Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11
PETITIONER:
NARAYANA GOPAL KRISHNA HEGDE& OTHERS
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/08/1996
BENCH:
G.N. RAY, K. VENKATASWAMI
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
VENKATASWAMI J.
All these appeals by special leave are preferred
against the common judgment of the Karnataka High Court in
criminal Appeal Nos. 791, 792 of 1988 and 129-130 of 1989
dated 20th July, 1990. Briefly stated the facts as presented
by the prosecution are the following :-
P.W. 16 Praveen Chandra was the Divisional Forest
officer of Sirsi Division during the relevant period. On
19.4.1988 at about 4.00 p.m. he received a phone call from
an annonymous caller that at night at about 1.00 a.m.
(20.4.1988) there was likelihood of a lorry transporting
forest produce from Manjuguni side and the same person
called P.W. 16 half an hour later and informed him that his
officials would do well to be Present near Kambigar cross at
about 11.00 p.m. itself.
The area referred to by the annonymour caller fell in
the jurisdiction of Hulekal Range Forest office.
Accordingly, P.W.16 summoned the deceased Arvind Hegde, the
concerned Forest Range Officer to meet him to take
instructions in connection with the above-said phone call.
The deceased met P.W.16 at about 6.3O p.m. on 19.4.1988 and
he was asked by P.W.16 to keep a watch at the Kambigar Cross
to intercept the lorry that was expected to transport
illegally cut forest fuel wood. The deceased was also
instructed to take necessary staff with him for his
assistance. The revolver in the custody of P.W. 16 was also
handed over to the deceased. One Mahabaleshwar Joshi was the
borther-in-law of the deceased and was also a Forest
contractor. Few days earlier he has lent his Ambassador Car
bearing No. MES 6008 with the deceased. The deceased
travelled in the said car from Sirsi Hulekal Range office
and took the assistance of P.Ws 2 and 3 (forest guards) and
went to Hegdekatta Forest Office to take the assistance of
P.W. 1 P.W. 1 was requested to secure the presence of P.Ws
4 & 5 (forest guards) for further assistance. P.W.s 2 and 3
were a armed with a gun each. The deceased further directed
the forest guards to place heavy stones across the road to
block free passage to the lorry. At about 3.30 a.m. on
20.4.1988, as expected, the lorry returned from kambigar
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11
Forest loaded with illegally cut jungle wood upto the body
level. The lorry had a nameboard "SHRIMAN NARAYANA’ and
registration No. MYE 5070. In spite of the deceased
signalling the lorry to stop, it fled away avoiding the
stones kept on the road. The deceased fired at it with his
revolver, but the bullet could not release. P.W. 2 also
fired from his gun, but it missed the target, namely, the
wheel tyre of the vehicle. Thereafter the deceased and his
men followed the lorry in their car and the lorry having
gone near the house of one Neelkantha Hegde stopped in front
of it. A-11 was driving the lorry and there were 4 persons
in the lorry. All of them got down and ran to the house of
Neelknatha Hegde.
Neelkantha Hegde, his sons, namely, A-1, A-3, A-4 and
A-10 as well as his Uncle’s sons, namely A-2, A-5, A-8 and
A-9 were all in the house and they came out of the house on
seeing the lorry. The deceased informed the accused who came
out of the house the A-11 had driven the lorry without
stopping the same in spite of signal was given to stop the
same. The deceased called upon them to produce any permit if
they had to cut and carry jungle wood. The accused replied
in the negative. When the deceased informed them that the
lorry would be seized, all the accused protested that they
would not allow him to seize the lorry, but wanted to unload
the wood. In spite of the deceased repeatedly informing them
about the various forest offences committed and about the
information they had already got and instructions given by
P.W. 16, the accused did not allow the deceased to discharge
his official duty. Realising the situation, the deceased
asked P.W. 5 to inform P.W. 16 on phone about the happenings
there. The deceased also asked P.W. 4 to go Sirsi and bring
P.W. 16 to the spot. Sensing the gravity of the situation,
A-4, A-6 and A-7 told the other accused that before the
arrival of P.W. 16, the lorry must be removed from that
place for the purpose of unloading the fuel elsewhere. The
deceased was also equally determined to carry out his job.
The deceased and P.W. 1 stood in front of the lorry on its
left side and P.W. 2 stood on the right side. While so, A-1
occupied the driver’s seat, A-8 and A-10 sat by his side in
the cabin. When A-1 started the engine, A-4, A-6 and A-7
dragged the forest guards aside and tore their uniform. A-2
and A-6 snatched the gun from P.W. 2. A-7 snatched the gun
held by P.W. 6. When the accused attempted to drive the
lorry, the deceased who was standing in front of it climbed
over the crashguard in front of the vehicle. A-2, A-3, A-5
and A-9 climbed into the body of the vehicle. A-1 started
the vehicle while the deceased was standing on the
crashguard. The guard and the foresters followed the lorry
running and at that time A-11 (who drove the lorry in the
first instance) emerged from his hiding and shouted that as
they were always facing obstructions from the forest guards
they should be killed. The lorry thus went to a distance of
about 11/2 further longs on that forest road then came to a
halt near yantalli Cross. When the lorry was at that Cross,
the forest guards heard the voice of the deceased that he
was being killed. A-1, A-8 and A-10 got down from the cabin
of the vehicle and A-8 started assaulting the deceased with
a jungle wood. All the accused had surrounded the deceased
and when the Guards reached the spot, they left the place
saying that everything was over. The shirt that the deceased
was wearing, one of the shoes, his rovolver with belt, his
waist belt were all lying near him and he was lying with
blood injuries and was found dead. That was about 5.10 a.m.
when P.W. 16 along with the Sub Inspector of Police, Sirsi
and some police personnel arrived at the spot, the deceased
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11
was shifted in a car to the Government hospital at Sirsi
along with P.Ws. 2, 3 and 6. P.W.1 gave written complaint at
the Sirsi Police Station at 9.30 a. m. A case was registered
as crime No. 37188. The Circle Inspector (P.W. 30) on
receiving information about the murder of the deceased and
his body being kept at the mortuary of the Government
hospital went there and seeing that some violence was likely
to take place, made arrangements for maintatining peace.
Thereafter he held inquest over the dead body, examined
witnesses and arrested Accused Nos. 1 to 6. P.W. 30 seized
MO-2 a blood-stained firewood pellet stated to have been
used in assaulting the deceased, the leather belt of the
deceased, one shoe, a cap, the revolver of the deceased, a
misfired bullet, blandstained earth, and 2 live cartridges.
On the left side mudguard of the lorry, some bloodstains
were seen and its scrapings were collected. The lorry was
seized under a mahazer. The Ambassador car was found parked
about 300 yards away from the spot where the deceased was
murdered. The switch key was in the dashboard. The two guns
that were carried by the two guards were also found on the
back side of the vehicle. Two used cartridges and one unused
cartridge was also lying there. After examining some more
witnesses, P.W. 30 handed over investigation to the Core of
Detectives (C.O.D.). P.W. 31 who took over further
investigation from P.W. 30, sent the blood-stained articles
for chemical analysis, sent the fire-arms, cartridges etc.
To the ballistic experts in the State Scientific Laboratory
and on completion of the investigation, filed the charge-
sheet.
All the accused stood charged for the offences
punishable under section 143, 147, 353 read with 149, 352
read with 149, 506 read with 149, 302 read with 149 & 114 of
I.P.C. and section 62(2) read with Section 104 of The
Karnataka Forest Act.
The substantial defence taken by the accused was that
they were falsely implicated at the instance of P.W.15. the
brother -in-law of the deceased who was also a rival forest
contractor like the accused and the deceased might have died
on account of hit by lorry or tuck accidentally They also
drew the attention of the trial court to the discrepancies
in oral evidence of P.Ws 1, 2, 3 and 6 as to who was
alleged to have caused the blew by jungle wood and also the
discrepancy regarding the cause of death as spoken to in
oral evidence and as recorded in p-53, 56 and 57. They also
relied on the fact of considerable delay in lodging the
F.I.R. which according to them, gave room to fabricate the
F.I.R.
The learned Session Judge on the evidence adduced
before him, both oral and documentary, bound A-11 quilty of
the forest offence under section 62(2) read with section 104
of the karnataka Forest Act and sentenced him to suffer R.I.
for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ in default to
undergo 2 months R.I. A-1 to A-10 were found guilty of
rioting under Section 147 I.P.C. and were sentenced to
simple imprisonment for 6 months each. A-1 to A-10 were also
found guilty under section 353 read with section 149 I.P.C.
and were sentenced to R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of
rupees one thousand each, in default to undergo R.I. for 3
months. In addition . A-1 to A-10 were also found guilty
under section 332 read with section 149 I.P.C. and they were
sentenced to R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.
1000/ each, in default to undergo R.I. for 3 months. In
addition, A1, A2, A3, A5, A8, A9 and A10 were found quilty
under Section 302 read with section 149 I.P.C and for that
they were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11
substantial sentences of imprisonment were directed to run
concurrently.
The accused aggrieved by the conviction and sentence
preferred tow appeals to the High Court. The State
Government also filed appeals against acquittal of some
accused under section 302 read with section 149 and also
another appeals for enhancement of sentence. The learned
counsel appearing for the accused reiterated the same
arguments in the High Court that were advanced before the
learned Sessions Judge. The learned judges of the high court
on consideration of the arguments and after perusing the
judgment of the learned Sessions judge and all connected
records partly allowed the appeals filed by the accused
persons by setting aside their conviction and sentence
passed for the offence under section 332 read with section
149 and consequently acquitted them of the said charge. The
learned Judges also set aside the sentence passed against
A2, A3, A5 and A9 under section 302 read with section 149
IPC and acquitted them of the said charge. so for as A1, A8
and A10 are concerned, their conviction under section 302
I.P.C. read with section 149 was however confirmed as
conviction under section 302 IPC red with section 34 IPC.
here sentence to suffer imprisonment for life was also
confirmed. Apart from this, the other convictions and
sentence imposed under section 353 read with section 149 and
147 were also confirmed. So far as the appeal filed by the
State are concerned, the High Court declined to interfere
with the conviction and sentence imposed. by the sessions
judgement on certain accused and consequently, dismissed the
appeal.
It is under these circumstances the accused have filed
these appeal by special leave against their conviction and
sentence and the State has Also preferred appals for
conviction of the acquitted accused and also for the
enhancement of sentence.
Mr. N. Natarajan, learned senior counsel elaborately
argue the matter before us and took us through the judgment
of the High Court and also through the relevant documents
and depositions. We do not propose to deal with all the
points raised and argued before us . We are inclined to
confine to the points that are crucial and are directly
relevant to the facts of this case.
On an overall perusal and appreciation of the facts, we
are satisfied that the accused were responsible for
committing the forest offence and in order to escape
punishment for that offence, they had driven away the lorry
loaded with billets of illegally cut forest fuel trees by
using criminal force and assaulting the concerned forest
officials from discharging their duties. Therefore, we are
not interfering with the conviction and sentence imposed on
the accused for those offences for which they were charged.
So for as the conviction and sentence of A, A8 and A10
for the offence under section 302 read with section 34 IPC
is concerned the act attributed to them was that these
accused were in the cabin of the lorry, A1 being at the
driver’s seat and drove away the lorry even though the
deceased prevented them from taking away the lorry by
clinging on to the crash board. The evidence of the
prosecution, namely, PWs 1, 2 and 3 on this aspect was hat
they also tried to prevent the lorry from moving from the
premises of NeelKantha Hegde. However, they were overpowered
by the accused by snatching away the guns from them and by
pushing them out from the way of the lorry. Thereafter,
according to them, they chased the lorry about furlong on
two when they said to have heard the voice of the deceased
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11
crying that he was being killed. When they actually reached
the place, the deceased was found dead and he lorry was
taken away from that place. We have seen from the evidence
as spoken to by the prosecution witnesses that PW1 was
having a torch and they were 100 ft away from the lorry and
they were able to see the attack by the accused (A1, A8 and
A10 ) on the deceased.
Here the contention of the learned counsel for the
accused was that there is vital discrepancy in the evidence
of PWs 2 and 3 on one hand and PW6 on the other. It is the
definite case of PWs 2 and 3 that it was A8 who got down
form the cabin of the lorry and attacked the deceased with
the forest wood which resulted in the dead of the deceased.
On the other hand, P.W. 6 gave evidence showing it was A1
who got down from the cabin with forest log and attacked the
deceased which caused the death. the other accused,
according to P.W. 6 were engaged in pulling the uniform,
revolver etc. from the body of the deceased. Though this
discrepancy was noticed by the High Court, according to the
learned senior counsel, that was not given due importance
while appreciating the defence case and convicting the
accused for the offence under section 302. He also submitted
that the log which was supposed to have been used to attack
the deceased was supposed to have been used to attack the
deceased was market was MO-2. The measurement of that log as
given in the panchanama and as spoken to by PW. 23 who has
subscribed as a witness to the panchanama was 42" in length
and 8" in diametre. According to the learned counsel a
single man cannot lift such a big log and with that attack
was alleged by the prosecution witnesses. It is the further
submission of the learned senior counsel that the High Court
has totally misunderstood the arguments advanced. before it
regarding the cause for the death, Namely, the deceased
might have been hit by a lorry or a truck. The High Court
presumed that the deceased was run over by a lorry. That was
nobody’s case. According to the learned senior counsel, The
lorry while trying to turn from the Tar road to Katcha road
there was small culvert and the ground was covered by
pebbles and there was just sufficient gap for the lorry
along to go in that katcha road whole crossing the culvert
and to deceased forest officer who has clinging on the crash
board of the lorry might have fallen from the lorry on the
pebbles on a rough surface which might have caused the death
and not as spoken to by the P.Ws. He also suggested that
P.Ws 1,2,3 and 6 could not have seen from a distance of 100
ft. At 3-4.00 A.M. in the forest area the exact cause for
the death of the deceased. The fact that there was a culvert
and 8 "Aswathakattas" was spoken to by PW 23. He also
submitted that even before the F.I.R. was registered the
cause for the death of the deceased as given by P.Ws 2 and 3
to the medical officer as recorded in Ex. P.53, P.56 and
P.57 supports the case of the defence that the cause for the
death of the deceased was by accident and not as spoken to
by P.ws. It is the contention of Mr. Natarajan. learned
Senior counsel for the accused that the High Court was not
justified in rejecting the evidence of P.W 25 the medical
officer and also the statements recorded by him in Ex. P.53,
P.56 and P-57. Mr. Natarajan also contended that the high
Court was not at all justified in convicting the accused for
offence under section 302 read with section 34 IPC while the
conviction by the learned Sessions Judge was for offence
under section 302 read with section 34 IPc while the
conviction by the learned Sections Judge was for offence
under section 302 read with section 149. According to the
learned counsel, there could not have been a common
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11
intention arrived at in the cabin by A1, A8 and A10 while
driving away the lorry and they wanted to avoid punishment
for forest offence committed by them and they never intended
to kill the fores officer in this connection. Lastly, he
submitted that the High Court knowing the weakness in the
prosecuting case has confirmed the conviction and sentence
on the basis of passobilities and inferences which cannot be
sustained.
The learned counsel appearing for the State supported
the judgment by referring to the findings giving by the High
Court and he also submitted the those findings are based on
appreciation of facts and they do not call for any
interference. Apart from that he also submitted that the
High Court was not justified in dismissing the state appeals
for conviction of the accused who were acquitted by the
Sessions Judge for the offence under section 302 I.P.C and
also for the offence under section 302 I.P.C and also for
enhancing the sentence.
We have carefully considered the submissions advanced
on both sides and also perused the judgments of the trial
court and that of the High Court. We are of the view that
the conviction and sentence awarded by the High Court under
section 302 read with Section 34 IPC requires further
consideration at out hands in the light of the well- sellted
principle that ’every accused is entitled to the benefit of
any reasonalbe doubt arising out of the facts and
circumstances of the case’. This Court has repeatedly
pointed out that the principle of extending the benefit of
reasonable doubt to the accused cannot be redly accepted,
But should be carefully applied if certain circumstances
exist and warrant the application of the principle. It is
sufffice to refer to the judgment of this Court in K. Gopal
Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1979 (1) SCC 355. this
Court in the said judgement abserved as follows:
"If tow resonably probable and
evenly balanced views of the
evidence are possible, one must
necessarily conceded the existence
of a reasonable doubt. But,
fanciful and remote possibilities
must be left out of account. To
entitle on accused person to the
benefit of doubt arising from the
possibility of a duality of views,
The possible view in favour of the
accused must be as nearly
reasonably preponderance of
probability is all one way, a bare
possibility of another view will
not entitle the accused to claim
the benefit of any view of the
evidence in favour of the accused
must be reasonable even as any
doubt, the benefit of which an
accused person may claim, must be
reasonable."
The Court further observed:
"A reasonable doubt", it has been
remarked, "does not mean some
light, airy, insubstantial doubt
that may flit through the minds of
any of us about almost anything at
some time or other. It dows not
mean a doubt begotten by sympathy
out of reluctance to convict: it
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11
means a real doubt, begotten by
sympathy out of reluctance to
convict: it means a real doubt, a
doubt founded upon reason, As
observed by lord Denning in Miller
V. Ministry of Pensions (1947) 2
all ER 372) "Proof beyond a
reasonable doubt does not mean
proof beyond a shadow of a doubt
does not mean proof beyond a shadow
of a doubt. The law would fail to
project the community if it
admitted fanciful possibilities to
defect the course of justice. It
the evidence is so strong against a
man as to leave only a remote
possibility in his favour, which
can be dismissed with the sentence
’of course it is possible but not
in the least probable’ the case is
proved beyond reasonable doubt, but
Karan vs. State of U.P. (AIR 1974
SC 1567 ), this court observed (at
p.1569):
"Neither mere possibilities nor
remote possibilities nor mere
doubts which are not reasonable
can, without danger to the
administration of justice, be the
foundaion of the acquittal of an
accused person, if there is
otherwise fairly credible
testimony.
Bearing the above well-settled principle in mind, we
well not examine the case put forward by the learned counsel
for the accused-appeallants. It is the contention of Mr. N.
Natarajan, learned senior counsel appearing for the accused
that the deceased might have died not by manhandling by the
accused (A1,A8 and A10) as spoken to by the prosection
witness, put on account of a fall from the crash board from
which the was clinging on when the lorry diverting from the
Tar road and entering into the katcha road. It is the
further argument of the learned counsel that this was not
properly appreciated by the High Court and the High Court
wrongly proceeded as if the argument was that the deceased
was run oven by the lorry. In this connection, it is
relevant to extract a portion of the evidence of P.W. 23 who
has subscribed as a witness to the Panchnama.
He deposed as follows:
"When we want to that place along
with PWs. 1 and 6, some forest
official and police officials were
present. No forest guards were
present at the time. The distance
from Nilkantha Hedge’s hose to
yentally cross is about tow
furlongs and not four furlongs as
suggested. There are
"ASWATHAKATTAS" Four numbers on the
eastern side and four numbers on
the western side towards the
southern side of Hegdekatta Sirsi
Road. There was a small "Kornakalu"
in the middle of Yentalli cross
road running about 17 1/2 feet. The
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11
eastern and western sides of
Yentalli cross road touches the
stone steps of two "ASWATHAKATTAS".
The witness volunteered that the
distance of 14 feet. The tyre marks
were visible after about 30 to 40
feet from the starting of Yentalli
cross as there was grass. The
places spread all oven the place.
It is not correct to suggest that
there was no marked kutcha road and
it is only a open ground."
This evidence is supported by
Panchanama which reads as follows
:-
"At the time of drawing Panchanama,
the eye witnesses recognised all
the article, said aforesaid
articles were seized by the C.P.I.
From the above said crime.
This place is abutting to
Hegdekatta Sirsi Tar road, katcha
road heading to Rudramule. It is at
distance of 2 furlongs east of the
house of the Neelkanta Hegde. This
palace is government forest, and
having survey No.423 of shivalli
village. Since there are totally 8
Ashwathakatta in this place. It is
called Yentalli Katta. Kachcha road
is in between Ashwath katta and
telephone pole No. A-II/19.
Distance between the place where
blood is found telephone pole is
10’-5’ and it is in east direction,
Kachcha road further heading to
south in direction and on the road
the fresh clear make of the tyre of
the lorry is found."
This is one aspect of the matter. The other aspect
pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused-
appellants was with regard to the nature of external
injuries which could have been caused, according to him,
Only by the fall of the victim from the lorry on a rough
surface and not by receiving blow with piece of jungle wood.
The external injuries caused were the follwoing:
(1) Two locerated wound over the
occipital region measuring 2" x 1/2
bone deep
(2) Contusion over the right cheek
8" x 6".
(3) Contusion of the right upper
eye lid was present. Bleeding from
both nostrils and left ear was
present.
(4) Multiple constructions and
abrasion over the chest wall,
anterior abdominal wall and back
were present.
(5) Abrasion over the anterior
aspect of the left thigh 12" x 12"
and another abrasion over the upper
part of the right thigh measuring
3"x 3".
(6) Abrasion over the right gluteal
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11
region and upper posterior aspect
of the right thigh 12" x 10".
On disection of the body, the internal injuries found
were the following:-
(1) Haematoma in the occipital
region 6" x 6" was present.
(2) Fracture base of the skull
extending through posterior and
middle cranial fossa on both sides.
Fracture of arbital roof on the
right side. Fracture at the tempora
occipital junction on the left side
and tempero frontal region on the
right side.
(3) Laceration of right cerebelum.
(4) On examination of the thorax
there was fracture of the 3rd of
5th rib in the anterior axillary
line on the right side. Fracture of
4th to 8th ribs at their junction
with vertebrae on the left side.
Pleura was torn on both side. About
500 CC. of blood was present in the
pleural cavity.
(6) Laceration of both the lobes of
the liver was present. Perinefric
haematoma was present 6 on both the
sides of kidney.
According to P.W. 25, the Medical Officer, the deceased
died due to shock and haemorrhage on account of injuries of
the vital organs.
To a suggestion put by the learned counsel for the
accused to the effect that all those injuries could have
been caused as a result of a fall from the medical officer,
did not rule out that possibility. Having regard to the
external injuries as extracted above, the contention of the
learned counsel for the accused-appellants that those
injuries could have been caused by the body coming into
contact with some rough surface on account of the rolling of
the bedy by a fall from the lorry cannot be brushed aside.
It is also noteworthy that the accused in order to take away
the lorry to distant place to dispose of the illegally cut
jungle wood diverted the same from Tar road to Katcha road
and the width of the Katcha road was just enough to allow
the lorry to enter in the Katcha road, where there were
"Ashwathakattas" Ashwathakattas" which means that peeple
tree surrounded by some small brick/stone structure further
narrowing the width of the road. It is also seen from the
Panchanama that on one side those "Ashwathakattas" were
there and on the apposite side there was a electirc pole.
All these things would strengthen the argument of the
learned counsel for the accused that the deceased could have
fallen from the lorry while the lorry turned from Tar road
to Katcha road and thereby sustained all the injuries.
Now coming to the contention of the learned counsel for
the accused-appellants that there was abnormal delay in
registering the F.I.R. We are of the view that by itself it
may not assume importance, but in the light of other
circumstances this delay may not be easily ignored. The High
Court itself found with the Station House Officer for not
registering the F.I.R. immediately when he was at the scene
of incident. The delay in registering the F.I.R assumed
inportance in view of the fact that in the Acident
Register, the cause of death was recorded as accident due to
hit by a trunk. This statement was recorded not only in one
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11
register, but in three registers, namely, Exs. P53, P56 and
P57. This was the earliest information given by P.Ws. 2 and
3 However, when they gave oral evidence, they have spoken
differently regarding the cause of death, namely,
manhandling of the deceased by A1, A8, and A10. According
to the defence counsel, the original version was changed to
suit the convenience of prosecution by registering the
F.I.R. belatedly. The High Court, however, brushed aside Ex.
P53, P56 and P57 by observing that they cannot be looked
into as substantive evidence even though they are marked on
the prosection side and they are public documents and
presumed to be genuine and duly recorded.
Yet another discrepancy pointed out by the learned
counsel for the accused was that the definite case of PWs.
1,2 and 3 was that it was A8 who got down from the cabin of
the lorry and hit the deceased by MO2 and others jointed in
tearing the uniform of the deceased by removing the revolver
etc. On the other hand, P.W. 6 has spoken that it was A-1
who got down form the cabin with M.O.2 and gave the flow to
the deceased and others jointed A1. This discrepancy was
noticed by the High Court. IT is again the contention of the
learned counsel for the accused-appellants that in the
forest area at about 3-4 A.M., P.Ws 1,2,3, and 6 have
followed the lorry by running behind it and alleged to have
seen the accused beating the deceased from a distance of 100
ft with the help of a torch light. this according to the
learned counsel, is not possible particularly when the place
of accurrence was forest surrounded by trees.
Lastly, it was contended that having regard to the size
of MO2 said to have been used by the accused attack the
deceased, the prosecution case must fail. we have noticed
that the size of MO2 as noted in the Panchanama was 41" in
length and 8" in diametre. In the normal course, it is not
possible for a person to handle that heavy material for
attacking anyone, If we take into account all these factors,
we entertain that there exists a reasonable doubt and the
benefit of which must go to the accused. We do not think
that there exists a reasonable doubt and the benefit of
which must go to the accused. We do not think that the
doubts created are either fancy or remote possibilities. On
the facts of this case, we are satisfied that evenly
balanced tow views are possible and, therefore, we are
inclined to give the benefit of reasonable doubt the accused
and hold that the charge against A1, A8 and A10 under
section 302 has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Before concluding we would like to share the
appreciation expressed by the High Court in the following
words:
"In that process, the efforts of
the deceased Range forest Officer
Hegdekatta should deserve
appreciation not only in hands of
his colleagues or officeal
superiors but also of the Court.
Even when the lorry started from
the precincts of the house of the
accused, disregarding his own
safety to personand life the
deceased clung to the crashguardin
order to prevent the lorry
proceeding further."
As regards conviction of other charges, we do not think
there is any case for interference.
In the result, the conviction and sentence of A1, A8
and A10 under section 302 read with section 34 IPC is set
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11
aside and the conviction and sentence in respect of other
offences is confirmed. I view of the above findings, the
appeals preferred by the State are dismissed.