2021 INSC 0249
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1993 OF 2010
MALLAPPA          … APPELLANT(S)
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA                …RESPONDENT(S)
      JUDGMENT
ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J. 
The   appellant   (Mallappa)   was   charged   with   having
committed   fratricide,   murder   of   his   brother   Earappa,   little
beyond   the   midnight   hours   of   19 th
­20 th
  April   1999.   His   son,
Veeresh was the co­accused.  The Trial Court acquitted both of
them from the charges under Section 302 read with Section 34
of the Indian Penal Code (the Code, in short). In appeal against
the judgment of acquittal by the State of Karnataka, the High
Court of Karnataka set aside the decision of the Trial Court in
relation   to   Mallappa   and   convicted   him   of   the   offence
Page |  1

punishable   under   Section   302   of   the   Code.   Sentence   of   life
imprisonment was awarded against him. The present appeal is
by   Mallappa   against   the   judgment   of   conviction   and   order   of
sentence   passed   on   11 th
  June   2008.     The   prosecution   case,
which was accepted by the High Court, was that the appellant
(described as A1 and his son Veerappa as A2 in the trial) had
assaulted   the   deceased   Earappa   with   a   club   while   the   latter
was   sleeping   in   the   “angala”   (frontyard)   of   his   house   in
Sidrampur   village,   Taluk   Sindhanur   within   the   State   of
Karnataka.
2. There   was   previous   dispute   between   the   appellant   and
the   deceased   victim   over   certain   immovable   properties   and
sharing  of canal water, which  were projected as the motive of
the   crime   by  the  prosecution.   It  appears   from   the   evidence   of
the   prosecution   witnesses   that   the   deceased   victim   was
sleeping in the frontyard of his house at a little distance from
his   wife,   Bassamma   (P.W.   5)   with   two   of   his   daughters   when
the assault took place. On hearing the screams of his wife and
daughter,   Shivarayappa   (P.W.3),   another   brother   of   the
deceased   woke   up   and   saw   the   two   accused   persons   running
Page |  2

away.   As per evidence of P.W.3, he was sleeping at that point
of time outside his  house in the  ‘angala’  about 10’ away  from
the   location   where   the   deceased   was   sleeping.     We   shall
describe   this   location   as   the   place   of   occurrence   (PO).     On
reaching   the   PO   where   the   deceased   was   sleeping,   he   found
the latter  bleeding  from his nose and ear. Then, he rushed to
the  house  of P.W.1, his  sister’s husband,  whose  name is also
Earappa.   From   the   P.W.1’s   house,   he   went   and   fetched   the
local   doctor,   Mallikarjuna   (P.W.4)   to   the   PO.     On   examining
the deceased, he declared him dead.   Thereafter, P.W.1, P.W.3
and   one   Bassappa   arranged   for   a   jeep   and   went   to   the
Sindhnur   police   station   for   reporting   the   incident.   From   the
deposition   of   Sanna   Hassan   Sab   (P.W.8),   who   recorded   the
complaint as P.S.I at that police station on the basis of which
the   F.I.R.   was   registered,   it   transpires   that   they   had   reached
the police station at about 4 A.M. on 20 th
 April, 1999. 
3. Evidence   of  the   autopsy  surgeon,  Dr.  Venketesh   Y.  (PW­
7)   is   that   death   of   Earappa   was   caused   due   to   intra­cranial
haemorrhage and shock. He found an external injury, being a
lacerated   wound   on   right   occipital   protuberance   3   x  ½	’’.     His
Page |  3

opinion,   as   it   appears   from   his   examination­in­chief   was   that
such injury could be caused by an iron rod or lathi. In cross­
examination,   however,   he   stated   that   if   a   person   fell
downwards on a hard surface, such injury was possible.
4. The   prosecution   case   was   built   up   primarily   on   the
evidence   of   PW­5,   who   was   presented   as   an   eye­witness   and
the   depositions   PW­3   and   Bhogappa   (PW­6),   both   of   whom
gave   evidence   as   post   occurrence   witnesses.   They   claimed   to
have   had   seen   the   appellant   running   away,   and   the   location
they saw the appellant was in front of the house of one Jeeral
Devendrappa.     P.W.5   had   stated   in   her   examination­in­chief
that  she had seen A1  assaulting  on  the head  of  her   deceased
husband with a club.   In her cross­examination, however she
gave a different version, of seeing the accused person near the
house   of   Devendrappa.     We   shall   deal   with   her   evidence   in
greater   detail   in   the   succeeding   paragraph.     The   other   factor
by   which   the   prosecution   sought   to   establish   their   case
against   the   appellant   was   recovery   of   the   weapon   of   assault­
the club from the house of the accused. PW­8, who conducted
the inquest, in his deposition stated that he had seized a small
Page |  4

piece   of   wooden   club   from   the   spot   of   occurrence   along   with
certain   other   materials   ­   barkha,   pillow   (spelled   pillo   in   the
deposition   as   recorded),   jamkhana,   blood   stained   mud   and
sample mud. This was reflected in the Mahazar.  The club has
been made Material Object (M.O.) 6 whereas the small wooden
piece was marked M.O.10.
5. Basamma (PW­5), in her examination­in­chief had stated
that   after   midnight   of   19 th  
­20 th
  April,   1999,   she   had   heard   a
sound   which   she   described   as   ‘DHUP’.   This   appears   to   be   a
phonetic description of what may be called a thudding sound.
She   also   stated   in   her   examination­in­chief   that   Honnappa
and Nagaraja, their sons, were sleeping with her husband.  On
hearing such sound, she shouted and on opening her eyes she
saw the appellant Mallappa with a club assaulting on the head
of her husband with Veerappa (A­2) was standing behind him.
In   her   cross­examination,   she   stated   that   Honnappa   was   not
sleeping  with  them  on  that  day, as he  was in  Sindhnur.   Her
daughters Earamma and Gangamma were sleeping with them.
As regards witnessing the accused persons, her varied version
in her cross­examination was that by the time she had woken
Page |  5

up and saw her husband, injuries had been caused.   She saw
the   accused   running   near   the   house   of   Devendrappa.
Prosecution   sought   to   establish   the   club   as   the   weapon   of
assault   by   matching   the   wooden   piece   seized   at   the   house   of
the   appellant   with   a   broken   piece   the   police   claimed   to   have
had seized from the spot of crime.
6. PW­2­Srinivas,   who   was   adduced   as   witness   to   the
seizure of items around the time of inquest in his examination­
in­chief stated:­
“…..From   the   spot,   the   police   collected   blood­stained
mud,   Barkha,   Pillo   and   one   Jamkhana,   and   seized
the   same.   One   Virupanna   signed   the   spot   mahazar
alongwith   me.   Ex.   P.2   is   the   spot   mahazar.   It   bears
my   signature.   M.O.1   is   Barkha,   M.O.2   is   Pillo   &
M.O.3 is the Jamkhana. M.O.4 is blood­stained mud.
M.O.5 is sample mud which also collected at the spot.
2. Next from the house of A.1 the police by going near
the   ovan   in   the   kitchen   seized   a   club   consisting   of
blood­stained.   Ex.   P.3   is   club   seizure   mahazar.   It
bears my signature. M.O.6 is the club that was seized
from  the   house   of   A.1.  At   that   time   in  the   house   A.2
son   of   A.1   was   present.   The   other   women   folk   were
also present. Ex.P.3 is club seizure mahazar.  It bears
my signature.  M.O.6 is the club that was seized from
the house of A.1.  At that time in the house A.2 son of
A.1   was   present.     The   other   women   folk   were   also
present.” 
(quoted verbatim)
Page |  6

Further, in course of his cross­examination, he had also
stated:­
“When   I   went   there   P.S.I.   told   me   at   the   spot
panchanama   is   made,   where   deceased   died   and
thereby   I   signed   it   and   I   do   not   know   for   what
purpose   that   mahazar   was   made.   At   the   spot   three
mahazars   were   conducted.   I   cannot   say   for   what
purpose   all   the   three   panchanamas   were   conducted
at   that   place.   At   the   spot   itself   I   signed   all   the
panchanamas.   Police   had   already   written   those
panchanamas.   I   do   not   know   what   is   written   in   all
those panchanamas.” 
(quoted verbatim)
In   his   cross­examination   he   had   also   specifically   stated
that the club was not broken.
7. The   Trial   Court   found   that   PW­3   and   PW­5   had   improved
the   prosecution   case,   which   was   not   stated   before   the   police.
The   Trial   Judge   found   the   evidences   of   PW­3   and   PW­5   to   be
exaggerated   and   deviated   from   the   prosecution   story.     He   was
not convinced by the prosecution story of assault and murder of
the   deceased   victim   Earappa   and   acquitted   both   the   accused
persons.     Other   factors   behind   the   Trial   Court’s   judgment   was
that   Devendrappa’s   house   was   not   visible   from   the   place   of
occurrence.   Moreover, the weapon of assault was not produced
before   the   autopsy   surgeon   and   the   same   was   also   not   sent   to
Page |  7

any expert to obtain opinion as to whether M.O.­6 and M.O.­10
matched to form the same club.  
8. In appeal by the State, it was held by the High Court:­
“9.   The   evidence   of   PW3   and   PW6   disclose   that   the
houses of Hussainamma and Jeeral Devendrappa are
side by  side and the said houses are not visible from
their   house.   Whether   the   house   of   Jeeral
Devendrappa is visible by the house of PW3 and PW6
is not of importance and relevance. The said evidence
cannot   be   interpreted   to   the   effect   that   the   house   of
Jeeral   Devendrapa   is   not   visible   from   the   house   of
PW5.   Therefore,   there   is   no   reason   to   reject   the
testimony   of   PW5   which   is   to  the   effect   that   she   was
able   to   see  the   accused   persons   going   away   near   the
house of Jeeral Devendrappa.
10.   The   prosecution   has   established   the   motive   for
the commission of the offence. The evidence of PW5 is
fully   credible.   It   may   be   that   the   evidence   of   PW5
shows   that   2   blows   were   dealt.   There   is   only   one
lacerated   head   injury.   It   could   be   possible   that   both
the   blows   must   have   been   dealt   at   the   same   site   in
which event there could be only one injury.
11. PW5 states that it was A1 who dealt blow and ran
away   from   the   scene.   She   states   that   A2   also   ran
away.   PW2   does   not   attribute   any   overt   acts   to   A2.
The   act   of   A2   running   away   cannot   be   interpreted   to
attribute   sharing   of   common   intention   on   the   part   of
A2.   The   evidence   of   PW5   at   the   best   establish   the
guilt of A1.
12.   In   that   view   of   the   matter,   the   order   of   acquittal
recorded   by   the   trial   Court   against   A1   is   set   aside.
The order of acquittal granted to A2 by the trial Court
is confirmed.”
(quoted verbatim)
Page |  8

9. In our opinion, however, the evidence of PW­5 cannot be
accepted in full.  There are contradictions in PW­5’s deposition
as   regards   the   P.W.5   having   seen   Mallappa   at   the   spot   of
occurrence.     She   stated   in   her   cross­examination,   which   we
have referred to earlier, that by the time she saw the accused
persons, they were in front of the house of Devendrappa.  That
is   the   evidence   of   PW­3   as   also   PW­6.   We   can   ignore   the
contradictions   in   her   evidence   concerning   presence   of
Honappa at the PO on the night of occurrence of the incident
as the same not having any material impact on the case.   But
her  contradictory   statements   as   regards   when   and   where   she
saw the appellant and as to whether she saw him committing
the   act   of   assault   is   of   significance.     In   her   examination   in
chief, she deposed that when she opened her eyes on hearing
the  sound   “dhup”,  she  saw  A1  (i.e.  the  appellant)  with   a  club
assaulting on the head of her husband, whereas A2 (Veerappa)
was   standing   beside   him.     But   as   we   have   already   observed
earlier,  she  stated   in  her   cross  ­examination  that   by  the   time
she   woke   up,   injury   had   been   caused.     She   claimed   to   have
had seen the accused in front of Devendrappa’s house.     This
part   of   her   deposition   in   her   cross­examination   is   otherwise
Page |  9

compatible   with   rest   of   her   statements   made   in   cross­
examination.     In   this   perspective,   only   one   conclusion   is
possible   and   that   is   she   was   not   a   witness   to   actual   act   of
assault.  She is the widow of the deceased victim and deserves
to   be   considered   with   an   element   of   compassion.     But   as   a
witness, she does not inspire confidence. 
10.   The Trial Court had found, dealing with evidence of P.W.5
that   from   her   house,   the   houses   of   Hussainamma   and
Devendrappa are invisible.   On that basis, it held, referring to
the evidences of PW­3 and PW­5:­ 
“As observed supra, PW5 admits, that from her house,
the   house   of   Hussainamma   and   Devendrappa   are
invisible,   thereby   their   statements   in   respect   to
watching the accused running away from that portion,
is not true.”
(quoted verbatim)
11. This   was   a   finding   of   fact   about   possible   visibility   of   the
appellant,  who,   as per  prosecution   version   was  running  away
alongwith   his   accused   son.   The   High   Court,   however,   gave
finding   on   this   count   in   paragraph   9   of   its   judgment,   which
has been quoted earlier.  We do not think that the High Court
in the judgment under appeal was right in dismissing the said
Page |  10

finding of fact based on evidence being “not of importance” and
“irrelevant”.     We   cannot   believe   the   account   of   P.W.5   having
been   eyewitness   of   the   incident   because   of   her   contradictory
statements.   Involvement   of   the   appellant,   as   per   prosecution
version, appears from him being seen while running away from
the place of occurrence by the aforesaid three witnesses at the
same  location,  apart from  discovery  of  the  club.   Evidence  on
whether   that   location   is   visible   from   the   spots   the   PW   Nos.3
and   6   were   at   the  material   point  of  time   cannot   be   discarded
as being irrelevant. 
12. We have already reproduced the part of the deposition of
Srinivas   (PW­2),   the   seizure   witness   in   which   he   has   stated
that the club was not broken.  PW­1 has also deposed on spot
panchanama made by the police on the morning of 20 th
  April,
1999 from the place of occurrence.   He also does not speak of
seizure of the broken piece of the club.  These two prosecution
witnesses   do   not   support   the   statement   made   by   PW­8,   the
inquest officer  in  his examination that the latter  had seized a
small   piece   of   wooden   club.   The   autopsy   surgeon   Dr.
Venkatesh   Y   (PW­7)   was   not   shown   that   club.     It   does   not
Page |  11

transpire   so   from   his   deposition.     Club   is   a   common
implement which can be found at random in rural households
of   this   country   and   in     absence   of   any   cogent   evidence
demonstrating   that   the   club   seized   was   used   to   assault   the
deceased,   the   prosecution   story   seeking   to   establish
commission   of   the   offence   by   circumstantial   evidence   of
discovery of the weapon of assault fails. 
13. Even if the prosecution version that the PW­3, PW­5 and
PW­6   could   and   did   see   the   appellant   running   in   front   of
Devendrappa’s   house   from   the   respective   positions   they   were
in at the time of occurrence of the incident was accepted, the
evidence   we   would   have   been   left   with   would   have   been   two
accused   persons   being   seen   running   away.     That   would   have
been   too   thin   piece   of   evidence   to   convict   someone   under
Section   302   of   the   Code,   applying   the   principle   of   res   gestae.
The   first   Court   of   facts   on   appreciation   of   evidence   had
acquitted   the   appellant.     We   do   not   find   any   major   lacuna   in
its reasoning which would have warranted interference by the
Appeal Court for reversing such finding into that of guilt.  
Page |  12

14. For   these   reasons,   we   set  aside   the   judgment   dated   11 th
June,   2008   of   the   High   Court   of   Karnataka   delivered   in
Criminal Appeal No.1232 of 2001 convicting the appellant and
the consequential order of sentence.  We sustain the judgment
of   acquittal   of   Mallappa   (A1)   by   the   Trial   Court.     As   we   find
from   the   records   that   the   sentence   of   the   appellant   was
suspended by an  order  of this Court passed on  29 th
  January,
2016   and   prayer   for   bail   of   the   appellant   was   granted,   we
direct discharge of the bail bonds. 
15. The   appeal   is   allowed   in   the   above   terms.   Pending
application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. 
          ……………………….CJI
     (N.V. RAMANA)
                               
    ………………………….J
            (SURYA KANT)
              ………………………….J
(ANIRUDDHA BOSE)
Page |  13

New Delhi
Dated 7 th
 May, 2021
Page |  14