Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
21. The possibility that some of them were carrying axe and some of them lathis cannot be ruled out. Even the blunt D portion of axe can produce the same nature of injuries.
22. We are also not in a position to accept the submission of the learned counsel that motive to commit the overt act must be disbelieved. The parties were on litigating terms. They had filed suits against each other. Boundary dispute between them E was an old one. It may be true that quarrel started on collection of a few coconuts which fell on the land of the accused but they were collected on the premise that some coconut trees were within their own land.
23. PW-1 in his evidence clearly stated that coconut trees F were standing on their land whereas as per the testimony of PW-2 and PW-3 they were standing on the bandh. The very fact that there existed a boundary dispute must have prompted PWs. 1 and 2 to call their maternal uncles.
24. There is overwhelming evidence on record to show that the incident had taken place in the village. Once the genesis of the occurrence is proved, it is now well-settled, contradictions which are minor in nature would not be sufficient to dispel the entire prosecution case. It is true that H all the three prosecution witnesses who have been relied upon '4 GURNUNATH DONKAPPA KERI AND ORS. V. STATE OF KARNATAKA [S.B. SINHA, J] by the courts below are interested witnesses. It must, however, be borne in mind that despite existence of their animosity, keeping in view the relationship between the parties, it is unlikely that they would be falsely implicated.
25. We have noticed hereinbefore the manner in which the entire incident had taken place. Prosecution witnesses B intended that the disputes between them should be settled through mediation. It is only with that intent in view they brought the deceased to their own village so that the village elders may intervene in the matter so as to end their longstanding disputes. c The reason for attack on the deceased, as revealed by PW-2, is that as they had brought their maternal uncle to resolve the dispute, they would not let them go and finish them. Almost to the same effect is the statement of PW-9. An effort had been made even by the village elders. Various D options must have been given to the accused persons. One of the options which was given to the accused was to quote from the deposition of one of the prosecution witness, was "It is true, that we the elders told both the sides to settle the matter either by giving some portion of the land, or by taking some portion of E the land". Accused No. 1 being the head of the family intended to consult his children only to know their view-points so that further negotiations may take place. They had gone to. a tea shop for taking a cup of tea. They never expected that they would be attacked by the accused persons. They evident(y did not F comprehend that the deceased would be subjected to attack in the manner in which it was done.
26. All the prosecution witnesses are natural witnesses. The essential ingredients to prove the crime against the accused have categorically been stated by them. Both the courts below G have placed implicit reliance on their testimonies. _.. Our attention has not been drawn to any major contradiction in the deposition of the witnesses so as to disbelieve the entire prosecution case. The very fact that they had been taking the (2009] 7 S.C.R. deceased who were grievously injured at that point of time from hospital to hospital is itself a pointer to show the state of mind they were having at the relevant time. It is, therefore, too much ,… to expect that they would not only state the details of the manner in which the occurrence had taken place but also the names of B all the persons who witnessed the same.
27. It is not the requirement of law that the doctors, even before admitting the injured or during their treatment, must note down every bit of details of the incident or names of the witnesses in the registers maintained by them. If the doctors _. c were engaged in discharge of their primary duty, viz., attending to the patients, we are of the opinion that only because in the registers the name of PW-3, who is said to have shifted them to the hospital, had not been mentioned by itself can be a ground for not relying on his testimony in support of the prosecution D case. Such details are not necessarily recorded in the contemporaneous document. In any event, the purported discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as to who had shifted the injured to hospital or the mode of transportation, is minor in nature. For the self-same reason, only E because his name was not mentioned in the First Information Report, may not itself be sufficient to discard his evidence particularly in view of the fact that whereas PW-1 went to the police station to lodge the First Information Report, services of PW-3 and others must have been taken for the purpose of shifting the deceased and injured to the hospital.
28. Mr. Viswanathan pointed out that blood-stained clothes of the witnesses were not seized. Even if it is accepted, the same merely points out an error on the part of the investigation officer. The same, by itself, is sufficient to discard the entire G prosecution case. Statements of PWs 1 and 2 as regards the name of the person who had gone to village in question to bring the deceased cannot be said to be decisive. Attention of the H witnesses was not drawn to their earlier statements in cross- GURNUNATH DONKAPPA KERI AND ORS. V. STATE OF KARNATAKA [S.B. SINHA, J.] f examination. Furthermore, the evidence that the deceased had A come to the village for the purpose of resolution of dispute being consistent, it is difficult to disbelieve it. It is absolutely consistent in nature.
29. Submission of Mr. Viswanathan that, on the one hand that PWs 1 and 2 had contradicted themselves as to who had gone to the Village Primary Health Centre and at the same time his submission that they had been making the comments that they had been tutored do not go together. It is evident from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that for the purpose of holding negotiations PW-1, on the one side and the Accused C No. 1 from the other were present. It was only after the suggestion for the purpose of resolution of the dispute had been given, they had come to the tea stall. It is true that PW-7, the owner of the tempo trax, turned hostile. The said witnesses, flowever, conceded that some incident had taken place near the tea shop. Some transport must have been used for taking them to the hospital. The statement of PW-7 had also been recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He, however, as noticed, turned hostile.
30. Having regard to the evidences brought on record by the prosecution, we are of the opinion that only because other witnesses have turned hostile, the same should not by itself oe t a ground for coming to a conclusion that the incident had not taken place near the shop of PW-9.
31. It is also difficult to accept the argument of Mr. Viswanathan that only because Accused Nos. 7, 8, 11and12 have been acquitted, the same by itself should be a ground for recording a judgment of acquittal of the appellants.
32. Submission of Mr. Viswanathan that the prosecution has failed to show as to why a First Information Report was recorded under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 504 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code which would go to show H [2009) 7 S.C.R. A that the deceased was alive till 1730 hrs, cannot be accepted. They were being taken to the Civil Hospital, Belgaum. When the First Information Report was being recorded, the deceased were on their way to Civil Hospital, Belgaum. The factum of their death was, thus, not known to PW-1.
33. For the reasons stated hereinbefore, we are also not in a position to agree with the submission of Mr. Viswanathan that motive alleged being a trivial one, the prosecution case " …. should not be believed as the dispute being related to boundary of agricultural fields, the parties were on litigating terms for a c long time.
34. For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in this appeal, which is dismissed accordingly. B.B.B. Appeal dismissed.