hands and all the accused Nos. 1 to 3 started abusing the complainant and his daughter-Nirmala. Hurling hues and abusive words against the complainant and his daughter, all the accused persons gathered to kill Nirmala and the complainant. By saying so, accused no. 3 caught hold of the plat/hairs of Nirmala, dragged her near a land and thrown her on the ground and facilitated accused nos. 1 and 2 to finish her. Being facilitated by accused no. 3, accused nos. 1 and 2 have indiscriminately assaulted on the neck, shoulder and other parts of the body of the deceased who sustained severe bleeding injuries and died on the spot. In fact, P.W. 1 attempted to rescue Nirmala but the accused persons have also assaulted P.W. 1 Rayappa on the left upper arm due to which he sustained grievous injuries.

It is the further case of the prosecution, that immediately somebody has informed the Police P.W. 13 Dhruvaraj Bhimanagouda Patil, P.S.I., came to the spot and saw the dead body. P.W. 1 was present at the spot, and lodged a report as per Ex. P.1 and thereafter P.W. 13 registered a case under the above said provisions and started investigation, conducted inquest proceedings and thereafter sent the dead body to the postmortem examination. During the course of investigation, the clothes of the deceased and also some bangle pieces and other incriminating articles, blood stained earth and unstained earth were also seized from the spot. Accused nos. 1 to 3 were apprehended and from them the blood stained shirts and blood stained choppers were also recovered. The Police have also recorded the statements of all the witnesses and after due investigation found sufficient materials to lay charge sheet against the accused. As such, the charge sheet has been laid against the accused persons.

The accused persons have contested the proceedings. The trial Court framed charges for the offences under Section 302 and 307 read with Section 34 of IPC. As the accused persons pleaded not guilty, after recording their plea the case was taken up for evidence. After completion of the prosecution evidence the accused were also examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and they were called upon to enter defence evidence, but the accused persons did not chose to lead any defence evidence. As such after hearing the detailed arguments on both the sides, the trial Court has recorded the judgment of conviction and sentenced the accused to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default, to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C., and also to undergo imprisonment for a further period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, with a default clause to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. The said judgment of conviction and sentence is called in question in this appeal.

In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined as many as 15 witnesses got marked 22 exhibits and 12 material objects. The accused persons have also produced certain documents during the course of their examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.

In support of the memorandum of appeal, it is argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that there are no believable materials produced before the Court in order to prove the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The Court below has mainly relied upon the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 4. All the other witnesses virtually turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. The Court below has failed to appreciate the evidence in its correct and proper perspective. Some independent witnesses though styled as eyewitnesses by P.W. 1 have not been examined and actually, (P.W. 4) who has been examined as an eyewitness, in fact, not an eyewitness because he is a close relative of P.W. 1. The alleged confession statements of accused nos. 1 to 3 recorded by the Police in order to show that some incriminating articles were recovered at the instance of accused nos. 1 to 3 are inadmissible and creates serious doubt as to the presence of P.W. 4 at the place of occurrence Therefore, looking from any angle the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is erroneous. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that lot of interrogatory questions have been put to P.W. 1 and P.W. 4 in order to elicit truth during the course of cross examination. Serious contradictions, omissions and improvements made by P.W. 1 and P.W. 4 have not been properly considered and appreciated by the trial Court. It is also contended that there is a strong motive against the accused persons in order to falsely implicate them into the crime. It is argued that taking advantage of the situation that somebody has committed murder of deceased Nirmala; P.W. 1 has lodged a false complaint against the accused persons in order to wreck vengeance in view of the civil and criminal litigations pending prior to the incident. Therefore, for all these reasons, the learned counsel pleaded for acquittal of the accused by allowing the appeal.

Per contra, Sri V.M. Banakar, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor strenuously contended that though the witnesses are relatives to deceased Nirmala but they are natural witnesses. P.W. 1 is the injured eyewitness. There is no reason to disbelieve him because he also sustained injuries in the incident. The previous litigation between the parties with regard to the land dispute and also criminal case pending against each other is also a strong motive for the accused nos. 1 to 3 to do away with the life of Nirmala so that they can get the entire lands belongs to the husband of the deceased. There is strong evidence of P. W. 1 and P.W. 4 who are the eyewitnesses to the incident though P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 who are also styled as eyewitness turned hostile to the prosecution. There is no reason to disbelieve the version of the Investigating Officer with regard to recovery of blood stained clothes at the instance of accused nos. 1 to 3 and blood stained choppers which contained stains of blood pertaining to the deceased Nirmala, which tallied with the blood stains on her clothes and also the blood stains on the stained earth recovered at the spot. Looking to the above said circumstances, it is not the quantity of the evidence required but the quality of the evidence placed before the Court are sufficient to draw the inference that accused persons have committed such an incident. Therefore, he contends that there is no room to interfere with the judgment of conviction recorded by the trial Court. Hence, prays for dismissal of the appeal.

Having heard the arguments of the learned counsels on both the sides, it is seen that there are four eyewitnesses examined before the Court, i.e., P.Ws. 1 to 4. P. W. 1 is no other than the father of the deceased Nirmala; P.W. 2 one Mallappa Yalagudrappa Goudar and P.W. 3-Babu Chandrasekhar Desai turned totally hostile to the prosecution. Even they have gone to the extent of saying that they do not know the appellants and P.W. 1-Rayappa and his daughter Nirmala and they never saw any incident i.e.; accused nos. 1 to 3 committing murder of deceased or assaulting P.W. 1. P.W. 4 one Yamanappa Vithalappa Nigari has categorically supported the case of prosecution, whose evidence fully corroborates the evidence of P.W. 1. P.W. 5-Gangawwa Dharmappa Pujari @ Sulad is the owner of the land situated adjacent to the railway station road between Munavalli cross to Kudalasangama Railway Station in which the incident taken place but she is not a material witness. She only says that she came to know about the death of a lady and she cannot say how the incident happened and at what time the incident happened but she has stated that in her land no crop was there at that particular point of time and she cannot also say what the survey number of the said land is. P.W. 6-Sidlingayya Neelakanthayya Bidarikodimath, is the TOMTOM vehicle driver cum owner. He has also not a material witness because he did not identify P.W. 1 or Nirmala or the witnesses by name Chandanagouda Ramaswamy Goudar, Ningappa Chandanagouda Goudar, etc. He cannot say whether on the date of incident those persons travelled in his TOMTOM vehicle. But he came to know that there was a murder of a lady resident of Bommanagi village. It is stated that on that particular day some persons have traveled in his vehicle and got down near Munavalli cross. Therefore, there is no much evidence available to the prosecution from the mouth of this witness. P.W. 7-Sachidanand Basayya Hiremath is a witness to the inquest proceedings-Ex. P.8, spot mahazar-Ex. P.9 under which M.Os. 1 to 5 were seized and is also witness to another mahazar Ex. P.10 under which clothes of the deceased M.Os. 6 to 8 were seized. He has also identified Ex. P.4 and Ex. P.5 which are the photographs of the spot and the dead body. P.W. 8-Yalgudrappa Nagalingappa Ambiger and P.W. 9-Mallikarjun Amargondappa Desai are the witnesses to Ex. P.11 and Ex. P.12 under which the Police alleged to have recovered blood stained clothes and blood stained choppers from the accused. Both the witnesses turned hostile to the case of the prosecution.

P.W. 10-Dr. Amrut Aravindrao Dambal is the Medical officer who conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Nirmala, as per Ex. P.13 and also issued wound certificate of P.W. 1 as per Ex. P.14. P.W. 11-Krishnappa Venkappa Benakatti is the Police Constable who carried the F.I.R. as per Ex. P.16 to the Court. P.W. 12-Pandappa Venkappa Mirji, another Head Constable who carried the clothes of the deceased and produced them before the C.P.I. which was seized under Ex. P.17. P.W. 13 is the Police Sub Inspector, Dhruvaraj Bhimanagouda Patil, who registered a case on the report lodged by P.W. 1 as per Ex. P.1 in Crime No. 153/09 of Bagalkot Rural Police Station and sent the F.I.R. to the Court. P.W. 14-Shekharappa Padiyappa Tolamatti, Police Inspector, is the Investigating Officer, who speaks about the arrest of accused no. 1 and he sent M.Os. 9 and 10 to the Doctor for his opinion and also after investigation filed charge sheet. P.W. 15 another Investigating Officer by name Gangadharappa who conducted inquest as per Ex. P.9, apprehended accused nos. 2 and 3, recorded their voluntary statements as per Exs. P.21 and 22 and recovered a shirt from accused no. 3 as M.O. 12, a shirt from accused no. 2, M.O. 11 under Ex. P11 and also recovered M.O. 9 and M.O. 10, choppers at the instance of accused nos. 2 and 3 under Ex. P.12. On the basis of the above said evidence the Court has to see whether the prosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt.

Before adverting to the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 4 whose evidence play a dominant role in this particular case. It is to be borne in mind, merely because P.W. 1 and P.W. 4 are the related witnesses, nevertheless P.W. 1 is the injured eyewitness, his evidence cannot be easily discarded. We are not impressed with the contention of the learned counsel that P.W. 1 is the sole and interested witness; P.W. 4 was not there on the spot. Therefore, their statements cannot be relied upon by the Court for confirming finding of conviction. It is settled principles of law that the Court can record a finding of guilt while entirely or substantially relying upon the statement of the sole eyewitness, provided his statement is trustworthy reliable and finds some corroboration from other source in the prosecution case. Further submission of the learned counsel that the material witness has not been examined. Therefore, reliance cannot be placed upon the sole testimony of P.W. 1. It is also settled preposition of law that it is not the number of witness that matters but it is the substance which is placed before the Court matters. Therefore, the quality of evidence placed before the prosecution is to be looked into but not the quantity.

It is worth to note here a decision of the Apex Court between Lallu Manjhi and Another Vs. State of Jharkhand, wherein the Apex Court has clarified that "the witnesses are of three categories, (a) wholly reliable, (b) wholly unreliable, and (c) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In the third category of witnesses the Court has to be very cautions and see whether the statement of such witness is trustworthy for acceptance."

The same preposition of law is applicable if the related witnesses are only examined and that their evidence must be trustworthy for acceptance. Even evidence of a sole witness if it is cogent, convincing, reliable and essentially fit into the circumstance of the case, then there is no bar to rely upon the evidence of such witness. It would not in any way affect the testimony of the eyewitnesses, though they are relatives, if their evidence stand to the test of close scrutiny by the Court and they withstood the searching cross-examination by the defence. The third contention of the learned counsel is also in our opinion does not stand to the reason that the evidence of the Investigating Officer alone cannot be relied upon for recovery of incriminating articles at the instance of the accused. We are conscious of the principle that if the evidence of the Investigating Officer is trustworthy, who are the public servants, who have no animosity against the accused persons nor interested in either of the parties except interested in bringing the truth before the court, if such being the case, their evidence can also be relied upon by the Court, though the panch witnesses turned hostile to the prosecution with regard to the recovery of incriminating articles at the instance of the accused persons. (refer Modan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, ). In the above said circumstances and also the law laid down by the Apex Court, this Court has to analyze the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 4 to ascertain whether their evidence create any confidence in the mind of the Court to confirm the judgment of conviction and sentence.

There is no dispute even by the accused persons, regarding existence of the civil dispute and also criminal case filed by accused no. 3 against so many persons in which P.Ws. 1 and 4 and deceased were also accused. There is no dispute with regard to the pendency of the civil case and revenue case between them. Thus, in our opinion, it is sufficient to create a motive either on the part of the accused persons to eliminate the deceased Nirmala or it is sufficient to lay a false claim against the accused persons by the prosecution witnesses. This projected motive is like a double edged weapon. If the other circumstances are satisfactorily established with regard to the commission of the offence by the accused persons, this motive could cut the case of the accused persons. On the other hand, if the prosecution fails to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt, this motive can also be a weapon which can cut the case of the prosecution. Therefore, in this background the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 4 play a dominant role.

P.Ws. 1 and 4 in their examination in chief have categorically stated about the incident that all of them on that particular ill fated day traveling in a TOMTOM vehicle, they got down at Munavalli cross and they were proceeding on their foot to reach Kudalasangama Railway Station. Of course, in the report of P.W. 1, the presence of P.W. 4 has not been specifically stated by P.W. 1. This has been very strongly taken as objection by the accused persons. However, in the said report which is marked at Ex. P.1 if it is read meticulously the whole of the case of the prosecution is categorically stated by P.W. 1, however, he has stated the presence of one Chandanagouda Ramaswamy Goudar, Ningappa Chandanagouda Goudar and accused no. 3 Yalagudrappa and some other persons were also boarded the said vehicle and got down at Munavalli cross and all of them were proceeding towards Koodalasangama Railway Station. However, these, Chandanagouda Ramaswamy Goudar and Ningappa Chandanagouda Goudar were not examined by the prosecution. It is categorically stated that some other persons were also present. Though it is not stated in the report, the name of P.W. 4, but it is stated that some other persons were also there and who got down at Manavalli cross. It is the fundamental basic principle of criminal jurisprudence that F.I.R. is not an encyclopaedia of the prosecution case. The Court cannot expect the minute details to be stated in the F.I.R. It is sufficient if sketchy information is given to the Police which is sufficient to disclose, a cognizable offence has been committed by the accused persons, the Police can register a case and investigate the matter. Therefore, it cannot be taken as an objection that merely because name of P.W. 4 has not been stated in the F.I.R. he cannot be called as an eyewitness to the incident. Whether he was present on the spot or is a trustworthy witness has to be tested after going through the evidence of this witness. Therefore, this ground, in our opinion, is not sufficient to totally discard the evidence of P.W. 4. In the said report P.W. 1. has also stated vividly with regard to the assault on the deceased and causing injuries at different parts of the body and sustaining of the injuries by him.

In the course of evidence these two witnesses have stated that after alighting from the TOMTOM vehicle they, in fact passed about 1/2 a kilometer or 3/4 kilometer towards Kudalasangama Railway Station, the accused no. 3 who was talking over his mobile phone just going ahead of this witness and Nirmala and other eyewitness, immediately at that point of time accused nos. 1 and 2 came across the road, started abusing P.W. 1 and Nirmala. Accused no. 3 caught hold of the plat/hairs of the deceased Nirmala and dragged her, thrown her on the ground facilitating accused Nos. 1 and 2. In fact accused Nos. 1 and 2 have assaulted her on the neck, left hand and other parts of the body. Nirmala having sustained severe injuries died on the spot.

It is also stated that P.W. 1 protested the act of accused nos. 1 to 3 in order to rescue Nirmala but accused nos. 1 and 2 have also assaulted P.W. 1 with a chopper on the left arm. It is stated in the examination in chief that the other eyewitness Mallappa and Channanagouda have demanded Rs. 2.00 lakhs for the purpose of giving evidence before the Court, perhaps that may be the reason the prosecution has given up without examining them.

One Mallappa Yalagudrappa Goudar-P.W. 2 has informed the Police and thereafter the Police came to the spot and P.W. 1 lodged the complaint as per Ex. P.1. But at that point of time P.W. 1 was remained at the spot. P.W. 2 though turned hostile to the prosecution case but he has categorically admitted that he came to know about the murder of the deceased and thereafter he informed the police and the Police caming to the spot. So, he cannot be treated as a total hostile witness, but he has substantiated the case of the prosecution with regard to the circumstances that, on that particular day P.W. 1 was present at the spot and he informed the Police. He identified the dead body and the spot as per Ex. P.4 and Ex. P.5 which are the photographs.

Cross examination of P.W. 1 in fact clinches the case of the accused, Very peculiarly some unpleasant questions were asked pertaining to his personal affairs suggesting that Nirmala was not the putative daughter of P.W. 1, nevertheless it will count very less so far as this case is concerned, when it is categorically admitted that P.W. 1 has been living with the mother of the deceased. P.W. 1 has requested not to put any questions with regard to the civil dispute as well as his personal affairs. The records disclose that the Court has also considered the said aspect, found that, unnecessary questions have been put by the learned counsel with regard to the civil and criminal cases though the witness has admitted pendency of those cases in the course of cross examination. P.W. 1 was also asked whether he can say, who are all persons were there along with them when they were proceeding towards Kudalasangama Railway Station, but he has stated that he cannot say how many persons were there. It is suggested that when the accused persons have confronted this witness, he ran away from the spot but he denied the said suggestion and stated that he remained there and protested the acts of the accused. It is also questioned whether the accused persons assaulted Nirmala first or this witness first, he stated that they assaulted him first and thereafter assaulted Nirmala. It is also suggested that after receiving the blow he fell down and lost conscious but he denied the said suggestion and answered that because of the blow given to him he fell down on the side of the road and thereafter he came back to protest the accused persons. Learned counsel for the appellants also shown M.O. 10-Chopper and asked the witness to demonstrate as to how the accused persons have assaulted Nirmala. In fact, the witness has categorically demonstrated as to how the accused persons have assaulted him and the deceased. Looking to the above said cross-examination, the factum of presence of this witness, sustaining of the injury by the witness and assault on Nirmala who died on the spot, have been virtually fortified in the course of cross-examination by way of suggestions.

Even in the course of cross-examination of P.W. 4 though at the initial stages it is seriously argued that he was not present at the time of the incident but in the course of cross-examination it is suggested to this witness that on the particular date lot of persons were present at the time of the incident and though he saw the choppers in the hands of the accused persons, he did not try to rescue because of the severe injuries on the body of Nirmala. He also stated that blood stains were there on the choppers. Some suggestions have been PUT to this witness also as to how many blows were given by the accused persons on the deceased and also P.W. 1. He in fact withstood the test of cross examination and stated as to how many blows were given on the deceased, etc. It is suggested that as to when, how the accused persons have assaulted the deceased. He has very meticulously described the incident. So, the cross-examination of these two witnesses show there is some discrepancy in explaining the incident and with regard to the blows inflicted on the deceased and also who assaulted whom and who had assaulted first and who sustained injury first, nevertheless the tenor of the cross-examination coupled with the facts stated in the examination in chief, clearly disclose the presence of P.Ws. 1 and 4 at the time of the incident and P.W. 1 sustaining injury and also death of Nirmala on the spot.

It is not that the Court can expect that the witnesses should give the evidence in a particular way. There must be some contradictions and omissions in the evidence of the witnesses, and then only they can be called as natural witnesses. If in a parrot like manner or stereographical manner witnesses depose before the Court, such evidence; definitely would create a serious doubt but if some contradictions and minor omissions are there those witnesses cannot be dubbed as false witnesses. It should be borne in mind that people may have varieties of perception and it all depends upon their remembering capacity, expressing capacity of the incident before the Police as well as before the Court. No particular set of reaction can be expected from the witnesses when they witnessed a ghostly incident like murder. It cannot also be expected that when the accused are armed with such a deadly weapons anyone can go near them to save the deceased or the other injured persons. It is also not unusual that the witnesses being afraid of the accused persons and they are taken aback with regard to the sudden unexpected incident being taken place in a fur of a moment. In this regard it is worth to note a decision of the Apex court between Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai Vs. State of Gujarat, , wherein the Hon''ble Apex Court has observed thus:

"Criminal courts should not expect set of reaction from eye witnesses on seeing incident of murder. If five persons witness one incident there could be five different types of reactions from each of them. It is neither a tutored impact nor a structured reaction which the eye witness can make. It is fallacious to suggest that eye witness would have done this or that on seeing the incident unless the reaction demonstrated by an eye-witness is so improbable or so inconceivable from any human being pitted in such a situation. It is unfair to dub his reaction as unnatural."

Therefore, the Court is bound to look into the entire gamut of the materials on record considering the evidence in the examination in chief and cross examination of the witnesses and overall understanding of the prosecution case. If the Court is of the opinion that the evidence of such witness though they are relatives, they are trustworthy, they can be relied upon and accepted.

In this backdrop of the case and on careful reevaluation of the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 4, it cannot be said that they cannot be believed. Though P.W. 1 has not mentioned the name of P.W. 4, but in the evidence before the court his presence is spoken to. Investigation officer has also stated that P.W. 4 is also an eyewitness and on the same day of the incident his statement was recorded without any delay and subsequently he came before the Court and deposed and also withstood the overawing and searching cross-examination by the accused makes these two witnesses trustworthy for acceptance. Therefore, we do not find any strong reasons to reject their evidence. Though, the evidence of P.W. 1 suffers from little contradictions and omissions, those contradictions and omissions do not go to the root of the prosecution case. It is quite but natural that witness though wholly truthful is liable to be overawed by the courts atmosphere, and piercing cross examination by the defense counsel, and out of nervous ness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, or fill up details from imagination on the spur of a moment. Therefore over importance should not be attached to such omissions and contradictions and minor discrepancies which do not go to the root of the matter and shake the basic version of the prosecution.

Therefore, we are of the opinion on that over all reevaluation of the materials on record; the prosecution has established its case beyond all reasonable doubt.

Now coming to the part of recovery of blood stained articles at the instance of the accused. Of-course P.Ws. 8 and 9 Yelegudrappa and Mallikarjun turned hostile to the prosecution case. Nevertheless both of them have identified their signatures in the documents Ex. P.11 and 12. There is no material to show that the Investigating Officer has got any ill-will or hatred against the accused persons. P.W. 14 arrested accused no. 1 and P.W. 15, interrogated the accused, recorded voluntary statements and recovered incriminating articles. Nowhere it is even suggested any animosity or interestedness in foisting a false case, by these two witnesses against the accused. In the absence of such materials before the Court there is no reason as to why public servants, i.e., the Investigating Officers, have to falsely implicate the accused persons into the crime.

Of-course it is argued that P.W. 7-Sachidanand Basayya Hiremath is also one of the accused in the private complaint filed by accused no. 3 but he is the witness only to inquest and spot panchanama. It is to be borne in mind that though P.W. 2 turned hostile he has identified the dead body on the spot and also identified Ex. P.4 and P5 which are the photographs of the dead body and the spot. These two photographs disclose lot of blood was fallen on the ground and dead body was on the spot itself. Therefore, the recovery of some articles at the spot cannot be disbelieved though some interestedness is shown to have been in existence in selecting P.W. 7 as witness to inquest panchanama. Ex. P.8 Inquest panchanama coupled with the evidence of P.W. 10-Dr. Amrut Aravindrao Dambal which only ensures homicidal death of the deceased. The spot mahazar-Ex. P.9 disclose that, from the spot the Police have collected one havoy slipper of the deceased, one left foot slipper alleged to be the slipper of the accused, green bangle pieces, blood stained soil and unstained soil from the spot. After the postmortem examination under Ex. P.10 in presence P.W. 7, M.O. 6 to M.O. 8 which are, the blouse, one saree and one langa were seized by the Police. It is seen from the records that P.W. 13 and 14 particularly P.W. 15-Gangadharappa has categorically stated that on 14.08.2009, the P.S.I. Rural Police Station arrested accused nos. 2 and 3 and recorded their statements as per Ex. P.21 and P.22 after securing panch witnesses. Accused no. 3 produced blood stained white mixed yellow shirt marked as M.O. 12 and accused no. 2 also produced a blood stained shirt marked at M.O. 11 and seized under Ex. P.11 on the same day accused nos. 2 and 3 took Police and the panch witnesses to the spot and shown the place near it, it was a bush from where one sickle and chopper were seized under Ex. P.12-mahazar which are marked as M.Os. 9 and 10. It is seen from the records that, these articles were stained with blood later sent to FSL. FSL report is available before the Court marked at Ex. P.18, which discloses that under letter no. 157/09 in Crime No. 153/09 CPC 675 these articles were sent to the FSL, Belgaum under which the blood stained clothes of the deceased, one jumper and Pattala and shirts of accused nos. 2 and 3 and two iron choppers were sent for examination. The Serology report and FSL Report disclose that these items were stained with blood and these items were actually stained with ''B'' group blood which clearly tallies with the blood group of the deceased. As narrated above, in the absence of any suggestion to the Investigating Officers that they are interested in the case and inimically disposed of against the accused persons and they are interested in the complainant''s case, therefore, they have foisted these documents in order to wreck vengeance against the accused in the absence of such evidence, their evidence cannot be easily brushed aside. In the absence of such suggestion there is no reason to disbelieve the version of the Investigating Officer in this regard. Though recovery of blood stained articles at the instance of the accused persons cannot be based as sole circumstance for recording conviction against the accused persons, nevertheless if the other materials are sufficient to corroborate such circumstances, the recovery also can be used as one of the circumstances to analyze and accept the total story of the prosecution case. Therefore, in our opinion, the said circumstance of recovery also strengthens the case of the prosecution and it cannot be easily discarded.

Apart from the above circumstances, the medical evidence is also fully supportive to the case of the prosecution. The Doctor who examined P.W. 1 and conducted the postmortem examination on the deceased categorically deposed before the Court (P.W. 10) that the deceased has suffered severe 7 injuries which are as follows:

A large transaction wound at the level of C2 vertebra dissecting the spinal cord, major vessels, trachea, esophagus and muscles only the head is left due to the support of skin tag left over the anterior aspect.

Another large transaction in the cervical region at C6 vertebra dissecting all the major vessels trachea, esophagus, muscles and spinal cord.

Abrasion over right shoulder measuring 2x3 inches.

Skin peeled out over interscapular region.

Cut lacerated wound over left forearm measuring 5 x 1 cm.

Left thumb distal phalanx chopped off.

Left ear dissected.

He also noticed fracture of occipital bone and the distal phalanx of left thumb of the deceased was chopped off and noticed occipital fracture running transversally measuring 8 cm x 0.2 cm and also observed laceration at trachea, vocal cord and C4 vertebral level. On the basis of such external and internal examination of the body he came to the conclusion that the death was due to cardio Respiratory failure secondary to spinal and hemorrhagic shock due to transaction of spinal cord and laceration of major vessels in the neck. Accordingly, he issued postmortem report as per Ex. P.13. It is also stated that the injuries were ante mortem in nature; they were less than 12 hours of age at the time of examination. He also examined P.W. 1 and found fracture of shaft of humorous over the left side which was grievous in nature. Further, it is stated by the Investigating Officer as well as this Doctor that the seized articles, two weapons, M.O. 9 and 10 were sent to the Doctor for examination and report. He has given his opinion as per Ex. P.15 stating that weapons are sufficient to cause injuries which were on the deceased as well as P.W. 1. It is stated by the Doctor that accused persons must have used hind portion of the weapons, either M.O. 9 or M.O. 10 in order to cause blunt injury on the humorous of the P.W. 1. Perhaps that may be the reason the trial Court has come to the conclusion that the accused persons had no intention to eliminate P.W. 1 and therefore they have used hind portion of the said weapon. Therefore, the accused persons were convicted for the offence under Section 326 of IPC so far as P.W. 1 is concerned.

Therefore, we do not find any strong reasons to differ from the opinion of the trial Court. It is suggested in the course of cross examination to the Doctor, that these injuries could also be caused by some other weapons but the Doctor has denied the said suggestion. Moreover it is suggested that due to the pressure of the Police he has issued such certificate but doctor denied the said suggestion. P.W. 10-Doctor is a public servant. During the course of his official duties he has conducted postmortem examination. The injuries found on the deceased and on P.W. 1 are fully corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 4 and 7. The Doctor''s opinion with regard to the weapons and injuries tally with the circumstances which are projected by the prosecution. Therefore, looking from any angle absolutely there is no mistake committed by the trial Court in convicting the accused persons. The prosecution, in our opinion, also proved its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, we do not want to interfere with the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. Consequently, the appeal is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.