State Of Karnataka v. Jagadevappa

The judgement of the court was delivered by

JUDGMENT

This criminal appeal by the appellant-State, after grant of leave, is directed against the impugned Judgment and Older of the trial Court dated 5.7.1999, whereby or whereunder the trial Court has acquitted the respondents of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 448, 302 and 201 read with section 149 of IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is:

The deceased Smt. Karemma was the wife of one Mallinath who was the son of the deceased accused Ningawwa. Alter the death of the said Mallinath, there arose a dispute between the deceased accused-Ningawwa and deceased Karemma in respect of certain land which was initially standing in the name of Mallinath and subsequently, entered into in the name of the deceased Karemma and which was in possession of the deceased Karemma. In order to get back the said land from the deceased Karemma, the deceased accused Ningawwa along with the respondents herein who are her relatives, formed into an unlawful assembly on the intervening night of 12/13.6.1994 in front of the house of the father of the deceased Karemma by name Shankarappa at Bennur village, with the common abject to commit the murder of the deceased Karemma and in prosecution of the common object of such unlawful assembly, the accused trespassed into the house of the said Shankarappa during his absence where the deceased Karemma was sleeping along with her daughter Jagadevi. Having so entered into the house, all the accused persons besides committing assault on the deceased Karemma, took her out of the house forcibly by threatening her daughter Jagadevi who was then present in the house. Ultimately, they committed the murder of the deceased Karemma and thereafter, they threw the dead body of the deceased Karemma in a well situated at Bennur village with an intent to cause the evidence of having committed the murder of Karemma to disappear and also to screen themselves from the legal punishment. After the deceased was removed from her house forcibly by these accused, her daughter Jagadevi went and informed this fact to her grand-mother Chandamma who at that time was found in the house of her another daughter. Thereafter, the said Chandamma came along with Jagadevi to the house from where the deceased had been assaulted and removed by the accused persons. Thereafter, a search was conducted for the deceased. Ultimately, on 15.6.1994, the dead body of the deceased Karemma was found lying in the well situated in Bennur Village. After seeing the dead body of the deceased lying in the well, one Dasarath went and informed this feet to the concerned Police, who on the basis of the information laid by Dasarath registered the UDR case. On 16.6.1994, the Investigating Officer visited the well and after removing the dead body of the deceased from inside the well, he held the inquest proceedings on the dead body of the deceased as per the inquest report Ex.P7 He also conducted the spot panchanamas Ex.P8 and P10 and seized thereunder MOs. 3 and 5. On the same day, he recorded the statements of certain witnesses and returned to the police station at about 8 p.m in the night and registered a suo moto case in Crime No. 29/94. Upon completion of the investigation investigation, the concerned police placed the charge sheet against the respondents for the offences stated supra. After the case was committed to the Sessions Court for trial, the accused persons having pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them, they were put on trial for the above said offences.

3. In the course of the trial, the prosecution had examined PWs. 1 to 17 and placed on record Exs.P1 to P17 and MOs. 1 to 9. The defence also got exhibited Exs.D1, D1(a), D2 and D2(a), the portions of the statements of FW.7 and PW. 10. The accused when examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C have denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence.

4. Out of the 17 witnesses examined by the prosecution, PW. 1 who is a resident of Varvi village had participated in the two panchayaths which were held prior to the incident and he speaks to the probable motive for the accused to commit the crime, PW.2 was working as a school teacher at Bennur and he knew Dasarath as well as the accused Nos. 1,-2, 6 and 7. He was examined by the prosecution to speak regarding the accused having chased Dasarath on that relevant day. But unfortunately, he did not speak to this fact and hence, he was declared as hostile and was cross-examined with the leave of the Court. PW.3 was the ASI of Nelogi Police Station and that on 30.6.1994 he had arrested the accused persons A1, A5 and A6 and produced them before the Investigating Officer. PW.4 was the Head Constable of Nelogi Police Station who had accompanied the ASI on 15.6.1994 at about 8 or 9 p.m in the night to Bennur Village. Subsequently, he had also attended to the postmortem duty on 16.6.1994 and 17.6.1994 After the postmortem examination was over, he had produced MOs.1 to 4 before the Investigating Officer. PW.5 was an Engineer working in PWD at Jewargi. At the request of the concerned Police, he had visited Bennur Village on 26.8.1994 and prepared a sketch map of the scene of incident (well) as per Ex. P3. He was also shown the house wherein the deceased was living, by the Police. He did not, however, enter into the house of the deceased. According to him, there were several houses in between the said well and the house wherein the deceased was living in the village. PW.6 is the father of the deceased Keremma. After the death of her husband, the deceased Smt. Karemma was residing with him in his house at Bennur. He speaks to the panchayath and the probable motive for the accused to commit the crime. Further, about a few days prior to the incident, since the accused persons had attempted to assault him and his son Basavaraj, he had shifted himself to Sholapur along with his son Basavaraj and during the relevant time of this incident, he was staying at Sholapur. PW.7 is the wife of PW.6 and the mother of the deceased Smt. Karemma. She is also related to the accused. On that relevant day, she had gone to the house of her another daughter and while she was in that house, her grand daughter Jagadevi came and informed her of the incident She also speaks to the fact that during the relevant time, her husband PW.6 and his son Basavaraj had been staying at Sholapur being afraid of the accused persons. PW.8 is the Medical Officer who conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 17.6.1994 She has issued the postmortem report which is as per Ex.P4 Ex. P5 is the provisional opinion regarding the cause of death of the deceased issued by her. PW.9 is the daughter of the deceased Smt. Karemma. She was staying with the deceased and she is an eye-witness to the occurrence. After witnessing the incident in question, she went and informed the occurrence to PW.7 PW.10 was the Dalapathi of the village. He is also the brother of PW.6 He had laid the information to the Police as per Ex.P6 and on the basis of which, the UDR case was registered by the concerned police. Further, according to him, when he was proceeding to the house of the deceased, after seeing the dead body of the deceased tying in the well, he was chased by the accused persons and ultimately rescued by PW.2 PW. 13 is a panch witness for the inquest proceedings held on the dead body of the deceased as per the inquest report Ex.P5 He is also an attestor to the spot panchanama and the recovery mahazar as well as the mahazar drawn near the well. He did not, however, support any of these panchanainas recorded by the Police and hence, he was treated as hostile. PW. 12 is a panch witness for the recovery of the saree at the instance of the accused No. 1 on 1.7.1994 under a panchanama Ex.P9 He did not also support the circumstance regarding the recovery. He would only admit the fact that he has attested the panchanama Ex.P9 and that further, he had seen the saree at the Police Station. He was declared as hostile to the prosecution. PW. 13 is a co-panch of PW. 12 and he has also turned hostile to the prosecution. PW. 14 was the ASI of Nelogi Police Station and that on 15.6.1994 at about 1 p.m on the basis of the information laid by Dasarath regarding the unnatural death of the deceased, he registered the UDR case and forwarded the report to the Taluka Executive Magistrate, visited the spot at about 7.30 p.m in the night and made over the investigation to the PSL PW. 15 was the PSI of Nelogi Police Station and that on 15.6.1994 he visited Bennur and camped there during the night. He took up the further investigation of this case from the ASI PW. 14. On 16.6.1994 at about 7 am. in the morning, he got the dead body of the deceased removed from the well and held the inquest proceedings as per the inquest report Ex.P7 and he further conducted a spot panchanama at the well as per Ex.P8 He also conducted the spot panchanama Ex.P10 at the house of the deceased and seized thereunder MOs. 3 and 5. He sent the dead body of the deceased for postmortem examination on 16.6.1994 itself and recorded the statements of certain witnesses On 16.6.1994 itself, he returned to the police station and registered the crime suo moto and issued the FIR. He has also done a part of the investigation. PW. 16 was a contractor at Bennur. Since he had resiled from his previous statement made before the Investigating Officer, he was treated as hostile witness. He has denied having made any statement to the Police as per Ex. P12. His evidence would however show that Shankarappa and his son Basavaraj were at Sholapur and he had informed them of the missing of the deceased and they have come to Bennur Village after they were so informed by them. PW. 17 is the Investigating Officer who took up the further investigation from the PSI PW. 15 and after completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the accused persons. This in short is the summary of the evidence adduced at the trial by the prosecution.

5. At the conclusion of the trial, the trial Court on consideration of the evidence placed on record and after hearing the submissions on both sides, has by its impugned judgment and order, acquitted the respondents herein, of the offences charged against them. Hence this appeal against the order of acquittal by the appellant-State.

6. We have heard the arguments of the learned State counsel as well as the learned counsel for the respondents at a considerable length and carefully perused the entire materials placed on record by the prosecution including the impugned judgment of the trial Court with their assistance.

7. Learned State counsel in support of the appeal has contended as under:

That at the relevant time of the incident, the deceased Smt. Karemma was staying along with her daughter Jagadevi FW9 in the house of her father Shankarappa, where the incident in question had started with the accused trespassing into the house and committing assault on her. Further, they forcibly took away or removed the deceased Smt. Karemma in the very presence of her daughter Jagadevi PW9 who was all alone present at that time in the house. Thereafter, they threw the dead body of the deceased into a well by tying stone to the body. That on 15.6.1994, the dead body of the deceased Smt. Karemma was found floating in the well. One Dasarat who saw the dead body of the deceased floating in the well went and informed the said fact to the police and on the basis of which, since the culprits were not known, the UDR case was registered. Thereafter, on 16.6.1994, the inquest proceedings were held on the dead body of the deceased and the statement of the witnesses were recorded and on the basis of which, the crime was registered suo moto by the police. Dasarat PW10 who laid the information about the unnatural death of the deceased was not an eyewitness to the occurrence and hence, he could not have known as to how the incident in question has occurred. But however, he has clearly stated in his report that on that relevant night, the daughter of the deceased had approached Chandamma PW7 and that the said Chandamma PW7 having made efforts to trace the deceased has also been mentioned in the said report laid by Dasarat He however, pleaded ignorance of the fact as to how and in what manner the dead body of the deceased could be found lying in the well Obviously, for this reason, the concerned police could not register the crime and accordingly, they could only register a UDR case. Merely, because the concerned police had initially registered the UDR case, that by itself is not sufficient to show that there was no involvement of the accused in the crime. Subsequently, the concerned police recorded the statements of certain material witnesses including the statement of PW9 Jagadevi, the daughter of the deceased and on the basis of which the crime was registered and the investigation was taken up. PW9 Jagadevi who is the daughter of the deceased is the sole eyewitness to the occurrence and the case of the prosecution rests entirety upon the testimony of PW9 as corroborated from the other material available on record. The statement of Jagadevi PW9 was during the inquest proceedings on the 16th itself. The testimony of the sole eyewitness PW9 Jagadevi given in Court would clearly involve all these accused persons and she is the natural witness to the incident in question which had started at the house where the deceased had been living along with her daughter PW9. There was no other person present at that time in the house, except Jagadevi PW9 and hence, the prosecution has to rely upon the sole testimony of PW9 to establish its case against the accused. Her evidence stands corroborated from the evidence of her grand-mother PW7 whom she had contacted and informed of the occurrence. The circumstances spoken to, both by PWs. 9 and 7 would clearly go to indicate that it is the accused and the accused alone are responsible for the cause of death of the deceased. The accused had a motive to commit the crime, which aspect of the case has been clearly spoken to by PWs.1, 6, 7, 9 and 10, There was absolutely no valid reason for the trial Court to have discarded the evidence of PW9 the sole eyewitness to the occurrence. Having regard to the fact that the incident in question had started at the house of the deceased, where she was living with her daughter and that at the relevant time of this incident except PW9, there was no other parson present in the house. The evidence of PW9 stands corroborated from the evidence of PW7 to whom she had immediately informed of the occurrence as witnessed by her. The reasonings given by the trial Court to disbelieve the sole eyewitness PW9 is highly improper and incorrect. The trial Court has also committed an error in recording a finding that the evidence of PW7 besides being artificial is highly unnatural. The trial Court ought to have taken into consideration the real background of these witnesses while appreciating their evidence. Further, the trial Court having recorded a finding that the death of the deceased was homicidal could not have ignored the evidence of PW9 who at the relevant time of the incident was staying with the deceased. The evidence of PW6 would clearly indicate that he and his son being afraid of the accused persons had left the village and were residing at Sholapur during the relevant time of this incident Thus, they were absent from the house during the relevant time of this incident PW7 i.e, the wife of PW6 was also not present in the house and had gone to the house of her another daughter and while she was so present in the house of her another daughter, she was informed of the occurrence by PW9 and accordingly, she had gone along with PW9 to the house from where the deceased had been taken away by the accused. The said witness PW7 has clearly deposed to the fact that she was informed of the occurrence by PW9 on that relevant night itself. Thus, the evidence of PWs.6 and 7 substantially corroborates the version of PW9. The deceased Smt. Karemma was removed forcibly from the house where she had been staying along with her daughter Jagadevi, by these accused persons. Therefore, what was informed to PW7 by PW9 was, about the removal of her mother from the house and accordingly, a search was undertaken to trace the deceased. In the circumstances of the case, PW9 Jagadevi is a most natural witness. She has dearly stated that all these accused persons including the deceased Smt. Ningawwa had visited their house and took away her mother forcibly from the house. There was no reason to have disbelieved the evidence of PW9. There is nothing in the cross-examination of PW9 to discard her evidence. Merely because, PW7 did not inform anyone in the village is not sufficient to discard her evidence as well as the evidence of PW9 in its entirety. At that time, PWs.7 and 9 could not have anticipated that the deceased would be done to death and obviously for that reason, they only made efforts to trace the deceased and when ultimately it was found that the dead body of the deceased was tying in the well, both PWs.7 and 9 came out with the version to the concerned police which led to registration of the crime. That, further the police station being situated not in the same village, but at some distance from the village, they could not have immediately informed the said fact to the police merely on the basis of the conduct of PWs.7 and 9, their evidence would not have been rejected by the trial Court The evidence of PW9 would clearly indicate about the source of light for her to witness the incident in question and merely because, the Investigating Officer did not record in the panchnama about the existence of source of light, thai will not discredit the evidence of PW9. The prosecution has, therefore, successfully proved the motive, homicidal death of the deceased and the accused having removed the deceased forcibly from her house on that relevant night and the cumulative effect of all these circumstances would bring home the guilt of the accused. Therefore, the trial Court was not justified in acquitting the respondents of the offences charged against them.

8. In response, the learned counsel for the respondents while supporting the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court has contended as under:

That there was an inordinate delay in lodging the information to the concerned police by one Dashrath PW. 10 which in the circumstances of the case assumes importance, has not been convincingly explained by the prosecution. As could be seen from the nature of information laid by him, the said Dashrath PW. 10 was aware of the fact of the missing of the deceased from the house and such information could have been given to him only by Chandamma PW.7 or her grand daughter Jagadevi PW.9 But inspite of this, the said information laid by Dashrath PW. 10 before the concerned police did not disclose the names of any of these accused persons let alone the name of the deceased accused Ningawwa. On the other hand, the information that was laid by the said Dashrath PW. 10 before the police would disclose that the deceased was found missing from her house from the night of 12.6.1994 If really the deceased had been forcibly removed by these accused persons on that relevant night in the manner as sought to be projected now by the prosecution, the same should have been mentioned in the information that was laid before the police as per Ex.P-6. Admittedly, the said information placed by him before the police did not disclose the names of any of these accused persons. This would create doubt on the whole warp and woof of the prosecution case with regard to the involvement of the accused in the commission of the offence. Though the said information had been placed belatedly before the police, it did not disclose the names of these accused persons and on the other hand, it only discloses that the deceased was found to be missing from the house from the night of 12.6.1994 The contents of the said information laid by Dashrath PW.10 as per Ex.P-6 would tend to falsify the case of the prosecution that was sought to be projected at the trial. The evidence of PW.1 on which reliance has been placed by the prosecution does not in any way implicate the respondents/accused. The evidence of PW. 1 would only speak of some panchayat being held in relation to some dispute between the deceased Karemma and her mother-in-law Ningawwa. Thus his evidence does not in any way implicate these accused persons, nor his evidence disclose about the presence of any of these accused persons at the time when such panchayat was held. The case of the prosecution rests entirety on the testimony of the sole eye witness PW.9 Jagadevi who was admittedly aged about 11 years at the time of the incident in question. She being a child witness, it is not at all safe to place implicit reliance upon her evidence more so, when her evidence suffers from several infirmities and does not find corroboration from any other evidence which is convincing and reliable. According to the sole eyewitness PW.9, she was able to witness the incident in question in the electricity light that was burning at that time in the house. But the very existence of the source of light for PW.9 to witness the incident in question is rendered doubtful from the evidence of PSI PW.15 and the contents of the panchanama Ex.P-10. The evidence of the PSI PW.15 would clearly indicate that he did not observe any such source of light in the house and that if he had observed such source of light, he would have mentioned the said fact in the panchanama Ex.P-10. Admittedly in the panchanama Ex.P-10, there is no mention about the existence of any such source of light. Under the circumstances, therefore, the sole eyewitness PW.9 having witnessed the incident in the source of electricity light stands falsified. Non-examination of one Madivalappa who alleged to have visited the house of the deceased immediately after PW.7 came to the house along with her grand daughter PW.9 Jagadevi is fatal to the prosecution case. The conduct of both PW.7 and PW.9 is highly unnatural and hence their evidence does not inspire confidence. If really the incident had occurred in the manner as stated by Jagadevi PW.9, on that relevant night, both PW.7 and PW.9 would not have remained silent without disclosing the said incident to any of the villagers. The trial Court has discussed the evidence of these two witnesses PWs.7 and 9 threadbare and found that they are not reliable. The said finding recorded by the trial Court cannot be said to be either perverse or arbitrary. From the over all evidence on record, it is quite clear that the only two persons who could know about the incident were PWs.7 and 9, but admittedly they did not disclose the incident at the earliest to any of the persons in the village, which in the circumstances of the case, would certainly east doubt on the prosecution case. These two witnesses PWs. 7 and 9 would not have remained silent till they alleged to have disclosed the occurrence to the Investigating Officer on 16. There is also an inordinate delay in recording the statements of these two material witnesses PWs. 7 and 9 and there has been no convincing explanation as to why their statements have not been recorded immediately after the arrival of the police to the village atleast on 15. The incident in question is alleged to have taken place during the night and it is not free from doubt whether Jagadevi PW.9, even if she were to be present in her house could have identified the assailants of her mother in the darkness of the night In the fact situation, there should have been a test identification parade conducted and in the absence of any test identification parade, no reliance can be placed upon the evidence of PW. 9. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the non-holding of the test identification parade to corroborate the evidence of FW.9 is fatal to the prosecution case. Admittedly no motive is attributed in so far as these respondents are concerned and that being so, there was absolutely no motive for the respondents to commit the crime. If at all if any dispute existed it was between the deceased and her mother-in-law Ningawwa which has no reliance to these respondents and hence there was absolutely no motive for these respondents to commit the crime. Thus the prosecution has totally failed to establish the offence alleged against these respondents. The trial Court which had an occasion to observe and see the witnesses depose before it, has critically examined the evidence of PWs. 7 and 9 and found them to be highly unreliable and has accordingly discarded their evidence. If the evidence of these two witnesses is taken out from the purview of the Court, there remains nothing on record to implicate the respondents with the commission of the offence alleged against them. The mere recovery of saree spoken to by the Investigating Officer and not being corroborated by any independent witness does not by itself implicate any of the respondents to the commission of the offence. Therefore, the trial Court was justified in acquitting the respondents of the offence charged against them. The view taken by the trial Court cannot be said to be either perverse or arbitrary. Hence the impugned judgment and order of acquittal made by the trial Court warrants no interference in the appeal by this Court.

9. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon the following decisions:

1.2003 CRL.L.J 1263 head notes A to C (Bhagwan Singh v. State of M.P)

2.2004 CRL.L.J 22 head notes A & B (Badam singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh)

3.2004 CRL.L.J 1031 (State of Karnataka v. Yamanappa Irappa Bommanahalli)

4.(2003) 3 Crimes 251 (SC) (Kunju Muhammad & Khuiaani v. State of Kerala).

10. By way of reply, the learned State counsel has further contended as under:

PW.9 Jagadevi knew all these accused persons and she has identified each of these accused persons by their names and has attributed the overt act committed by each one of these accused persons. Her evidence would clearly indicate that there was electricity light at the time when the incident in question has occurred and hence she was able to see and identify the assailants of her mother during night. When there was sufficient light at the scene of incident and when the sole eye witness PW.9 knew all the accused persons, the question of holding a test identification parade will not arise. It is only when the accused are totally strangers, there is a necessity to hold the test identification parade. In the instant case, the accused being not strangers to PW.9, the non-holding of test identification parade will be of no consequence in the case. There was a land dispute between the deceased Smt. Karemma and her mother-in-law Ningawwa and all these accused persons are the close relatives of the said deceased Ningawwa. Apart from this, the evidence placed on record would disclose that these respondents/accused being the relatives of the deceased Ningawwa had earlier threatened PW.6 Shankarappa and his son Baswaraj and the said two persons on being scared of the accused, had left the village itself and were staying at Sholapur. Likewise the evidence of PW. 10 Dashrath would also disclose that when the said Dashrath was in the process of coming towards the house of the deceased after seeing the dead body of the deceased lying in the well, he was being chased by these accused persons. The said circumstances available on record would disclose that these respondents/accused being the close relatives of the deceased Ningawwa had been supporting the case of the deceased in the land dispute that existed between the deceased Karemma and her mother-in-law Ningawwa. The same in the circumstances, would constitute motive for these accused persons along with deceased Ningawwa to commit the crime. The evidence on record would disclose that on that relevant night, the deceased accused Ningawwa accompanied by all these respondents had trespassed into the house of the deceased and after committing certain amount of violence on the deceased, the deceased has been removed forcibly from there. The very fact that all these respondents/accused had accompanied the deceased Ningawwa would show that they were supporting the case of the deceased Ningawwa in the dispute between herself and her daughter-in-law Karemma. When the eye witness FW.9 has clearly mentioned about the existence of source of light for her to witness the incident, the mere non-mention of such source of light in the spot panchanama by the Investigating Officer will be of no significance more so when the defence has not been able to make any dent to the evidence of PW.9 regarding the existence of such source of light There was no such delay on the part of the Investigating officer in examining and recording the statements of the sole eyewitness PW.9 and her grandmother PW.7 This is because immediately after the PSI took up the investigation, he recorded the statements of these two witnesses during the inquest proceedings and on the basis of which he had registered suo motu case. The very fact that none of the witnesses have come forward to lodge a complaint In respect of this incident, would show that the accused were very powerful persons in the village. There is nothing unnatural in the conduct of PW.7 or PW.9 The evidence of PW.9 would disclose that when the accused had trespassed into their house and forcibly removed her mother, she was threatened by the accused. In the circumstances, merely because Jagadevi PW.9 who was hardly aged about 11 years at that time, had remained silent on account of the threat given by the accused, will not amount to any unnatural conduct on the part of PW.9 The moment the accused had left the house, PW.9 went and reported the incident to her grant mother PW.7 This would speak of the natural conduct on the part of PW.9 Thereafter both PWs.7 and 9 came to the house and had remained there. It is no doubt true that one Madivalappa had visited the house, but as could be seen from the evidence on record that the said Madivalappa had specifically told them to remain in the house and not to go out of the house. This would clearly indicate that there was no safety for PWs.7 and 9. Under the circumstances, therefore, it is quite likely that both PWs.7 and 9 did not open their mouth till the arrival of the police to the village after the dead body of the deceased was traced in the well. When PW.9 gave evidence in Court, she was aged about 16 years and was found to be quite competent to depose before the Court She has withstood the test of cross-examination. She has not suffered any contradictions or omissions. Therefore, her evidence does not suffer from any such infirmity. Her evidence would further find corroboration from the evidence of PW.7 Under the circumstances, therefore, the trial Court was not justified in discarding the evidence of PWs.7 and 9 who were material witnesses for the prosecution to connect the accused with the crime.

11. Having heard the submissions on both sides and having carefully perused the entire material placed on record by the prosecution, in the light of the submissions made on both sides, the short question for consideration is: whether the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court warrants any interference in the appeal by this Court?

12. As we have already indicated the deceased here is one Smt. Karemma aged about 30 years at the time of her death. The accused persons and the material witnesses for the prosecution and as also the deceased Smt. Karemma were residents of Bennur village. PW.9 Jagadevi is the daughter of the deceased. She might be 11 years old at the time of the incident in question. When she gave evidence in Court on 09.02.1999 (nearly after five years of the incident), she was aged about 16 years. The husband of the deceased was one Mallinath who had died a few years earlier to the incident in question. After the death of her husband, the deceased Smt. Karemma and her daughter Jagadevi PW.9 were living in the house of the parents of the deceased PW.6 and PW.7 at Bennur village. PW.7 Smt Chandamma is the mother of the deceased. PW.6 Shankarappa is the father of the deceased. The parents of the deceased has a son by name Basavaraj. During the relevant time of this incident, both PW.6 and his son Basavaraj had been staying at Sholapur and they had come to the village only after they were informed about the death of the deceased. One Smt. Ningawwa (deceased accused), who was also arraigned as an accused and had died subsequent to the incident was the mother-in-law of the deceased. The respondents/accused are the relatives of the deceased accused Ningawwa. The said Sunt. Ningawwa had two sons Mallinath and Lachappa. The deceased Smt. Karemma was the wife of late Mallinath. Bach of the aforesaid two sons of the deceased Ningawwa had been given land to the extent of 5 acres each. After the, death of her husband Mallinath, the land that was given to and standing in the name of Mallinath, was mutated in the name of the deceased Smt. Karemma. There was some dispute in respect of that land between the deceased Smt. Karemma and her mother-in-law Smt. Ningawwa. In this backdrop, we have to appreciate the evidence placed on record by the prosecution. It is not in dispute and even otherwise the evidence on record would indicate that on the morning of 15.6.1994 at about 7.00 a.m, the dead body of the deceased Smt. Karemma was found tying in the drawwell of Bennur village and PW.10 Dashrath who was the Dalapathi of the village had laid information regarding the same with the ASI PW, 14, who was then the SHO of Nelogi Police Station at about LOO p.m on the same day, i.e, on 15.6.1994 On the basis of such information laid by the Dashrath PW. 10, the ASI PW. 14 registered the UDR case and forwarded the report to the Taluka Executive Magistrate. Thereafter the ASI PW. 14 visited the spot at Bennur village at 7.30 p.m in the night He made over the investigation of this case to his superior officer PW. 15 who was then the PSI of Nelogi Police Station on his arrival to the spot. On 16.6.1994, the said PSI PW. 15 examined and recorded the statements of certain witnesses including the statements of PWs.7 and 9. Thereafter on the same day, the PSI PW.15 returned to the police station and registered the crime and issued the FIR. Under the cross-examination of the PSI PW. 15, it is brought out by the defence that from the statements of witnesses recorded by him, it was revealed that the incident in question had occurred between 13.6.1994 and 15.6.1994 It is further brought out by the defence in the cross-examination of the PSI PW. 15 that he did not feel it proper to treat the statements of any of these witnesses as the FIR and sent the same to the police station to register the FIR. It is no doubt true that the PSI PW. 15 would have treated the statements of any of the witnesses as the FIR and sent the same to the police station for registering the crime. But he did not do so and instead he himself proceeded to the police station and on the basis of the material disclosed to him during the inquest proceedings, he registered a suo motu case and issued the FIR. This would only speak of the ignorance or the negligence on the part of the PSI PW. 15 in not treating the statement of any of the witnesses recorded by him revealing the commission of the offence as the MR and sending the same to the police station for registering the crime. Though the defence had elicited from the PSI PW. 15 that he did not feel it proper to treat the statement of any of these witnesses as FIR, it did not seek any explanation from the PSI PW. 15 as to why he did not feel it proper to do so-In the absence of any such explanation sought for from the PSI PW.15 no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution for the PSI PW. 15 in registering a suo motu case on the basis of the information that was disclosed to him during the inquest proceedings when he recorded the statements of certain witnesses including the statements of PWs.7 and 9. in fact, as we have already noticed, the defence itself has brought out in the cross-examination of the PSI PW.15 that from the statements of witnesses recorded by him it was revealed that the incident in question took place between 13.6.1994 and 15.6.1994 The incident here has reference to the death of the deceased. According to the prosecution case, when the deceased Smt. Karemma had been forcibly removed from her house on the night of 12.6.1994, she was not yet dead and in all probability, the death might have occurred between 13.6.1994 and 15.6.1994 and it is in this context, PW. 15 has stated that from the statement of witnesses recorded by him, it was revealed that the incident in question had occurred between 13.6.1994 and 15.6.1994 Therefore merely because the PSI PW 15 had registered a suo motu case on the basis of the information that was disclosed to him during the inquest proceedings, it. cannot be said that the case of the prosecution suffers from serious infirmity. At the most, as we have already noticed, it would speak of either the ignorance on the part of the PSI PW. 15 or about bis negligence and nothing more. Here itself we would like to mention that as soon as the PSI PW. 15 took up the investigation of this case, he held the inquest proceedings and recorded the statements of PW.7 and PW.9 In the circumstances, therefore, it cannot be said that there was any undue delay on the part of the Investigating Officer in recording the statements of these two witnesses PW.7 and PW.9 Even assuming that there was some delay in recording the statements of these two witnesses, no explanation has been sought by the defence from the Investigating Officer in this regard. In the absence of any such explanation, merely because there was some delay in recording the statements of these two witnesses, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution case. In this connection, a reference may be made to the two decisions of the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P v. Sattsh reported in 2005 SCC (CRL.) 642-G and in the case of Amar Singh v. Balwinder Singh reported in 2003 SCC (CRL.) 641-B. In the first decision the Apex Court has clearly observed that unless the Investigating Officer is categorically asked as to why there was a delay in examining of witnesses, the defence cannot gain any advantage. In the other decision the Apex Court has observed that the delay in lodging the FIR by itself is not sufficient to draw an adverse inference. It would be of some relevance to note here itself that the mere lapse on the part of the Investigating Officer will not destroy the testimony given in Court by the prosecution witnesses, if the same is otherwise found to be acceptable and reliable. Admittedly the accused persons, the deceased Smt. Karemma and the material witnesses for the prosecution are rustic villagers and they are agriculturists by profession having a rural background. The scene of incident is rural, the witnesses to the case are rustics and so their behavioural pattern and receptive habits have to be judged as such. The too sophisticated approaches familiar in Courts based on unreal assumptions about human conduct cannot obviously be applied to those given to the lethargic ways of our villagers. When scanning the evidence of the various witnesses, we have to inform ourselves that variances on the fringes, discrepancies in details, contradictions in narrations and embellishments in inessential parts cannot militate against the veracity of the core of the testimony provided there is the impress of truth and conformity to probability in the tfubstantiai fabric of testimony delivered. The trial Court has no doubt at some length dissected the evidence, spun out certain contradictions, unnatural conduct etc., of the prosecution witnesses and in particular of PW.9 Jagadevi, the sole eye witness to the occurrence. Certainly the Court which has seen the witnesses deposed before it, has a great advantage over the appellate Court which reads the recorded evidence in cold print, and regard must be had to this advantage enjoyed by the trial Court of observing the demeanour and delivery, off reading the straightforwardness and doubtful candour etc. of persons who swear to the facts before it, Nevertheless, where the trial Court draws its conclusions not so much on the directness or dubiety of the witness while on oath, but upon general probabilities, the Court of appeal is in as good a position to assess or arrive at legitimate conclusions as the trial Court.

13. With this background, let us now proceed to consider the evidence of the material witnesses for the prosecution in order to ascertain the question whether the trial Court was justified in acquitting the accused of all the charges framed against them.

14. The probative items placed on record would show that the case of the prosecution rests firstly on the fact that the deceased had died of violence, secondly there is the eyewitness account as given by PW.9 Jagadevi, the daughter of the deceased and lastly the motive part of the case. There is also a circumstance regarding the recovery of certain incriminating material viz., saree, at the instance of one of the accused persons.

REGARDING THE DEATH OF THE DECEASED DUE TO VIOLENCE;

15. On the basis of the information laid by one Dashrath - PW10 that the dead body of the deceased was lying in the well of their village Bennur, the ASI - PW14 had registered an U.D.R case on 15.6.1994 at about LOO P.M in the afternoon at the jurisdictional police station and forwarded the report of unnatural death of the deceased to the Taluka Executive Magistrate, PW10 - Dasharath had seen the dead body of the deceased Smt. Karevva lying in the draw well of their village at about 7.00 A.M in the morning and had laid information with the ASI - PW14 at the jurisdictional police station. The said ASI - PW14 had visited the village at about 7.30 P.M in the night. Under the cross-examination of this witness, PW-14 - the defence had elicited that Dashrath - PW10 was the Dalapathi of the village and the deceased Smt. Karewa was the daughter of the elder brother of PW10. It is further elicited in his cross-examination that he had visited the well where the dead body of the deceased was lying and since it was dark in the night, he returned back to the school building situated in the village without doing any investigation. It is further brought out by the defence in his cross examination that at that time no one was present near the well. The said answer elicited by the defence in the cross-exsmination of the ASI - PW14 would disclose that when he had visited the well on the night of 15, he did not find the presence of any person nearabout the said well. The said ASI - PW14 handed-over the investigation of this case to the PSI - PW15 on his arrival to the village. The PSI - PW15 having come at the village during the night, proceeded with the investigation on the next day morning. On 16.6.1994 at about 7.00 A.M in the morning he got the dead body of the deceased Smt. Karevva removed from the well and held the inquest proceedings on the dead body of the deceased as per the inquest report - exhibit P7. PW11 who is a panch witness for the inquest proceedings held on the dead body of the deceased, has supported the inquest report - exhibit P7. The column numbers 7 and 8 of the inquest report - exhibit P7, which are admissible in law would disclose about the commission of the offence. The relevant portion of column Nos. 7 & 8 of the inquest report would read thus:

16. The contents of the said inquest report-exhibit P7 would further disclose as under:

17. The above contents of the inquest report-exhibit P7 would further show that during the inquest proceedings, the statements of the blood relatives of the deceased including PW7 and PW9 were recorded and it was disclosed to the investigating officer that there was a land dispute between the deceased Smt. Karevva and her mother-in-law Smt. Ningavva and on account of such dispute, the said Smt. Ningavva and her relatives Siddaramappa, s/o. Kallappa, Basavanthappa s/o. Kallappa, Jagadevappa s/o. Sidramappa, Bheemaraya s/o. Mahantappa, Mudakappa @ Basanna, s/o. Shivappa, Shivasbaranappa s/o. Basavanthappa and Gollalappa s/o. Sidramappa had joined together and committed the crime by tying a cloth over the eyes of the deceased and pressing her neck and had dropped the dead body of the deceased into the draw well by tying a stone to the dead body by means of a rope. This was what was disclosed to the PSI - PW15 during the inquest proceedings held on the dead body of the deceased. Thus, it was opined by the panchas that the deceased had died of violence. In this context, the evidence of the PSI - PW15 would show that he had recorded the statements of Shankarappa. PW6, Basavoraj, Jagadevappa PW9, Chandawwa PW7, Madivalappa, P. Siddappa and Dashrath - PW10 on 15.6.1994 at the village, and thereafter, on 16.6.1994 he had returned to the police station at about 8.00 PM and registered the crime and issued the First Information Report as per exhibit P11. As we have already indicted, under the cross-examination of this witness - PW15, it is elicited that from the statements of the witnesses recorded by him, it was disclosed to him that the incident in question took place between 13.6.1994 and 15.6.1994 It is further elicited in the cross-examination of the PSI-PW15 by the defence that he did not feel like treating the statements of any of these witnesses as the First Information Report and sending the same to the police station to register the crime. As we have already stated that this would only show either the ignorance or the negligence on the part of the investigating officer - PW15 and nothing more. It was at the most a faulty investigation on the part of the investigating officer-PW15. But the fact of the matter is that from the inquest proceedings held on the dead body of the deceased Smt. Karevva, it was disclosed to the PSI-PW15 that the deceased Smt. Karevva had died of violence. His evidence would further show that he had forwarded the dead body of the deceased to the hospital for subjecting it to the postmortem examination in order to ascertain the exact cause of death of the deceased.

18. PWS - Doctor Smt. Tejaswini was then working as a lady medical officer in the PHC at Nelogi She received the dead body of the deceased Smt. Karevva on 16.6.1994 at the hospital. She conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 17.6.1994 between 9.00 and 10.00 A.M No external injuries were found on the dead body. After dissection of the dead body of the deceased, she found the fracture of the hyoid bone. The stomach of the deceased was found to be empty. She preserved the hyoid bone and sent it to the police for expert opinion. She has issued the postmortem report as per exhibit P4. On 17.8.1994 she issued a provisional opinion as to the cause of death of the deceased Smt. Karevva as due to asphyxia, which is as per exhibit P5. She has opined, the time since death tc be 4 to 7 days prior to the postmortem examination. With regard to the cause of death of the deceased she has stated that the death of the deceased Smt. Karevva was due to asphyxia as a result of external violence. The said opinion of the doctor - PW8, according to her, is based on the contents of the stomach and the fracture of the hyoid bone. Under the cross-examination done by the defence, the doctor - PW8 admits the fact that after preparing the postmortem report, it will be sent to the concerned police station. On 15.10.1998, she handed over the postmortem report of the deceased Smt. Karevva to the Pubic Prosecutor. At the time of preparing the postmortem report, she was quite sure or definite regarding the cause of death of the deceased Karemma, but in order to confirm the same, she had sent the hyoid bone which was found to be fractured, for chemical examination. She has stated that she did not give her opinion regarding the cause of death immediately in the postmortem report exhibit P4 in order to ascertain whether the fracture of hyoid bone was antemortem or postmortem and to ascertain this fact, the same was sent for expert opinion. She has stated that she has sent the hyoid bone preserved for expert opinion through the FSI on 4.3.1995 She has further stated that at the time of issuing the provisional opinion - exhibit P5, she has not yet received the expert opinion regarding the hyoid bone. She has denied the suggestion that her opinion as to the cause of death of the deceased is a wrong opinion. She would however admit the fact that asphyxia can be caused due to drowning. She has further denied the suggestion that at the instance of the police, she has deposed before the court that in this case the asphyxia was due to external violence. It is pertinent to note that the doctor - PW8 has clearly stated that her opinion as to the cause of death is based on the contents of the stomach, which was found to be empty and not filled with any water and on the basis of the fracture of the hyoid bone. Normally, the fracture of hyoid bone in the case of an adult would not occur unless there was sufficient force applied over the neck region. Obviously, on the basis of the said findings, the doctor has opined that the death of the deceased was due to asphyxia as a result of external violence. That means, the deceased Smt. Karevva did not die due to asphyxia as a result of drowning. Therefore, in all probability, the deceased must have been done to death before she was thrown into the well. This is very clear from the evidence of the doctor - PW8, who has stated that her opinion as to the cause of death is based upon the stomachic contents and the fracture of the hyoid bone. It is needless to point out that if the person were to die due to drowning, the lungs and stomach would be filled with water. In the fact situation, the doctor - PW8 has clearly stated that the death of the deceased had occurred due to asphyxia as a result of external violence and not on account of drowning. Merely because the doctor-PW8 has furnished her provisional opinion as to the cause of death of the deceased before she could receive the expert opinion on the hyoid bone that was sent by her for chemical examination, the evidence of the doctor - PW8 who conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased cannot be discarded. She has clearly stated that at the time of conducting the postmortem examination itself, she was quite sure and certain with regard to the cause of death of the deceased Karemma. That being so, her opinion regarding the cause of death of the deceased cannot be doubted. Further, there was absolutely no reason for the doctor-PW8 who is a responsible officer either to oblige the police or to depose against the accused persons. Hence, we find no reason to doubt or to discredit the evidence of the doctor - PW8 with regard to the findings given by her after conducting the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and also with regard to the opinion furnished by her regarding the cause of death of the deceased.

19. From the above evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it can safely be concluded that the deceased Smt. Karevva had died, of violence. Thus, the material placed on record by the prosecution would leave no doubt that the deceased had met with a homicide death. In fact, this aspect has not been seriously disputed before us.

20. Now, the crucial question for consideration is who caused the death of the deceased Smt. Karevva.

21. The eyewitness must naturally figure most prominently in a judicial search for truth. Accordingly, in this case the prosecution has sought to prove its case by the direct evidence of Jagadevi - PW9, the daughter of the deceased. PW9 - Jagadevi is the sole eyewitness to the occurrence. She is the daughter of the deceased. She might have been aged about 11 years at the relevant time of this incident. The material placed on record would amply prove that after the death of her husband Mallinath, the deceased Smt. Karevva, and her daughter - Jagadevi PW9 were residing in the house of her parents at Bennur village. The material evidence placed on record would further show that during the relevant tune of this incident, her father Shankarappa-PW6 and her brother Basavaraj had been staying at Sholapur. That means, they were not present in their house at Bennur village during the relevant time of this incident and they were staying at that time at Sholapur for certain obvious reasons. In this context, the evidence of PW16 Sharanagowda, though turned hostile, would show that as per the say of Chandawwa - PW7, he had informed Shankarappa PW6 and Basavarj by phone at Sholapur that the deceased Smt. Karevva has been missing. He has further stated that on the seme day at about 7.00 P.M in the night, both Shankarappa and Basavaraj came to Bennur village and that on the same day, he also learnt about the death of the deceased. PW16 was a contractor and he knew all the accused persons. The said evidence of PW16 coupled with the evidence of PW6 and his wife PW7 would show that during the relevant time of this incident, PW6 and his son Basavaraj had been staying at Sholapur and they were not staying in their house at Bennur Milage. PW 7-Chandravva in the course of her evidence has stated that on the relevant day, she had gone to the house of her another daughter Mahantamma and while she was in the house of another daughter Mahanthamma, her grand daughter Jagadevi - PW9 came there and informed to her of the incident, of the removal of the deceased from the house by these accused. From the above evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it is quite clear that on that relevant night, except the deceased Smt. Karevva and her daughter Jagadevi - PW9, there was no other person in the house. The deceased Smt. Karevva and her daughter PW9 - Jagadevi were the only two inmates of the house on that relevant night. It is in this background, we have to ascertain the evidence of the sole eyewitness PW9. We shall now advert to the evidence of the sole eyewitness PW9 to find out whether the trial court was justified in discrediting her evidence.

22. As we have already stated, Jagadevi - PW9 might have been 11 years old at the time of the incident Having regard to her age and also having regard to the fact that she had already lost her father, it is quite natural to expect that she should be staying with her mother Smt. Karevva in their house at Bennur village. She knew all these accused persons and so also the deceased Smt. Ningavva, who was her paternal grand mother. She knew that there was a dispute between her paternal grandmother Ningawa and her maternal grandfather Shankarappa - PW6 in relation to a land, which after the death of her father had been got transferred into the name of her mother Smt. Karevva by PW6, With regard to the incident in question, as has been witnessed by her, she has stated that on that relevant night, she and her mother had slept in the house of her grandfather at Bennur village. She has stated that two or three days prior to the incident, all these accused persons had attempted to assault her grandfather Shankarappa and his son Basavaraj and that therefore they both had gone to Sholapur. She has stated that on the date of the incident at about 12.00 mid night, when she and her mother Karevva were sleeping in the house during the night, all these accused persons came to their house including the deceased Ningawa. The accused No. 1 Jagadevappa put or inserted the saree of her mother into her mouth. The accused No. 6 Siddaramappa caught hold of the head of her mother. Accused No. 2 Basavantharaya caught hold of both the hands of her mother. The accused No. 4 Gollappa, accused No. 5 Shiva Sharauappa and accused No. 7 Bheemaraya tied both the legs of her mother with her own saree. The accused No. 3 Mudukenna and the deceased Ningavva were standing at the door of their house. The accused No. 1 Jagadevappa caught hold of the neck of her mother by sitting on her chest. When she began to weep, the accused No. 1 Jagadevappa threatened her and asked her to keep quite. Thereafter, all the accused persons physically lifted her mother and took her out: of the house. When she came outside the house while weeping, the accused No. 5 Shivasharanappa again threatened her. She has stated that after about half an hour thereafter, she went to the house of her grandmother Chandawwa - PW7 and informed to her that all the accused along with the deceased Ningavva took away her mother from their house by tying her legs and hands. She has further stated that thereafter she. and her grandmother Chandawwa both came to their house and in the meantime, one Madeppa - CW6 came to their house and asked them not to go anywhere. She has stated that at the time of the incident in question, there was an electric light in their house and she was able to witness the incident in the electricity light. She has stated that on the date of the incident, she and her mother had slept over the Kaudi - No. 5. She has identified the broken glass bangle pieces No. 3, as belonging to her mother which was found lying in the house. She has further stated that three days thereafter, she saw the dead body of her mother lying in the well at Bennur. Under the cross-examination done by the defence she has stated that ever-since her childhood she had been visiting the house of her grandfather - Shankarappa. Her grandparents own only one house at Bennur village. Since her childhood, she has been residing with her grandfather and she has got the affection and love towards her grandparents and their son Basavaraj. She has stated that even now she is being looked after by her own grandfather and she has been residing in their house, She has denied the suggestion made by the defence that her grandparents had intended to perform her marriage with Basavaraj-CW3. She has also denied tine suggestion that she always obeys the words of her grandparents. She has further denied the suggestion that she had been tutored to give evidence in court and that the evidence given by her in court is a tutored version. She has also denied the suggestion that her grandparents had an intention to perform her marriage with their son Basavaraj and that therefore, at their instance, she has deposed falsely in the court She has stated that the house in which she and her mother had slept on that relevant night consisted of only one room having main door towards the east with wooden shutters and there was another door to the said house towards the north which did not have any shutters She has stated that in front of the said northern door, there was a katta of Deyamma temple at a distance of about 7 to 10 feet from the house. She has further stated that at a distance of about 100 feet from the house of her grandfather, there were houses belonging to the persons of their caste. She has stated that the villagers used to take water from the well in which the dead body of her mother was found, for purpose of drinking. According to her, everyday from 6.00 A.M onwards, the villagers used to go to the said well to bring water from the well. She has farther stated that normally she used to sleep around 3,00 PM in the night. On the date of the incident, she had slept along with her mother without any blanket on her body. She has stated that at the time of the incident in their house there was electricity connection to their house. She has stated that there was only one electric bulb in their house and the said electric bulb was located by the side of the door of their house situated towards the east. The said electric bulb was fixed to the wall. The switch button was situated near the said bulb itself. Both the electric bulb and the switch button were visible in the house. She has denied the suggestion that during the year 1994 there was no electricity in the house of her grandfather. She has further stated that she went to the house of Chandawwa without weeping or crying. Her grandmother Chandawwa did not call anyone to come along with them when they returned to the house. Both she and her grandmother Chandawwa sat crying and weeping in the house. At that time, one Madivalappa - CW6 came to their house. Except the said Madivalappa, no other person had come to their house at that time. Her grandmother Chandawwa did not ask Madivalappa to inform to the villagers that the accused had forcibly taken away her mother Karevva. Her grandmother Chandawwa did not go out of the house during the night on that relevant night After the incident till the dead body of her mother was found lying in the well, she was staying with her grandmother Chandawwa. On the next day of the incident, she and her grandmother did not go to the house of any other person. On the next day of the incident, Madivalappa - CW6 did not again visited their house. She has stated that before the dead body of her mother was found lying in the well, Sahebgowda and other relatives did not visit their house. She has further stated that she and her grandmother Chandawwa did not try to trace her mother on the next day of the incident She admits the fact that she had stated before the police that she and her grandmother had made efforts to search for her mother in the village and she could not be traced. She has stated that no one enquired her about the incident of this case earlier and that for the first time she has deposed before the court. She has stated that she is an illiterate person. She has denied the suggestion that on the date of the incident;, she and her mother were not sleeping together in their house and that on that relevant day, none of these accused persons had visited their house and that they did not do anything in the manner as deposed by her in court. She has further stated that at about 7 or 8 AM in the morning, she came to know that the dead body of her mother was lying in the well, when she and her grandmother were present in their house. Thereafter both she and her grandmother went near the well. When they went near the said well, Shivasharana, Dasharath and Sahebgcuda were present near the well. Except the said persons, no other person from their village was present at that time near the well. Dasharath - CW7 is the brother of her grandfather Shankarappa. Near the well she and her grandmother and the above-said persons did not talk to each other. She has further stated that while they were near the well, her grandmother Chandawwa did not inform Dashrath - PW10 regarding the death of her mother. She has denied the suggestion that she did not know as to how her mother Karewa had died and that at the instance of Basavaraj, Chandawwa, Shankarappa and Dasharath, she has deposed falsely in the court. She has also denied the suggestion that after the death of her father, she and her mother were not at all staying in the house of Shankarappa and that they were residing in the house of the deceased Wingawwa, in a portion of the house which had fallen to the share of her deceased father and that further on the date of the incident, she had slept in the house of Chandawwa.

23. PW-7 Chandawwa who is the mother of the deceased and grandmother of PW-9 has deposed before the Court that she knew all the accused persons, who are the relatives of Ningawa and herself. That is to say, the accused are her relatives as also the relatives of the deceased Ningawwa. She has stated that after the death of her husband, the deceased Karemma was staying with her in their house. On the date of the incident, the deceased Karemma and her daughter Jagadevi - PW9 were residing together in their house. On the relevant day, she had been to the house of her another daughter Mahantawa situated in the same village. She has stated that while she was so present in the house of her another daughter Mahantawa, her granddaughter Jagadevi - PW9 came there around 3.00 a.m in the night and informed to her that on that day at about 2.00 a.m in the night, all the accused persons including the deceased Ningawa came to their house and took away her mother. She was told by her granddaughter - PW9 that the accused No. 3 Mudukappa and the deceased Ningawa were keeping a watch outside the house and that the accused No. 1 - Jagadevappa kept his feet over the chest region and pressed the neck of the deceased Karemma and that further the accused No. 2 Basawanthraya caught hold of the head and the accused No. 6 Sidramappa caught hold of the hands of Karemma and the accused No. 4 Gollalappa, accused No. 5 Shivashranappa and accused No. 7 Bheemaraya tied both the legs of Karewa with her own saree. Thus, she was informed by PW9 that all these accused persons along with the deceased Ningawa took her mother Karewa out of the house and that the accused No. 5 Shivasharanappa had threatened to assault her and being scared or afraid, she had remained silent in the house for about some time. She has further stated that her husband and her son had gone to Sholapur as the accused had quarreled with them and attempted to assault them. Under the cross-examination done by the defence, she has stated that earlier she did not inform what was narrated to her by her granddaughter Jagadevi - PW9 regarding the incident to anyone in the village. She has stated that on coming to know of such incident from her granddaughter PW9, she immediately went to their house. On that day, she did not however visit the house of Dashrath - PW10. She has stated that senile she was weeping and crying in the house, none had visited their house. She did not visit the house of any of her relatives after coming to know of such incident from her granddaughter - PW9. Even on the next day also, she did not visit the house of any of their relatives in the village. She has stated that when Jagadevi - PW9 had visited the house of her another daughter Mahantawa and informed to her about the incident, her daughter Mahantawa and her husband were present in the house and they were sleeping on the roof of their house. She did not however inform them about the incident. On the other hand, she along with her granddaughter Jagadevi came to their house. She did not feel like calling her son-in-law to come along with them to their house. She has denied having made statements before the police as per exhibit D1 and D1(a). She has denied the suggestion that the relationship between the deceased Karemma and her mother-in-law Ningavva was quite cordial. She has stated that all these accused persons are residing separately in their village. She admits the fact that she was not in talking terms with the accused persons A4 to A6 since about 15 years and that further she was also not in talking terms with the accused persons A1, A2 and A7. She has denied that she has deposed falsely in the court.

24. Thus, the evidence of Jagadevi - PW9 would receive substantial support from the evidence of her grandmother - PW7. The evidence of the PSI - PW15 would show that he had recorded the statements of PWs. 7, 9 and 6 on 15.6.1994, which disclosed the commission of cognizable offence and hence, he had returned to the police station on 16.6.1994 and registered a suo-moto case on the basis of his own report and issued the First Information Report as per exhibit P11. The contents of the First Information Report-exhibit P11 would also substantially corroborate the version of PW15 as well as the version of PW9 given in court It stands further confirmed from the answer elicited in. the cross-examination done by the defence. It is no doubt true, in the cross-examination, the PSI - PW15 has stated that there is no mention about the existence of electric light in the house of the deceased Karemma. But then, the evidence of Jagadevi - PW9 would clearly indicate that there was electric light in their house at the time of the incident and she was able to witness the whole incident in that light. In the face of such positive evidence of the eyewitness PW9, the inmate of the house, no significance can be given to the answer elicited in the cross-cxamination of the investigating officer - PW15 by the defence. Therefore, we see no such contradiction between the statement of PW9 - Jagadevi and the investigating officer-PW15 so as to discard the evidence of the eyewitness PW9, It is not in dispute that Jagadevi - PW9 knew all these accused persons and so also the deceased Ningawa. Therefore, she had absolutely no difficulty in identifying the assailants of her mother on that relevant night.

In this connection, a reference may be made to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of PRITHVI v. MAM RAJ, reported in 2005 S.C.C (Cri) 198, wherein it is observed in paragraphs-17 and 18 as under:

“17. A further reason for disbelieving the evidence of Prithvi is that, white Prithvi stated that he could see the assailants because there was light on the spot coming from a bulb fitted in an electric pole near the chakki of Birbal (which was situated about fifteen steps from the place of occurrence) the investigating officer (PW 36) when cross-examined said that he did not remember anything about it nor did he include any electric pole in his site plan. Assuming that this was faulty investigation by the investigating officer, it could hardly be a ground for rejection of the testimony of Prithvi which had a ring of truth in it. We may recount here the observation of this Court in Allarakha K. Mansuri v. State Of Gujarat. [(2002) 3 SCC 57 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 519J, SCC at p.64, para 8, that:

“The defects in the investigation holding it to be shaky and creating doubts also appears to be the result of the imaginative thought of the trial Court. Otherwise also, defective investigation by itself cannot be made a ground for acquitting the accused.”

18. We see no such contradiction between the statement of Prithvi and the investigating officer which would require the statement of Prithvi to be rejected us unreliable. That Prithvi was well acquainted with the assailants and could recognize them, is obvious. They were known persons, and related in one way or the other, In our view, the reasons given for disbelieving Prithvl's evidence are utterly perverse.”

25. True, the A.S.I- P.W.14 and the P.S.I- P.W.15 had visited the village on the night of 15.6.1994 itself and the statements of the eye-witnesses, P.W.9 and others, came to be recorded on the morning of 16.6.1994 But then, as we have already indicated, no explanation has been sought for from the A.S.I- P.W.14 and the P.S.I-P.W 15 regarding the delay in examining P.W.9 and others. The evidence of the A.S.I- P.W 14 would, however, show that he had visited the village at about 7.30 p.m in the night on 15.6.1994 and handed over the case file to the P.S.I-P.W 15. In the cross-examination of the A.S.I- P.W 14, it has been brought out by the defence that when he had visited the well during the night, he did not see anyone near the well and that he had returned back to the school building. The P.S.I - P.W 15 had visited the village during the night and he could not do any investigation during the night On the next day morning itself, et about 7.00 a.m, he got the dead body of the deceased removed from the well and held the inquest proceedings on the dead body of the deceased and recorded the statements of P.W.9 and others, which disclosed to him the commission of cognizable offence. Under the circumstances, therefore, there appears to be no such undue delay on the part of the Investigating Officer P.W 15 in recording the statements of the eye-witnesses, P.W.9 and others. Even if it be, it could only reflect upon the faulty investigation on the part of the Investigating Officers, which will not entail the court to discard the evidence of the eye-witness P.W.9, who is a natural witness to the occurrence. Therefore, there is no substance in the plea regarding the delay in the examination of P.W.9 and others by the Investigating Officer P.W.15 In this connection, a reference may be made to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SUNK, KUMAR v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN, reported in 2005 S.C.C (Cri) 1230-E, wherein it is observed in paragraph-14 of the decision as under:

“14. So far as the delayed recording of statement of the witnesses is concerned, here again no question was put to the investigating officer specifically as to why there was delay in recording the statement On the contrary, the witnesses themselves have indicated as to why tare was delay. The plea of the appellants in this regard, therefore, has no substance.”

26. Jagadevi - P.W.9, who was hardly aged about 11 years, was a silent spectator to the entire incident, which took place in the house. She could do nothing in the matter when so many accused persons, including her own paternal grand-mother, had come to their house on that relevant night at such odd hour and commit the violence on her mother Smt. Karemma and forcibly took her away from the house. She was also threatened by some of the accused persons. Therefore, in the situation that was prevailing at that time, she, being a girl aged about 11 years, could do nothing at that moment and as soon as the accused persons had left the house, shs went outside the house and met her grand-mother P.W.7 and informed her of the occurrence as witnessed by her. The said conduct on the port of Jagadevi P.W.9, a girl hardly aged about 11 years at that time, cannot be said to be unnatural. On the other hand, it sounds natural in the circumstances of the case, In this connection, a reference may be made to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of State Of U.P v. Devendra Singh., reported in 2005 S.C.C (Cri) 582-D, wherein it is observed in paragraphs-6 and 7 of the decision as under:

“6……….Human behaviour varies from person to person. Different people behave and react differently in different situations. Human behaviour depends upon the facts and circumstances of each given case. How a person would react and behave in a particular situation can never be predicted. Every person who witnesses a serious crime reacts in his own way. Some are stunned, become speechless and stand rooted to the spot. Some become hysteric and start wailing. Some start shouting for help. Others run away to keep themselves as far removed from the spot as possible. Yet others rush to the rescue of the victim, even going to the extent of counterattacking the assailants. Some may remain tightlipped, overawed either on account of the antecedents of the assailant or threats given by him. Each one reacts in his special way even in similar circumstances, leave alone, the varying nature depending upon a variety of circumstances, there is no set rule of natural reaction. To discard the evidence of a witness on the ground that he did not react in any particular manner is to appreciate evidence in a wholly unrealistic and unimaginative way. (See Rana Partap v. State of Haryana - 1983 SCC (Cri) 601).

7. As rightly noted by the trial court, the witness was a young lad and according to his testimony the accused was a hardened criminal with records of violence. It is his evidence that he was threatened by the accused, therefore, his silence in not telling others for some time, cannot, in the circumstances of the case, be held to he suspicious and unnatural. Further, the High Court erred in observing that he had stated during examination about his having not seen the occurrence and later on clarifying that he did so because of threats given by the accused. PW 4 nowhere stated of his having not seen the occurrence. The High Court also committed another error in holding that the witness refused to be cross-examined. This fact is also not borne out from the record.”

27. It can, therefore, be said that a young girl like Jagadevi - P.W 9 had acted in a reasonable manner. At the relevant point of time of this incident, there was no one in the house except herself and her mother. Therefore, she could do nothing at that moment and immediately after she felt that the torture is over, she went and informed the occurrence as witnessed by her to her grand-mother P.W.7 at her place. She cannot; therefore, be disbelieved for not reacting in a particular manner at the time of such incident There can be no doubt that, having regard to the fact that the incident in question took place in the house of the deceased doling night, the only natural witness, who could be present to see the incident, would be Jagadevi P.W.9 No outsider can be expected to have come to the house at that point of time, more so when the incident in question was so sudden and quick. True, both P.Ws.7 and 9 are the close relatives of the deceased. But, they cannot be considered as interested witnesses in view of the fact that they did not have any animus to falsely implicate any of these accused persons. Moreover, a close relative like Jagadevi P.W.9, who is a very natural witness, cannot be regarded as an interested witness. There is nothing on record to show that Jagadevi P.W.9 bore any animus against the respondents-accused so as to falsely implicate them in such ghastly incident. Ordinarily, a close relative would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. It is true, when feelings run high and there is personal cause for enmity, that there is a tendency to drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has a grudge along with the guilty, but then, a foundation must be laid for such a criticism and the mere fact of relationship far from being a foundation is often a sure guarantee of truth. We think it would be unreasonable to contend that the evidence given by the witnesses should be discarded only on the ground that it is evidence of partisan or interested witnesses. The mechanical rejection of such evidence on the sole ground that it is partisan would invariably lead to failure of Justine. Normally close relatives of the deceased would not be considered to be interested witnesses, who would falsely mention the names of other persons as responsible for causing injuries to the deceased. It is now well settled that the mere fact that a witness is a relation of a victim is not sufficient to discard his or her testimony.

28. For these reasons, therefore, we are unable to reject the evidence of P.W.9 merely on the ground that she is the daughter of deceased Smt. Karemma. We have ourselves carefully gone through the entire evidence off P.W.9 and we find that shorn of a few embellishments here find there, her testimony read in its entirety has a ring of truth, a colour of consistency and a sense of straightforwardness, as a result of which her evidence inspires confidence. She has given a graphic description of what she had seen on that relevant night Under the circumstances, therefore, we see no good reason to reject the testimony of Jagadevi P.W 9. The evidence of P.W 9 stands corroborated from the evidence of her grand-mother P.W.7 on the material aspects of the case. Even the medical evidence in the case as well as the evidence of the Investigating Officer P.W.15 would lend credence to the testimony given in court by Jagadevi P.W.9 Thus, once the evidence of Jagadevi P.W.9 is believed, the prosecution case stands proved apart from anything else. That is to say, when once Jagadevi P.W.9 is found to be a natural witness and held to be a trustworthy witness, then, there does not seem to be any cogent reason for not acting upon her evidence. To decline to act upon the testimony of Jagadevi P.W.9 merely because of the absence of other witnesses to corroborate her in court is to defeat the cause of justice in this case. It is wholly unreasonable to dub P.W.9 as a tutored witness. We find no cogent material on record to support this observation. Her testimony leaves no scope for reasonable doubt about the complicity of the accused persons. Because of her relationship with the deceased, she cannot be considered to be inclined to spare the real assailants for falsely involving the accused persons and, indeed, in the circumstances of this case, there is hardly any scope for such a hypothesis. To us, there appears an intrinsic ring of truth in the statement of the witness P.W.9, which discloses no infirmity. There is no general rule that the evidence of the relations of the deceased must be corroborated for securing the conviction of the accused. Bach case depends on its own facts and circumstances. In the present case, the straightforward nature of the deposition of P.W.9 and the fact that she was undoubtedly in a position to identify the assailants of her mother leave no reasonable doubt about the guilt of the accused persons. In this connection, a reference may be mads to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Israr v. State Of U.P, reported in 2005 S.C.C (Cri) 1260 (A&B), wherein it is observed as uudsr:

“A. The ground that the witness being a close relative and consequently being a partisan witness, should not be relied upon, has no substance. Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal the actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made. In such cases, the court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible.

B. … … Even if part of the prosecution case is not acceptable, that would not result in rejection of the entire prosecution case and if on careful analysis of evidence, case against any accused is made out, he would be liable to be convicted, notwithstanding that evidence found to be deficient to prove guilt of other accused.”

29. In yet another decision of the Apex Court in the case of DANI SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR, reported in 2005 S.C.C (Cri) 127-K, it is observed in paiagraph-8 of the decision as under:

“8. … … Merely because the witnesses are related or friendly with the deceased, that will not be a ground to discard their evidence. The only thing the Court is required to do is to carefully scrutinise the evidence and find out if there is scope for taking a view about false implication. Further, since there are some exaggerations or minor discrepancies, that would not be sufficient to cast doubt on the evidence.”

30. A reference may also be made to another decision of the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF KARNATAKA v. PAPANAIKA, reported in 2005 S.C.C (CM) 104-B, wherein it is held as under:

“It is common experience that sometimes witnesses are prone to lapse of memory and sometimes they overstate the facts but simply because the statements of the witnesses are partly not trustworthy that does not mean that the whole of the testimony of the witnesses should be discarded. Criminal courts while appreciating testimony of witnesses should not take easy approach. Some exaggeration or embellishment can appear in the testimony because of lapse of time or poor memory. Therefore, wherever courts find sufficient corroboration then testimony of such witnesses should be accepted.”

31. Further, in the case of State Of H.P v. Shree Kant Shekari. reported in 2005 S.C.C (Cri) 327-K, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

“16. … … The victim is not an intelligent girl as the evidence on record shows. She passed out Class 3 on the third attempt. Her mother, a rustic woman, is practically illiterate. To examine their evidence with microscopic approach would be an insult to justice-oriented judicial system. It would be totally detached from the realities of life.”

Though the evidence of Jagadevi P.W.9 was attacked on the ground that it was interested and was tutored, we find that nothing has been brought on record to cast any doubt on the veracity of her statement. We, therefore, find no good ground to disbelieve the version given by Jagadevi P.W 9 in court with regard to the occurrence in question. Her evidence, coupled with the other evidence in the case, clearly establishes that, in all probability, deceased Smt. Karemma had been done to death by none other than these accused persons and, thereafter, they had thrown the dead body of the deceased into the well. In this connection, a reference may be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF M.P v. DHARKOLE, reported in 2005 S.C.C (Cri) 225-C, wherein it is held as under:

“10. A person has, no doubt, a profound right not to be convicted of an offence which is not established by the evidential standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Though this standard is a higher standard, there is, however, no absolute standard. What degree of probability amounts to “proof is an exercise particular to each case. Peferrixtg to the interdependence of evidence and the confirmation of one piece of evidence any another a learned author says: [See Glanville Williams: The Mathmatics of Proof II, Criminal Law Review, 1979, by Sweet and Maxwell, p.340 (342).]

‘The simple multiplication rule does not apply if the separate pieces of evidence are dependent. Two events are dependent when they tend to occur together, and the evidence of such events may also be said to be dependent. In a criminal case, different pieces of evidence directed to establishing that the defendant did the prohibited act with the specified state of mind are generally dependent. A junior may feel doubt whether to credit an alleged confession, and doubt whether to infer guilt from the fact that the defendant fled from justice. But since it is generally guilty rather than innocent people who make confessions and guilty rather than innocent people who run away, the two doubts are not to be multiplied together. The one piece of evidence may confirm the other.”

11. Doubts would be called reasonable if they are free from a rest of abstract speculation. Law cannot afford any favourite other than truth. To constitute reasonable doubt, it must be free from an overemotional response. Doubts must be actual and substantial doubts as to the guilt of the accused persons arising from the evidence, or from the lack of it, as opposed to mere vague apprehensions. A reasonable doubt is not an Imaginary, trivial or a merely possible doubt; but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense. It must grow out of the evidence in the case.

12. The concepts of probability, and the degrees of it, cannot obviously be expressed in terms of units to be mathematically enumerated as to how many of such units constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt There is an unmistakable subjective element in the evaluation of the degrees of probability and the quantum of proof. Forensic probability must, in the last analysis, rest on a robust common sense and, ultimately, on the trained intuitions of the judge. While the protection given by the criminal process to the accused persons is not to be eroded, at the same time, uninformed legitimization of trivialities would make a mockery of administration of criminal justice, This position was illuminatingly stated by Venkatachallah, J. (as His Lordship then was) in State of U.P v. Krishna Gopal (1988 SCC. (Cri) 928.”

The evidence on record would clearly indicate that all these accused persons, along with deceased Smt. Ningavva, had come to the house of deceased Smt. Karemma on that relevant night in a group and, after committing such a conjoined violence on deceased Smt. Karemma, they took her away from the house and subsequently, only the dead body of the deceased was found floating in the well. The manner in which the accused had come to the house of the deceased on that relevant night and removed her from the house after committing violence on her would show that they had constituted themselves into an unlawful assembly in order to commit such offence in furtherance of their common object to liquidate the deceased on account of the land dispute between deceased Smt. Karemma and her mother-in-law Smt. Ningavva. Therefore, all these accused persons are vicariously liable for the act committed by each of the accused persons. Section 149 of the I.P.C is clearly applicable to a case of this nature. The said provision has its foundation on constructive liability, which is the sine qua non for its operation The emphasis is on the common object and not on common intention. It is no doubt true that the mere presence in an unlawful assembly cannot render a person liable unless there was a common object and he was actuated by that common object and that object is one of those set out in Section 141 of the I.P.C Where the common object of an unlawful assembly is proved, the accused persons can be convicted with the help of Section 149 of the I.P.C The crucial question to determine is whether the assembly consisted of 5 or more persons and whether the said persons entertained one or more of the common objects, as specified in Section 141 of the I.P.C It cannot be laid down as a general proposition of law that unless an overt act is attributed or proved against a person, who is alleged to be a member of an unlawful Assembly, it cannot be said that he is a member of such an assembly. The only thing requited is that he should have understood that the assembly was unlawful and was likely to commit any of the acts, which fell within the purview of Section 141 of the I.P.C A common object may be formed by express agreement after mutual consultation, but that is by no means necessary. It may be formed at any stage by all or a few members of the assembly and the other members may just join and adopt it It is enough if each has the same object in view and their number is five or more and that they act as an assembly to achieve that object. The common object of an assembly may be gathered from the course of conduct adopted by the members of the assembly. The purpose for which the members of the assembly set out or desired to achieve is the object. If the object desired by all the members is the same, the knowledge that is the object, which is being; pursued, is shared by all the members and they are in general agreement as to how it is to be achieved and that is now the common object of the assembly. An object is entertained in the human mind, and it being a mere mental attitude, no direct evidence can be available and, like intention, has generally to be gathered from the act which the person commits and the result therefrom. Though no hard and fast rule can be laid down under the circumstances from which the common object can be culled out, it may reasonably be collected from the nature of the assembly and behaviour at the time of or before or after the occurrence. When an offence is committed in prosecution of the common object, it would generally be an offence which the members of the unlawful assembly knew was likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object. In every case, it would be an issue to be determined, whether the offence committed falls within the 1st part of section 149 or it was an offence such as the members of the assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object and falls within the 2nd part However, there may be cases which would be within the 1 part, but offences committed in prosecution of the common object would be generally, if not always, be within the 2 part viz., offences which the parties knew to be likely to be committed in the prosecution of the common object. In the factual scenario noticed above, Section 149 of the I.P.C is clearly applicable and hence, each of the accused persons is vicariously liable for the act of the other. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the conclusion is inevitable that Section 149 of the I.P.C is clearly applicable to the case of the respondents herein. That being so, they are liable to be convicted with the aid of Section 149 of the I.P.C

32. With regard to the motive for the accused to commit the crime, it is the case of the prosecution that an extent of five acres of land, which was standing in the nam of the husband of the deceased, had been subsequently mutated in the name of deceased Smt. Karemma by her father P.W.6 and, in that regard, there was a dispute between Smt. Karemma and her mother-in-law Ningawa. The respondents herein are the relatives of the said Smt. Ningavva. In this regard, P.W.1 Shivappa, who is a resident of Varvi village, has deposed before the court that he knew deceased Ningawwa and deceased Mallinath. Deceased Mallinath and lachappa were the sons of deceased Ningawwa. He also knew deceased Karemma, who was the daughter-in-law of deceased Ningawwa. Shankarappa is the father of deceased Karemma. After the death of her husband, deceased Karemma was residing with her father at Bennur village along with her daughter Jagadevi Deceased Mallinath was having five acres of land in his name and so also his brother Lachappa. He has stated that 4 to 5 years earlier to the death of Karemma, it was decided in the panchayath that Ningawa should pay 2 bags of jowar and Rs. 250/- per year to deceased Karemma. Deceased Ningawa did not pay the above said quantity of jowar and the amount to deceased Karemma. Three years thereafter a panchayath was again held in his presence at Bennur and in the said panchayath it was decided that Karemma and Ningamma should enjoy five acres of land, which was standing in the name of deceased Mallinath and, after their death, the said land is to be enjoyed by Lachappa, and that Lachappa shall perform the marriage of the daughter of Karemma viz., Jagadevi P.W.9 Thereafter, he has stated that the dispute had started between Ningawwa and Karemma and they did not act as per the settlement arrived at in the panchayath. In the cross-examination done by the defence, he has stated that his native place Varvi is at a distance of about 2 k.ms from Bennur village. It is a fact that he and Shankarappa P.W.6 belong to two different castes, but they are close Mends. He has further stated that if there were to be any work, he used to visit Bennur village. He has stated that the second panchayath was held in relation to Karemma and Ningamma and not in relation to any other persons. He has denied the suggestion that, in his presence, the second panchayath was held and that in the said panchayath, it was not decided that Ningawa and Karemma should enjoy the five acres of land belonging to Mallinath and after their death, Lachapa should enjoy the said land and he shall perform the marriage of Jagadevi. He has stated that, he does not know that prior to the death of Mallinath, five acres of land standing in his name was transferred to the name of deceased Karemma.

33. P.W.6 Shankarappa also speaks to the motive aspect of the case. He has deposed that, after the death of her husband Mallinath, his daughter Karemma was residing with him and her mother-in-law Smt. Ningavva declined to give the land that was standing in the name of Mallinath to his daughter. He has stated that, in the panchayath which was held about eight years prior to the death of Karemma, it was decided that Ningawa should give 2 bags of Jowar and 2 saris and also cash of Rs. 200/- per year to Karemma. But, Ningavva did not pay the same as agreed. Thereafter, he got the name of Karemma entered in the revenue records in respect of that five acres of land standing in the name of her husband. He has stated that Karemma was staying with him till her death in their house. He has further stated that the quarrel had started between Ningavva and himself in respect of the said five acres of land. He has further stated that all the accused are the relatives of deceased Smt. Ningavva and that about a month earlier to the death of deceased Karemma, all these accused had chased him and his son Basavaraj in order to assault them with axe and sticks. Therefore, both, he and his son, went to Sholapur and stayed there. Two days thereafter, when Bhivasharanappa informed him about the missing of Karemma, he had returned to the village. He has stated that he could not find his daughter Karemma and three days thereafter he saw the dead body of deceased Karemma tying in the well at Bennur. He performed the funeral rites of his daughter. He was informed by his wife that all these accused persons have committed the murder of Karenuna and threw the dead body of the deceased into the well.

34. From the above evidence of P.Ws 1 and 6, it is quite clear that there was a land dispute between deceased Karemma and her mother-in-law and, in that regard, there was a panchayath, wherein deceased Smt. Ningavva had been told to comply with certain conditions and when she did not comply with those conditions, it appears that P.W.6 Shankarappa got the land mutated in the name of the deceased. Naturally, deceased Smt. Ningavva must have been offended by the said conduct and, in all probability, she thought that the real hurdle in her way is her daughter - in - law Karemma. It is not in dispute that all these accused persons are the relatives of deceased Smt. Ningiavva. The material on record would also disclose that they had, at one point of time, tried to assault Shankarappa P.W.6 and his son Basavaraj and, being scared of the accused persons, they both had left the village and took shelter in Sholapur. This would clearly indicate that the respondents-accused were at the back of deceased Smt. Ningavva. Therefore, in the fact situation, it cannot be said that there was no motive on the part of the accused persons to commit the crime. Even if the motive is not proved, if the evidence of P.W.9 and her grant mother P.W.7 is accepted, the question of motive pales into insignificance and becomes absolutely academic. We would however hasten to add that this is no doubt the correct proposition of tew, but in the instant case we should remember that lust of land is a very sensitive matter. We have known a very large number of cases resulting in serious disputes culminating in murders over small land disputes. Various persons react differently in similar circumstances and we cannot therefore exclude the possibility of the accused persons along with the deceased Ningawwa having reacted very sharply against what they considered to be highly unjust and improper. This would undoubtedly provide an adequate motive for the murder which is demonstrated by the fact that the deceased was actually murdered by the deceased Ningawwa and her basebands viz., the accused. In these circumstances, we are quite satisfied that there was enough and adequate motive for the accused to commit the murder of the deceased.

35. There was also a circumstance regarding the recovery at the instance of one of the accused and the abscondance of the accused persons. The Investigating Officer P.W 17 has clearly stated that he had instructed the P.S.I, P.W 15, to search and apprehend the accused persons pursuant to which, on 22.6.1994, deceased accused Ningevva wets produced before him and he had caused her arrest He interrogated the said accused Smt. Ningavva who pointed out the place where the deceased had been murdered. Since nothing had been recovered and she had only pointed out the place of murder, it would not be admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, except that it would show the conduct of deceased accused Smt. Ningavva. Further, on 30.6.1994, the accused persons A-1 to A-6 were produced before him by the P.S.L and he caused their arrest. He has stated that pursuant to the statement made by A-1 Jagadevappa as per Ex.P-14, the said accused had led him and the panchas to the garden land of A-3 Mudukanna and there, he produced one saree M.O.1 from inside the hut. He seized the said saree M.O.1 under panchanama Ex.P-15. On the same day, he produced A-1 before the J.M.F.C Court at Jewargi. Out of the two panchas who were examined to speak to the recovery, P.W 13 had turned hostile wholesale. But, P.W 12, who had also turned hostile, would however admit that he has attested panchanama Ex.P-9 and he had seen the saree. Merely because the panch witnesses to the recovery had turned hostile, there is no reason to discard the evidence of the Investigating Officer, who, in the course of his investigation, had interrogated A-1 and pursuant to the disclosure statement made by him, the saree, which was used in the commission of the offence was recovered. In this connection, a reference may be made to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of STATE GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI v. SUNIL, reported in 2001 S.C.C (Cri) 248. Therefore, merely because the independent panchas for the recovery panchanama have turned hostile, the evidence of the Investigating Officer regarding recovery cannot be discarded. The court has to consider the evidence of the Investigating Officer, who has deposed to the fact of recovery, based on the statement elicited from the accused, on its own worth. The official acts of the police have been regularly performed is a wise principle of presumption and recognized even by the Legislature. Hence, when a police officer gives evidence in court that a certain article was recovered by him on the strength of the statement made by the accused, it is open to the court to believe the version to be correct, if it is not otherwise shown to be unreliable. It is for the accused, through cross-examination of witnesses or through any other materials, to show that the evidence of the police officer is either unreliable or at least unsafe to be acted upon in a particular case. In the instant case, we find that the evidence of the Investigating Officer with regard to the circumstance regarding the recovery is acceptable and there is no reason for us to discard the evidence of the Investigating Officer in this regard.

36. Now, let us sum up the whole case in the Sight of the evidence we have found to be of worth. We must observe that even if a witness is not reliable, he need not be false and even if the police have trumped up one witness or two or has embroidered the story to give a credible look to their case, that cannot defeat justice if there is clear and unimpeachable evidence making out the guilt of the accused persons. Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused ‘must be’ and not merely ‘may be’ guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. Informing ourselves of these important principles, we have analysed the evidence found good by us. In our considered view, there is only one eye-witness P.W.9 Jagadevi. Even if the case against the accused persons hangs on the evidence of a single eye witness, it may be enough to sustain the conviction given sterling testimony of a competent honest man, although as a rule of prudence, courts call for corroboration. It is a platitude to say that witnesses have to be weighed and not counted, since quality matters more than quantity in human affairs. We are persuaded that P.W.9 Jagadevi is a witness for truth and she, being a natural witness to the occurrence, cannot be termed as interested. Apart from this, the evidence of Jagadevi P.W.9 stands corroborated irons the other circumstances established in the case. No doubt, P.W.9 is the sole eye-witness to the occurrence and she is related to the deceased. The legislative recognition of the feet that no particular number of witnesses can be insisted upon is amply reflected in Section 134 of the Evidence Act. Administration of justice can be affected and hampered, if number of witnesses were to be insisted upon. It is not seldom that a crime has been committed in the presence of one witness, leaving aside those cases which are not of unknown occurrence where determination of guilt depends entirely on circumstantial evidence. If plurality of witnesses would have been the legislative intent, cases where the testimony of a single witness only could be available as in this case, in number of crimes the offenders would have gone unpunished. It is the quality of evidence of the single witness whose testimony has to be tested on the touchstone of credibility and reliability. If the testimony is found to be reliable, there is no legal impediment to convict the accused on such proof. It is the quality and not the quantity of evidence, which is necessary for proving or disproving a feet. This position has been settled by a series of decisions of the Apex Court The facts here would show that when the incident in question had occurred, except the deceased and her daughter F.W.9, no other person was found in the house. There can, therefore, be no doubt that having regard to the fact that the incident in question took place in the house at such odd hour of the night, the only natural witness who could be present to see the occurrence would be Jagadevi P.W.9 As we have already stated, no outsider could have come at that time because, the attack on the deceased by the accused persons was so sudden and had lasted only for a short duration. P.W.9 Jagadevi, though a close relative, but being a natural witness, cannot be regarded as interested witness, more so when there is no animus for her to falsely implicate the accused persons. In fact, she is also the grand-daughter of deceased Ningavva and the respondents herein are the relatives of the said Ningavva. There is absolutely no evidence to indicate that P.W.9 Jagadevi bore any animus against the accused. The evidence of P.W.9 Jagadevi comes out unscathed on the acid test of credibility and reliability with regard to the assault committed on the deceased by the accused persons in the house on that relevant night. The presence of P.W.9 in the house at that time cannot at all be doubted. Nothing infirm has been elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.9 to cast doubt on her veracity. There is no reason as to why P.W.9 would falsely implicate the accused persons. Merely because P.W.9 is the daughter of the deceased, that per se cannot be a ground to discard her evidence. Careful scrutiny has been done of her evidence and it has been found by us to be acceptable. We find no good reason to discard the evidence of P.W.9 We may also incidentally point out that proof of motive satisfies the judicial mind about the likelihood of the authorship, but its absence only demands deeper forensic search and cannot undo the effect of evidence otherwise sufficient. Motives of men are often subjective, submerged and unamenable to easy proof that courts have to go without clear evidence thereon if other clinching evidence exists. In the instant case, we have the clinching evidence of Jagadevi P.W.9, which, besides being consistent, stands corroborated from the other circumstances established in the case.

37. We are conscious of the limitations while dealing with an appeal against a judgment of acquittal. Having however found that miscarriage of justice has resulted by an entirely faulty and erroneous appreciation of evidence by the trial court, it becomes our duty to interfere in the matter. From the evidence placed on record, the only view possible is the one taken fay us now. It is not a case where two reasonable views are possible. It is also not a case where findings recorded by the trial court are fully supported by the evidence on record. This court, being a court of first appeal, is required to consider and re-appreciate the evidence. It is well settled that when the reasoning of the trial court is perverse, this court may set aside the judgment of acquittal of the trial court It is further well settled that there is no embargo on the appellate court to review evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based. We, therefore, have no other alternative but to hold that the trial court went wrong in passing a judgment of acquittal. It is wholly unsustainable.

38. We shall now deal with the general comments made by the learned counsel for the respondents regarding the entire case. P.W.9 Jagadevi is the daughter of the deceased and during the relevant time of the occurrence, she was staying with her mother in the house of her grand-parents. On that fateful night, except the deceased and her daughter P.W.9, no one else was present in the house. The grand-father and his son, being scared of these accused persons, had left the village and were staying at Sholapur. The grand-mother of P.W.9 had gone to the house of her another daughter during the relevant, time of this occurrence. P.W.9 Jagadevi, who is a natural witness to the occurrence, which took place in their house, has narrated the incident in detail. She was then aged about 11 years and when she gave evidence in court, she was aged about 16 years. There is nothing unnatural that the witness P.W.9, being hardly aged about 11 years, would be staying with her widowed mother in the house of her grand-parents. It is quite possible that at the time the proceedings took place in the trial court, the grand-parents or any other person might have said something to the witness P.W.9, but, that would not affect her credibility since her previous statement recorded during the investigation itself was available to confront her. Nothing has been brought out in the cross-examination that, being aged about 16 years, there was any infirmity in her understanding of the facts perceived and her ability to narrate the same correctly in court As a matter of fact, nothing such has been indicated to us in this behalf in the evidence. The witness Jagadevi P.W.9 was then aged about 11 years and a girl of her age, these days, acquires sufficient understanding to perceive the facts to narrate the same. The existence of source of light for her to identify the assailants of her mother has been clearly spoken to by her and the answers elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.9 by the defence would confirm and further affirm the existence of such source of light in the house on that relevant night The witness P.W.9, being hardly aged about 11 years, could not raise hue and cry because of the threat imposed by the accused persons and it would have taken some time for her to compose herself, after the accused had left the spot along with her mother, for her to go out of the house and inform the occurrence to her grand-mother. True, after her grand-mother came along with her to the house during the night, some other persons did visit the house and had advised them not to stir out of the house. May be, it would have been better if those persons, who had visited the house had been examined by the prosecution, but their non-examination will not as such erode the credibility of the witness P.W.9, which, besides being natural, stands corroborated from the other evidence on record. We are, therefore, of the view that the testimony of P.W.9 is clear and trustworthy and reliance could safely be placed on her evidence. The law does not prescribe any particular age for the competency of a witness to depose in court On the other hand, Section 118 of the Evidence Act does not prescribe any particular age as a determinative factor to treat a witness to be competent one. It only envisages that all persons are competent to testify unless the court considers that they are prevented from understanding the questions put to them or from giving rational answers to those questions, because of tender years, extreme old age, disease, etc, whether of body or mind or any other cause of the same kind. A child of tender age can be allowed to testify if he or she has intellectual capacity to understand the questions and give rational answers thereto. The evidence of a child witness is not required to be rejected per se, but the court, as a rule of prudence, considers such evidence with close scrutiny and only on being convinced about the quality thereof and reliability can record conviction, based thereon. A child witness, if found competent to depose to the facts and reliable one, such evidence could be the basis for conviction. In other words, even in the absence of oath, the evidence of a child witness can be considered under Section 118 of the Evidence Act, provided that such witness is able to understand the answers thereof. The evidence of a child witness and credibility thereof would depend upon the circumstances of each case. The only precaution which the court should bear in mind while assessing the evidence of a child witness is that the witness must be a reliable one and his or her demeanour must be like any other competent witness and there is no likelihood of being tutored. In the instant case, we find no such materials to reject the evidence of P.W.9 On the other hand, we have found her testimony to be reliable and trustworthy. Besides this, as could be seen from the answers given by her, she was quite competent to depose before the court. We have carefully analysed the evidence of P.W.9 As we have already indicated, there is no reason for her to falsely implicate the accused and her paternal grand-mother Ningavva. We find that the witness P.W.9 was able to understand and give rational answers. That being so, it cannot be said that P.W.9 had no maturity to understand the import of questions put to her and give rational answers to them. That being so, the trial court was not justified in not placing implicit reliance on her testimony. Her evidence, as we have already stated, stands corroborated from the other evidence on record, including the evidence of her grand-mother P.W.7 Mere failure to examine the persons, who are alleged to have visited the house of the deceased at that time, will not result in outright rejection of the evidence of P.W.9 and her grand-mother P.W.7, if they are found to be credible. Moreover, we cannot ignore the reality that many persons shy away from giving evidence for obvious reasons. The ground that P.W.9 and her grand-mother P.W.7, being close relatives and consequently being partisan witnesses, should not be relied upon has no substance. The evidence on record shows that the accused were not strangers to P.W.9 She was able to identify each one of the accused persons fay their names. They were from the same village and were also related to P.W.9, being the relatives of her grand-mother Ningavva. Therefore, these could be no difficulty on the part of P.W.9 in identifying the culprits, who had trespassed into the house on that relevant night and took away deceased Smt. Karemma along with them. Therefore, there was no need for holding test identification parade. Even otherwise, as observed in Matru Singh v. State Of U.P, reported in 1971 S.C.C (CM) 391, identification tests do not constitute substantive evidence. They are primarily meant for the purpose of helping the investigating agency with an assurance that their progress with the investigation into the offence is proceeding on the right lines. The identification can only be used as corroborative; of the statement in court The necessity for holding an identification parade can arise only when the accused are not previously known to the witnesses. The whole idea of test identification parade is that witnesses, who claim to have seen the culprits at the time of occurrence, are to identify them from the midst of other persons without any aid or any other source. The test is done to check upon their veracity, In other words, the main object of holding an identification parade, during the investigation stage, is to test the memory of the witnesses based upon the first impression end also to enable the prosecution to decide whether all or any of them could be cited as eye-witnesses of that crime, The identification proceedings are in the nature of tests and significantly, therefore, there is no provision for it in the Criminal Procedure Code and the Evidence Act. This becomes necessary to eliminate the possibility of the accused being shown to the witnesses prior to the test identification parade. It is trite to say that substantive evidence is the evidence of identification in court. Apart from the clear provisions of Section 9 of the Evidence Act, the position in law is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court As a general rule, the substantive evidence of a witness is the statement made in court. Be that as it may. The facts here would clearly show that all these accused were known to P.W.9 That being so, there was absolutely no need for holding the test identification parade. The test identification parade would be of no consequence in view of the fact that the accused were previously known to P.W.9 and they were not total strangers to her. She was able to identify them during night in the source of light that was available at that time in the house. It was contended that the factum of the existence of source of light is doubtful, as the same has not been mentioned by the Investigating Officer in the spot panchanama Ex.P-10. Merely because the existence of source of light has not been mentioned in the spot panchanama Ex.P-10, that by itself will not be sufficient to discard the evidence of the eye-witness P.W.9 In this connection, a reference may be made to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SHAKTI PATRA v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL, reported in A.I.R 1981 S.C 1217. A reference may also be made to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PRITHVI v. MAM RAJ, reported in 2005 S.C.C (Cri) 198-H. It was also contended vehemently that the conduct of the witness P.W.9 and her grand-mother P.W.7 is most unnatural and artificial. We are unable to accept this contention. The evidence on record would show that the grand-Mixer Shankarappa P.W.6 and his son Basaoaraj had left the village being scared of the accused and that further even when Dasharath P.W.10 was proceeding towards the house of the deceased, he was scared away by these accused persons. Therefore, the accused persons, by nature, appear to be violent and powerful persons in the village. That being so, nobody would dare to disclose the names of these accused persons immediately, without looking to their safety. It was a small village and even there was no Police Station situated at the village and the nearest Police Station was situated at a distance of about 20 k.ms from the village. Moreover, merely because the witness P.W.9 and her grand-mother P.W.7 did not react in any particular manner, that by itself is not sufficient to discard their evidence as the conduct of persons differs from person to person and also depends upon the situation prevailing at the place. It is well settled principle of law that there is no set rule of natural reaction. Everyone reacts In his own special way and in what way the witnesses react cannot be predicted. In this connection, reference may be made to the decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of RANA PARTAP v. STATE OF HARYANA, reported in 1983 S.C.C (Cri) 601, and AACHITTAR SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB, reported in 2003 S.C.C (Cri) 233. In the latter decision, it has been observed that human behaviour vary from man to man and different people behave and react differently in different situations. In the given circumstance, the behaviour of the witness P.W.9 in keeping silent in the house on being scared by the accused and after the accused had left the house, going outside the house and informing the incident to her grand-mother P.W.9, even during the night, cannot be said to be unnatural. That apart, as we have already stated, the facts and circumstances would show that the accused appeared to be very powerful persons in the village-In such a situation, P.W.9, P.W.7 and their people approaching anybody in the village would be risking their own life. Their immediate reaction was to shut their mouth till there was enough indication about their safely. Apart from this, a bare perusal of the information laid by Dasharath P.W.10 with the police as per Ex.P-6 would show that the only two persons who could have known about the occurrence would be P.W.9 and her grand-mother P.W.7 In fact, there is some reference to them even in the said report Ex.P-6. Further, it has come in the evidence of Dasharath P.W.10 that, after he had returned from the Police Station, he was informed by the witness Chandamma P.W.7 that all these accused persons took away the deceased from her house during the night Therefore, from the overall view of the evidence on record, it is quite clear that the only two persons, who could have knowledge of the occurrence, were P.W.9 and her grand-mother P.W.7 Immediately on arrival of the Investigating Officer to the scene and having come to know of the same, they gave their statements to the Investigating Officer. It appears that they were so seated of the accused that they could not even lodge the complaint against the accused and obviously for the said reason, it is the Investigating Officer who, on the basis of the statements recorded during the inquest proceedings, registered a suo motu case on his own report Even assuming that there was some delay on the, part of the Investigating Officer in examining and recording the statements, as-we have already stated, that by itself will not be sufficient to discard their evidence. Further, the mere absence of the names of the accused persons in the information laid by Dasharath P.W 10 to the police as per Ex.P-6 would not have any effect on the credibility of the evidence of P.W.9 and her grand-mother P.W.7 The absence of the names of the accused in Ex.P-6 will be of no consequence as he was not an eye-witness nor he had collected all details from P.W.9 before going to the Police Station. The information Ex.P-6 laid by Dasharath P.W 10 cannot be said to be fabricated because, If he really wanted to fabricate the case against the accused persons, he could have mentioned the names of all these accused persons in the said report itself. But, admittedly, the report Ex.P-6 did not mention the names of these accused persons. It is also quite likely that the said Dasharath P.W 10 or any other person may be interested in not mentioning the names of the accused and suppressing the names. We, therefore, find no merit in any of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents.

39. Now, with regard to the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents, it has to be stated that there could be no decision on facts. The courts should not place reliance on the decisions without discussion as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. Precedent would be followed only so far as It marks the path of justice, but one must cut the dead wood and him off the side branches, else one will find himself lost in the thickets and branches. Each case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another is not enough because even a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect In deciding such cases, and more so criminal cases, one should avoid the temptation to decide the cases by matching the colour of one case against the colour of another. To decide, therefore, on which side of the line a case falls, the broad resemblance to another case is not at all decisive. We have carefully perused the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents and we find that they have no relevance to the facts of this case. Hence, there is no need for us to make reference to each one of the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents.

40. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, we find that the Prosecution has established the case against the respondents - accused beyond every reasonable doubt. The Trial Court fell in error in acquitting them of the charges levelled against them. The appreciation of evidence by the Trial Court is not only unreasonable, but also perverse. The conclusions arrived at by the Trial Court are wholly untenable and in the established facts and circumstances of the case, the view expressed by it is not a possible view, We accordingly set aside the impugned Judgment of the Trial Court and convict all the respondents - accused for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 448, 302 and 201 readwith Section 149 of IPC. Thus, the respondents herein stand convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 448, 302 and 201 readwith Section 149 of IPC.

41. Now, on the question of sentence to be awarded to the respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 448, 302 and 201 readwith Section 149 of IPC, we have heard the learned counsel for the respondents as well as the learned State Counsel. Learned counsel for the respondents has contended that this being not rarest, of rare case, the respondents-accused may not be awarded the extreme penalty of death and the only alternative in that case would be to impose life imprisonment. As against this, the learned State Counsel has contended that the facts of this case would show that an helpless young widow, while she was found with her minor daughter in the house, had been forcibly taken away by the accused by committing violence and she was later murdered and her dead body was thrown into the well. He, therefore, contended that having regard to the nature of the offence committed by the respondents, they do not deserve any leniency in the matter of awarding of sentence for the offences with which they have now been convicted and found guilty. According to the learned State counsel, it attracts the extreme penalty of death,

42. In so far as the awarding of sentence is concerned, the Court has to strike a just balance. In the instant case, the occurrence took place during the night between 12.6.1994 and 13.6.1994 and culminated during the interregnum between 13.6.1994 and 15.6.1994 We are now in the year 2005. More than 11 years have already elapsed from the date of the incident. The respondents herein were aged between 20 and 55 years at the time, when the offence was committed. There is nothing on record to show that the respondents have been involved in any other offence, after they were acquitted by the Trial Court on 5.7.1999, They all appear to be agriculturists having a rural background. These are some of the factors, which we need to take into consideration, while imposing an appropriate sentence to the respondents. We find that this is not a rarest of rare case, where the extreme penalty of death could be awarded to the respondents for the offence punishable under Section 302 readwith Section 149 of IPC. Accordingly, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, we sentence the respondents herein for the offence punishable under Section 302 readwirh Section 149 of IPC to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each. We however refrain from awarding any other sentence for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 448 and 201 readwith Section 149 of IPC. That is to say, for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 448 and 201 readwith Section 149 of IPC, no separate sentence is imposed or awarded to the respondents.

43. In the result, therefore, this criminal appeal filed by the appellant - State is allowed. The impugned Judgment and Order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court is hereby set aside. The respondents - accused are hereby convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 448, 302 and 203 readwith Section 149 of IPC. For the offence punishable under Section 302 readwith section 149 of IPC, the respondents - accused are hereby sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, each, and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, each, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each. But no separate sentence is however awarded to the respondents - accused in so far as the offences punishable under Section 143, 147, 448 and 201 readwith Section 149 of IPC are concerned. The appeal of the appellant-State accordingly succeeds in the manner as indicated above. The respondents - accused shall surrender to custody forthwith to serve out the sentence imposed on them, failing which, the Trial Court shall take immediate effective steps to secure the respondents - accused to custody forthwith in order to serve out the sentence imposed on them It is ordered accordingly.