Sri Chikkegowda vs. State Of Karnataka Etc.

2025 INSC 1213
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.541-543 OF 2015
SRI CHIKKEGOWDA & ORS. ...APPELLANTS
VS.
STATE OF KARNATAKA ETC. ...RESPONDENTS

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1509-1510 OF 2015
NEELAKANTAPPA ...APPELLANT
VS.
STATE OF KARNATAKA ETC. ...RESPONDENTS


J U D G M E N T

VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. Sixteen (16) accused were put to trial for the
charges of unlawful assembly and culpable homicide
amounting to murder of one Mohan Kumar (deceased)
and for the charges of causing grievous hurt and
outraging modesty of the injured Smt. Annapurna
(PW-1), the wife of the deceased. During trial,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SONIA BHASIN
Date: 2025.10.09
18:52:38 IST
Reason:
Criminal Appeal Nos.541-543 of 2015 Etc.
Page 1 of 29


accused no.10 died, as such, proceedings against him
were abated. The trial proceeded against the surviving
fifteen (15) accused being accused nos.1 to 9 and 11 to
16. The Trial Court vide judgment dated 13.09.2010
acquitted all the accused of all the charges framed
against them in Sessions Case Nos.144 of 2003 and 196
of 2003. It would be relevant to note that Session Case
No.144 of 2003 proceeded against accused nos.2 to 16
as accused no.1 had been absconding, however, later on,
when he was arrested his trial was also committed and
was registered as Session Case No.196 of 2003.
2. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, the State
preferred Criminal Appeal No.161 of 2011 against all the
surviving fifteen (15) accused, whereas the
informant/injured preferred Criminal Appeal No.335 of
2011 against accused nos.2 to 9 and 11 to 16 and
further preferred Criminal Appeal No.345 of 2011
against accused no.1. All the three appeals were clubbed
together and vide common judgment dated 29.10.2014,
the appeals were partly allowed. The High Court
confirmed the acquittal of accused nos.7, 8, 9, 12, 13,
14, 15 and 16 of all the charges and at the same time
convicted the accused Nos.1 to 6 and 11 for offences
Criminal Appeal Nos.541-543 of 2015 Etc.
Page 2 of 29


punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 302 read
1
with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and
awarded them life sentence under Section 302 read with
Section 149 IPC and further lesser punishment under
the other offences. The sentences were ordered to run
concurrently. The High Court acquitted the above
convicted accused from the offences under Sections 326,
354, 341, 307 read with Section 149 IPC. Aggrieved by
their conviction, Appeal Nos.541 and 543 of 2015 has
been preferred by the convicted accused nos.1 to 6.
Further, Appeal Nos.1509-1510 of 2015 has been

preferred by the accused no.11.
3. On the fateful day, i.e., 16.03.2003, at about 06:00 a.m.,
when the deceased came out of his house in the village
carrying milk to the dairy, the sixteen (16) accused
persons, who bore previous enmity with the deceased
and the prosecution witnesses, blocked his way and
assaulted him with dangerous weapons, causing fifteen
(15) injuries as per the post-mortem report. They further

1
IPC.




Criminal Appeal Nos.541-543 of 2015 Etc.
Page 3 of 29


inflicted life-threatening injuries on the wife of the
deceased (PW-1), who had tried to save and shield her
husband and stop the accused from assaulting him.
Thereafter, upon the arrival of other residents of the
village, the accused persons fled the scene of crime.
4. The deceased and the injured (PW-1) were taken to the
Primary Health Centre (PHC) at Gandasi. Dr. Sunil
Kumar (PW-18) posted at the Primary Health Centre
referred them to the District Hospital as he did not have
sufficient facilities to treat the deceased who was still
alive at that time. Both the injured i.e. the deceased and
his wife (PW1) were then taken to J.C. Hospital at
Hassan, where after examining them, the doctors
declared that Mohan Kumar had been brought dead and
further started the treatment of his wife, the
injured(PW1). While the injured were still at the Primary
Health Centre at Gandasi, the police had reached there,
and PW-1 had narrated the entire incident. On the
written complaint prepared by the police at her dictation,
she affixed her signatures. On the basis of the said
complaint, a First Information Report was registered and
investigation commenced. The Investigating Officer
conducted the necessary inspections, prepared the site
Criminal Appeal Nos.541-543 of 2015 Etc.
Page 4 of 29


plan and the inquest, collected blood-stained and plain
earth from the place of occurrence, and took into
possession the weapons used in the crime, which had
been discarded by the accused while leaving the scene.
Upon the arrest of the accused, the Investigating Officer
further recovered certain other weapons at their pointing
out, recorded statements, and, being prima facie
satisfied with the evidence collected that it was a triable
case, submitted a police report under Section 173(2) of
2
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 . The Magistrate
concerned, after taking cognizance, committed the case
to the Sessions Court. The Trial Court thereafter framed
charges and read them out to the accused, who pleaded
not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. The prosecution examined in all twenty-three (23)
witnesses and also filed 33 documentary evidence,
which were duly proved and marked as Exts.P-1 to P-33
and further produced 13 material objects, which were
duly proved and marked as MO-1 to MO-13. On behalf
of the defense, two witnesses were examined –accused

2
Cr.P.C..



Criminal Appeal Nos.541-543 of 2015 Etc.
Page 5 of 29


no.1, Chikkegowda entered the witness box as DW -1
and one Dr. Kumar was produced as DW-2. The details
of the evidence led is as under:
Witnesses:
• PW-1 (Smt. Annapurna), informant/injured,
eyewitness,
• PW-2 (Suresh Babu), eyewitness,
PW-3 (Jayaprakash), eyewitness,
•
• PW-4 (Omkaramurthy), eyewitness,
• PW-5 (Raghupathi), eyewitness,

• PW-6 (Basavaraju), eyewitness,
• PW-7 (Manjula), eyewitness,
• PW-8 (Lohith), eyewitness,
• PW-9 (Shankarappa), eyewitness,
• PW-10 (Virupakshappa), witness of recovery,

• PW-11, Revenue Inspector, witness proved the
removal of encroachment/obstruction,
• PW-12 (Nandish), witness of spot inspection,
recovery of weapons and articles from place of
incident,
• PW-13 (Dharnish), witness of recovery of weapons
at the instance of accused nos.2, 3 and 4,

Criminal Appeal Nos.541-543 of 2015 Etc.
Page 6 of 29


• PW-14 (Manju Nath), Surveyor, had made the
measurements of the disputed land.
• PW-15 (Yogish), witness of recovery of sickle from
the house of Chikkegowda,

• PW-16 (Kantharaja), witness of the recovery of
sickle from the house of Chikkegowda,
• PW-17 (Dr. K.K. Hebbar), Medical Officer, who
conducted the autopsy.
• PW-18 (Dr. Sunil Kumar), the Medical Officer at the
Primary Health Centre, Gandasi,
• PW-19 (Shiva Kumar), part of the team which
arrested accused no.8-9.
st
• PW-20 (K.L. Ganesh), the 1 Investigating Officer,
rd

• PW-21 (H.N. Panchaksharappa), 3 Investigating
Officer.
PW-22 (H.G. Somashekar), produced the FIR before
•
the Magistrate,
nd
• PW-23 (A. Nagappa), 2 Investigating officer who
submitted the chargesheet.
Documents produced on behalf of the prosecution.

Criminal Appeal Nos.541-543 of 2015 Etc.
Page 7 of 29

Criminal Appeal Nos.541-543 of 2015 Etc.
Page 8 of 29

Criminal Appeal Nos.541-543 of 2015 Etc.
Page 9 of 29

List of Material Objects.

Criminal Appeal Nos.541-543 of 2015 Etc.
Page 10 of 29

6. The Trial Court after considering the evidence on record
extended the benefit of doubt to all the accused and
acquitted them of all the charges. The conclusion of
acquittal by the Trial Court is primarily based on the
following findings:
(i) It discarded the evidence of PW-1 while placing
reliance on the cross-examination of PW-17, Dr.
K.K. Hebbar (Medical Officer who conducted the
autopsy), wherein he stated that the deceased
could have died between 3:00 a.m. to 4:00 a.m.
(ii) It was influenced by the plea set up by the
defense that PW-1 was in an illegitimate
relationship with PW-3, and that PW-3, along
with his henchmen and PW-1, had committed
the murder of Mohan Kumar in the early hours
Criminal Appeal Nos.541-543 of 2015 Etc.
Page 11 of 29


of 16.03.2003, thereafter falsely implicating the
accused on account of enmity.
(iii) It observed that PW-18, Dr. Sunil Kumar, (the
Medical Officer at the PHC) had given a false
statement and had further improved his
statement in order to help the prosecution’s case
by stating that the deceased was alive when he
examined him at the PHC at Gandasi and
considering his serious condition and the nature
of injuries, he had referred him to a superior
medical centre.

(iv) It was of the view that the other eyewitnesses
were all planted and none of them had actually
witnessed the commission of the crime.
7. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, three
appeals were preferred before the High Court as already
detailed in the opening paragraphs. One appeal was filed
by the State of Karnataka and the other two appeals
were filed by the informant. The High Court considered
the material on record. It minutely and carefully
scrutinized the evidence led during the trial. The High
Court found that the view taken by the Trial Court was
not a probable view, the evidence had not been correctly
Criminal Appeal Nos.541-543 of 2015 Etc.
Page 12 of 29


appreciated and that the findings recorded were not
based on the correct appreciation of the evidence on
record. There was clear perversity in arriving at the
conclusion of extending benefit of doubt to the
accused(s). The High Court noted that the Trial Court
had committed a manifest error in disbelieving the
deposition of the injured PW-1, who was also the
informant. The reasons for disbelieving her testimony
were not sustainable in facts & in law. The reasons for
disbelieving the deposition of PW-1 were twofold, firstly,
that the time of death indicated by PW-1 was found to
be incorrect in view of the medical evidence given by PW-
17, Dr. K.K. Hebbar (the Medical Officer who had
conducted the autopsy) that the time of death could be
between 3:00 a.m. to 4:00 a.m, and not 6:00 a.m. as
stated by PW-1. The second reason was that the Trial
Court believed the defense version of castigating PW-1 of
having illegitimate relationship with PW-3 and the
theory that they in conspiracy with others, could have
committed the murder of Mohan Kumar, in the dead of
the night and thereafter falsely implicated the accused(s)
due to existing enmity.
8. The High Court found that both these grounds taken by
Criminal Appeal Nos.541-543 of 2015 Etc.
Page 13 of 29


the Trial Court to disbelieve PW-1, the
injured/informant, were absurd and contrary to the
settled legal position of appreciating the testimony of an
injured eyewitness.
9. The High Court clearly observed that medical evidence
cannot prevail over the ocular testimony and, therefore,
merely because PW-17, Dr. K.K. Hebbar (the Medical
Officer who conducted the autopsy), stated in his cross-
examination that the death could have occurred between
3:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m., the same cannot be taken as
the exact time of death. Once the injured had clearly
stated right from the stage of her first statement, which
formed the basis of the First Information Report, and
with which she remained consistent even during trial,
the mere observation/opinion of PW-17 that the death
could have occurred between 3:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m.
could not be taken to be the exact time of death.
10. The post-mortem report did not mention the exact time
of death but only noted that it could have occurred 10 to
12 hours prior to the time the post-mortem was
conducted. Since the post-mortem was carried out
between 3:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. on 16.03.2003, the
time of death falling 10 to 12 hours earlier could very
Criminal Appeal Nos.541-543 of 2015 Etc.
Page 14 of 29


well correspond to the time stated by PW-1, i.e., around
6:00 a.m.
11. Further, the High Court found that the defense theory
relating to an illicit relationship between PW-1 and PW-
3 as being the reason for the divorce of PW-3 from his
wife could not be accepted, as the marriage of PW-1 with
the deceased had been solemnized sometime in the year
1996-97, whereas the divorce petition of PW-3 had been
filed in the year 1995 itself. Thus, when the marriage of
PW-1 with the deceased had not even taken place, the
plea of an illicit relationship being the cause of PW-3’s
divorce could not be substantiated. Merely because a
suggestion was put to one of the witnesses, PW-9,
regarding the alleged relationship, no credibility could be
attached to the said defense version.

12. It is also worth noting, as mentioned by the High Court,
that no suggestion was put to PW-1 in cross-
examination regarding her alleged illicit relationship
with PW-3.
13. Proceeding further, the High Court found that the
testimony of PW-18, Dr. Sunil Kumar (the Medical
Officer at PHC, Gandasi) could not have been discarded
Criminal Appeal Nos.541-543 of 2015 Etc.
Page 15 of 29


or disbelieved and that he had no reasons to give a false
statement.
14. The High Court also separated the grain from the chaff.
It meticulously scrutinized the evidence of each witness.
It disbelieved a couple of witnesses who were examined
as eyewitnesses; however, it relied upon only those
eyewitnesses who were able to withstand the test of
scrutiny, and whose testimony remained unshaken even
after cross-examination.

15. The High Court did not convict all the accused but only
seven out of sixteen (16), affirming the Trial Court’s
conclusion of acquittal for the rest. It also acquitted the
present appellants of the charges of outraging the
modesty of PW-1 and of attempt to murder, convicting
them only for causing grievous hurt with respect to the
injuries suffered by PW-1. It is thus noticeable that the
judgment of the High Court reflects an overall balanced
and reasonable approach. It did not fully accept the
prosecution version, but relied only upon that part for
which credible evidence had been led.
16. We have heard learned Senior counsel/counsel for the
parties and have perused the material on record.
Criminal Appeal Nos.541-543 of 2015 Etc.
Page 16 of 29


17. Learned senior counsel for the appellants primarily
attacked the judgment of the High Court on two grounds:
a) Firstly, the High Court did not record any finding,
nor arrive at a conclusion, that the view taken by
the Trial Court in recording acquittal was not a
probable view. In the absence of such a finding or
conclusion, the conviction recorded by the High
Court was palpably incorrect and contrary to the
settled legal principles governing interference with
a judgment of acquittal. The law is well settled that
unless the Appellate Court arrives at a conclusion
that the reasoning given by the court below in
recording acquittal was perverse and not a
probable view, it could not upset the same or
substitute the acquittal with a conviction. Reliance
was placed upon the following judgments:
(i) Muralidhar alias Gidda v. State of
3
Karnataka.
(ii) Krishna @ Krishnappa v. State of

3
(2014) 2 SCC(Crl) 690.


Criminal Appeal Nos.541-543 of 2015 Etc.
Page 17 of 29


4
Karnataka.
The second argument advanced on behalf of the
appellants was that the evidence of the
injured/informant, PW-1, was unreliable and liable
to be discarded. The Trial Court, after considering
the material on record, had rightly concluded that
the deposition of PW-1 was not worthy of reliance.
The defense had created a clear dent in the
prosecution story by setting up the plea that PW-1
and PW-3, along with their accomplices, were
themselves involved in the murder of Mohan
Kumar, the husband of PW-1, on account of their
illicit relationship. Furthermore, since PW-17, Dr.
K.K. Hebbar (the Medical Officer who conducted
the post-mortem), had stated that death occurred
around 03:00 to 04:00 a.m., the version of PW-1
that the incident happened around 06:00 a.m. was

4
Criminal Appeal No.162 of 2009, dated 14.11.2014.








Criminal Appeal Nos.541-543 of 2015 Etc.
Page 18 of 29


not worthy of reliance. The Trial Court had
therefore rightly extended the benefit of doubt to
the appellants after taking into account other
inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence
led during trial. Apart from these two main
submissions, several minor discrepancies were
also pointed out by the learned senior counsel for
the appellants.
18. In response, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-State of Karnataka, vehemently submitted
the following:
(a) That the High Court has dealt in detail about the
patent fallacies committed by the Trial Court in
recording the acquittal. It is clear from a bare reading
of the judgment of the High Court that it had dealt
with all the aspects and findings of the Trial Court,
which it found to be perverse;
(b) The appellants are not correct in submitting that the
High Court did not record any finding that the
conclusion of acquittal arrived at by the Trial Court
was not a probable one;
(c) Further, the evidence of PW-1, the
Criminal Appeal Nos.541-543 of 2015 Etc.
Page 19 of 29


injured/informant has been rightly relied upon by
the High Court for reasons recorded therein. The
injuries of PW-1 were neither disputed nor challenged
by the defense. Further, it is also not the case of
defense that the injuries had been self-inflicted;
(d) The theory set up by the defense that PW-1 and PW-
3, in conspiracy, had got the husband of PW-1
murdered was unacceptable, as in that case there
would have been no occasion for PW-1 to sustain
injuries.;
(e) An injured witness, having sustained grievous
injuries, would not falsely implicate others while
leaving out the true assailants who had murdered her
husband;
(f) Enmity between the parties was admitted, and the
deceased had succeeded in securing access to a
public road for one of the witnesses after getting the
encroachment and illegal possession of the accused
removed only a couple of months earlier. There was
thus a very strong reason for the accused to eliminate
the deceased, as they were frustrated and annoyed
by his support and pairvi in securing access to the
Criminal Appeal Nos.541-543 of 2015 Etc.
Page 20 of 29


public land for the said witness;
(g) It was also submitted that the evidence of PW-1
stood corroborated by the medical evidence both PW-
17 and PW-18, regarding the injuries caused, the
manner in which it had been caused and the use of
the weapons as narrated by the PW-1;
(h) Even if some of the witnesses had faltered, the
testimony of a single witness, if of sterling quality,
would be sufficient to record a conviction. The High
Court dealt with this aspect of the matter in detail
and relied upon two other eyewitnesses who
supported the deposition of PW-1.
19. Having considered the submissions advanced and
having scrutinized the material on record, we are of the
firm view that the High Court has not committed any
error warranting interference. The reasons for the same
are elaborated hereinafter.
20. The first argument raised on behalf of the appellant,
that the High Court erred in not recording a finding,
while upsetting the order of acquittal, that the view
taken by the Trial Court could not have been a probable
view, is misplaced. The High Court meticulously dealt
Criminal Appeal Nos.541-543 of 2015 Etc.
Page 21 of 29


with the findings recorded by the Trial Court and, short
of expressly stating that they were absurd, clearly found
grave error in the reasoning given by the Trial Court.
Even if the High Court omitted to write a single line
stating that the view taken by the Trial Court could not
have been a probable view, it would be unfair and unjust
to hold that the judgment of the High Court could be
faulted on this ground.
21. We have examined the testimony of PW-1, the post-
mortem report, as well as the testimony of PW-17, Dr.
K.K. Hebbar, who conducted the post-mortem.
According to PW-1, her husband was murdered
sometime around 6:00 a.m. According to the post-
mortem report, conducted the same day between 3:00
p.m. and 4:00 p.m. by Dr. K.K. Hebbar (PW-17), it was
recorded that death could have occurred about 10 to 12
hours earlier. Counting backwards from 3:00 p.m. to
4:00 p.m., the time of death would thus relate to between
5:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. The time of death can never be
defined with accuracy; it can only be given as a probable
estimate during autopsy, with a margin of a couple of
hours (plus/minus) always being assumed.
22. PW-1 in her testimony clearly stated that the incident
Criminal Appeal Nos.541-543 of 2015 Etc.
Page 22 of 29


took place at 6:00 a.m. She vividly described how the
assailants, after obstructing her husband from carrying
the milk, assaulted him with dangerous weapons, and
also described the specific roles played by the assailants.
She herself sustained grievous injuries, which are
supported by medical evidence, and the injury report
was duly proved. The injuries sustained by her were not
challenged by the defense, either by disputing the injury
report or by alleging that they were self-inflicted to create
false evidence. The evidence of Dr. Hebbar, PW-17,
proved the post-mortem report; however, during cross-
examination by defense counsel, when asked whether
death could have occurred between 3:00 a.m. and 4:00
a.m., he answered in the affirmative. It is this part of the
cross-examination which was heavily relied upon by the
Trial Court as a major factor to discard the testimony of
PW-1
23. It is well settled that if there is a conflict in the ocular
testimony and the medical testimony/evidence, it is the
ocular evidence which will prevail unless found to be
totally unreliable. In this regard, reference may be made
to the followings decision wherein the above principle
was reiterated:
Criminal Appeal Nos.541-543 of 2015 Etc.
Page 23 of 29


23.1. In the judgment of Darbara Singh v. State of
5
Punjab , it was held that:

(Emphasis supplied)


6
23.2. In the judgment of State of U.P. v. Hari Chand ,
it was held that:

5
(2012) 10 SCC 476.

6
(2009) 13 SCC 542.


Criminal Appeal Nos.541-543 of 2015 Etc.
Page 24 of 29



23.3. In the judgement of Pruthviraj Jayantibhai Va-
7
nol v. Dinesh Dayabhai Vala & Ors , it was held
that:

consistently accorded greater weight to ocular
testimony than to the opinion of medical experts,
and the same principle governs the case before us.
24. From the testimony of PW-1, we do not find that she had
faltered in any manner, or that her version in the
examination-in-chief, which was fully in line with the
First Information Report and her statement under
Section 161 CrPC, could be said to have been impeached.
During cross-examination, the defence could not elicit
anything from PW-1 to render her testimony unreliable
or worthy of being discarded. Interestingly, the defense
did not put a single question to PW-1 challenging her
injuries, the injury report, or even with regard to her

7
(2022) 18 SCC 683.



Criminal Appeal Nos.541-543 of 2015 Etc.
Page 25 of 29


alleged illicit relationship with PW-3. In such
circumstances, the disbelieving and discarding of the
testimony of PW-1 by the Trial Court was purely
conjectural and unsustainable in law. The High Court
has rightly found fault with the said finding of the Trial
Court.
25. The other reason for discarding the evidence of PW-1 by
the Trial Court was with respect to the defense theory
that PW-1 was in an illicit relationship with PW-3 and
that they had jointly conspired to eliminate the deceased
(husband of PW-1) by hiring or with the help of
accomplices of PW-3. The reason given for the illicit
relationship was that PW-1 was responsible for the
divorce of PW-3. In the evidence of PW-9, Shankarappa
(father of the deceased), when this question was put to
him during cross-examination, he stated that the
divorce proceedings of PW-3 had taken place sometimes
in 1995 whereas the marriage of PW-1 with the deceased
was of the subsequent year 1996-1997. Thus, the cause
of divorce of PW-3 with his wife would not have been
attributed to PW-1 and her alleged illicit relationship
with PW-3. In any case, as already noted above, the
defense did not make any suggestion during the cross-
Criminal Appeal Nos.541-543 of 2015 Etc.
Page 26 of 29


examination of PW-1 that she had an illicit relationship
with PW-3 and that they had conspired together with
other accomplices of PW-3 to eliminate her husband, the
deceased. What inspired the Trial Court to rely upon
such a theory set up by the defense, which had no
supporting documents or evidence is not understood.
The Trial Court ought to have condemned the conduct of
the defense in unnecessarily casting aspersions upon
PW-1.
26. Apart from the above two reasons, which weighed
heavily with the Trial Court in according the acquittal,
which we have found to be totally untenable, we now
proceed to deal with the other factors and the evidence
on record which justify the conviction recorded by the
High Court.

27. The prosecution had proved that the death of the
deceased was homicidal. The time and place of the crime
were also established, the FIR was promptly lodged and
duly communicated to the Magistrate concerned, and
the medical evidence supported the prosecution version.
PW-18, Dr. Sunil Kumar (the Medical Officer in-charge
of the PHC at Gandasi), had examined the injured PW-1
and stated that the deceased, who was then alive, should
Criminal Appeal Nos.541-543 of 2015 Etc.
Page 27 of 29


be immediately referred to a higher medical centre
considering his critical condition due to the injuries
sustained by him. The police reached the PHC at
Gandasi and recorded the oral statement of PW-1, on the
basis of which the First Information Report was
registered. The prosecution further proved all the
recovery memos relating to various recoveries made from
the spot as well as from the accused persons pursuant
to their statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act,
1872.
28. We also find that the High Court has taken a balanced
view and has minutely scrutinized the evidence. It
confirmed the acquittal of accused nos. 7, 8, 9, and 12
to 16, having found insufficient evidence to record their
conviction. It also found insufficient evidence with
respect to the charge of outraging the modesty of PW-1
and the charge of attempt to murder, holding that the
injuries sustained by PW-1 were grievous in nature but
not dangerous to life. The High Court further relied upon
the testimony of PW-1, and in addition, that of another
eyewitness, PW-7, while discarding the evidence of the
other eyewitnesses.

Criminal Appeal Nos.541-543 of 2015 Etc.
Page 28 of 29


29. The formal witnesses who proved the recovery, the
injuries, the post-mortem, the arrest, and the
Investigating Officers have neither turned hostile nor
been found unworthy of reliance. For all the reasons
recorded above, we find no ground to interfere with the
impugned judgment of the High Court convicting the
appellants.
30. The appellants are in custody and shall continue to serve
out their remaining sentence as per law. The appeals
are dismissed.
31. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
……………………………J.
[VIKRAM NATH]


……………………………J.
[SANJAY KAROL]


……………………………J.
[SANDEEP MEHTA]

NEW DELHI;

OCTOBER 07, 2025
Criminal Appeal Nos.541-543 of 2015 Etc.
Page 29 of 29