ABDUL RAZAK & ORS versus THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY SHO, HUTTI PS
[2015] 7 S.C.R. 1, Supreme Court of India, 2015
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Ratio
[2015]7S.C.R.1 
ABDUL RAZAK & ORS. 
v. 
THE STATE OF KA'RNATAKA REP. BY SHO, HUTTI PS 
(Criminal Appeal No.795 of2015 etc.) 
MAY 15, 2015 
[T. S. THAKUR, R. K. AGRAWAL AND 
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Penal Code, 1860: s.304 Part II - Appeal against c 
conviction - Allegation against appellants that they caught 
hold of the victim-deceased, tied his hand behind his back 
and assaulted him with a club of stone resulting in injuries 
on his head and other parts of body leading to his death -
Trial court held that the brother and mother of the deceased D 
claiming to be eye witnesses instead of untying the deceased 
who was in a seriously injured condition returned home even 
after the assailants had fled away from th,e spot and that such 
conduct was unnatural and based on such finding acquitted 
the appellants - High Court reversed the finding of acquittal E 
of trial court - On appeal, held: Conduct of prosecution 
witnesses did not inspire confidence not only because they 
did not interfere when the deceased was being assaulted but 
also because post the event, the witnesses did practically 
nothing to help the injured who was left to die with his hands F 
tied for over 4 hours without any succor coming from any 
quarter - The prosecution case that mother and brother 
waited for police to reach and untie the hands of deceased is 
also not convincing - Investigating officer admitted that the G 
report received by him about the incident was destroyed by 
him after
fardbeyan of PW-1 was recorded on the spot- It is 
. difficult to appreciate how Investigating officer could have 
destroyed the original complaint given to him by PW-1 -
Conclusion by trial court that the prosecution had not proved H 
1
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 7 S.C.R. 
A the charges against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt 
was correct. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
B 
HELD: 1. The trial court appraised the version given 
by the two witnesses but came to the conclusion that 
the same was unreliable. The trial court gave more than 
one reason for its view. In the first place, the trial court 
found the conduct of PWs 1 and 4 who are closely related 
c to the deceased unnatural. The trial court held that iftheir 
version that they were witnesses to the occurrence was 
correct, there was no reason why they would not 
intervene to rescue the deceased from the clutches of 
the assailants. More importantly, the trial court held that 
D PW1, brother and PW4, mother of the deceased, instead 
of untying the deceasect.who was in a seriously injured 
condition, returned home even after the assailants had 
fled away from the spot. What is worse is that even after 
returning home PWs. 1 and 4 accompanied by PW-3 who 
E is none other than the father of the deceased had gone 
back to the place of occurrence where they found the 
deceased in an injured condition with his hands tied 
behind his back, his leg broken/fractured and eyes 
burning with chilly powder, but made no effort to untie 
F his hands or rush him to the hospital for treatment. 
Instead PW-3 father of the deceased went to lodge a 
report with the police leaving the injured in a hapless 
condition on the spot where he was lying only to
wait till 
10.00 p.m. at night for the police to arrive. If the 
G prosecution version is correct, it is only after instructions 
were given by the Sub-Inspector to PW-1 to untie the 
hands of the deceased that he does so. The injured was 
then put in the police Jeep for being taken to the hospital 
H where he reached only after he had died. The trial court 
found the story, the sequence of events and the conduct
ABDUL RAZAK & ORS. v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA 
3 
REP. BY SHO, HUTTI PS 
of the prosecution witnesses who claim to be eye A 
witnesses to the incident to be wholly unnatural and 
unreliable. The trial court was perfectly justified in taking 
that view. The High Court has made light of these aspects 
and thereby fallen in an error. [Para 9] [7-A-H; 8-A] 
B 
2. PW-19 admitted that the report received by him 
about the incident was destroyed by him after the 
fardbeyan of PW-1 was recorded on the spot. This 
implies that the first version regarding the incident was 
totally obliterated by the lrivestigating Officer and Exb. C 
P-.1 recorded in its place. This implies that the earliest 
version about the incident was destroyed by PW-19 and 
a new story stated in the fardbeyan was tailored to suit 
the prosecution version. This has the effect of completely 
demolishing the prosecution case and rendering its D 
version wholly unacceptable. The conclusion drawn by 
the trial court that the prosecution had not proved the 
charges against the appellants beyond reasonable 
doubt, was correct. [Para 10] [8-G-H; 9-A-B, E] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal 
Appeal No. 795 of 2015. 
E 
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.11.2012 of the 
High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench at Gulbarga in Criminal F 
Appeal No. 1926 of2007. 
WITH .. ; 
Crl. A. No. 796 of 2015 
H. Chandra Sekhar, Anwesha Saha, Sharanagouda Patil, 
S-legal Associates for the Appellants. 
Anitha Shenoy, Ritwik
Parekh for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
G 
H
4 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 7 S.C.R. 
A 
T.5. THAKUR, J. 1. 
Leave granted. 
2. These appeals by special leave call in question a 
judgment and order dated 191h November, 2012 passed by 
the High Court of Karnataka at Gulbarga whereby Criminal 
B Appeal No.1926 of 2007 has been allowed, judgment and 
order of the Trial Court acquitting the appellants set aside, and 
the appellants convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous 
imprisonment for a period of seven years under Section 304 
Part II read with Section 34 IPC. A fine of Rs.5,000/- each and 
C a default sentence of imprisonment for a period one year has 
also been awarded to the appellant. 
3. The prosecution case in brief is that three years before 
the date of incident CW-11 Md. Shafi sold two acres of land to 
D CW-2 Lingappa. The accused-appellants herein were upset 
by the said sale transaction and are alleged to be picking up 
quarrels with CW-2 besides causing obstruction in the free 
flow of water to the fields owned by the complainant from a 
distributory at Narayanapur. The appellants are alleged to be 
E insisting that they will let water for irrigation flow only if the land 
purchased by the complainant was transferred in their favour. 
Lingappa was on that count coerced to sell the said two acres 
of land purchased from Mohd. Sahfi to accused-Abdul Razak. 
Despite this, however, the obstruction in the flow of water 
F continued as the appellants started demanding money for 
letting the water flow. It
was in the above background that on 
191h September, 2006 at about 7.30 p.m. the appellants are 
alleged to have caught hold of Lingappa's son Basavaraj-
deceased while he was returning home, tied his hands behind 
G his back splashed chilly powder on his face and assaulted 
him with a club of stones causing injuries on his head and other 
parts of body leading to his death. The incident is alleged to 
have been witnessed by Hanumantha (PW-1 ), brother of the 
deceased, and Mannamma (PW-4), mother of the deceas~d. 
H In connection with the incident Crime No.168 of 2006 was
ABDUL RAZAK & ORS. v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA 
5 
REP. BY SHO, HUTTI PS [T.S. THAKUR, J.] 
registered at Hutti Police Station for an offence punishable A 
under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC against the 
appellants herein. 
4. A charge-sheet, after completion of investigation, was 
filed against the appellants before the jurisdictional Court for B 
their committal. The appellants pleaded not guilty before the 
Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Raichur, to 
whom the case was made over for trial. At the trial the 
prosecution examined as many as 22 witnesses besides 
placing reliance upon several documents produced on its C 
behalf. 
5. In their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the 
appellants denied the incriminating circumstances appearing . 
against them, but led no evidence in their defence. The Trial o 
Court on an appraisal of the prosecution evidence came to 
the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to bring home 
the guilt of the accused for the offences allegedly committed 
by theni. Aggrieved by the order of acquittal the State preferred 
an appeal before the High Court of Karnataka which was heard E 
and allowed by a Division Bench of that Court holding the 
appellants guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304 
Part II read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentencing them to 
undergo imprisonment for a period of seven years with fine 
and default sentence mentioned above. The present appeal F 
assails the correctness of the said
order. 
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties who have 
taken us through the orders passed by the courts below. 
7. The prosecution case primarily rests on the depositions 
of Haumantha (PW-1 ), brother of the deceased, who was also 
the first informant and Mannamma (PW-4), mother of the 
deceased both of whom claimed to be eye witnesses to the 
occurrence. 
G 
H
6 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2015] 7 S.C.R. 
A 
8. In his deposition before the Trial Court PW-1 refers to 
the purchase of land and resultant enmity between the 
appellants and the complainant party. He also refers to the 
dispute regarding the irrigation channel and the civil litigation 
between the two sides before the Sindhanaur Court. According 
B to the witness, on the fateful day the deceased-Basavaraj had 
gone to a restaurant (dhaba) owned by PW-6 Basappa. At 
about 6.00 p.m. he heard Basavaraj shouting for help 
whereupon he and his mother PW-4 rushed towards the land 
of one Swami from where they saw Pathe Sab (A-3) throwing 
C chilly powder towards Basavaraj whose hands had been tied 
behind his back. He also saw A-3 assaulting deceased-
Basavaraj on the head and A-2 and A-4 also doing so with a 
stick and stone. When he stepped forward to rescue Basavaraj, 
0 his mother-PW4 dissuaded him from doing so. The accused 
persons then left the spot whereafter the witness and his 
mother went near the injured but returned home. Sometime 
later they again went to the, field with PW3-Lingappa who too 
saw his son Basvaraj in an injured condition. PW-3 is then 
E said to have gone to Gurgunta police post to inform the police 
aboutthe incident and returned at about 6.00 p.m. It was only 
at about 10.00 p.m. that a Sub Inspector from Hutti police 
station came to the spot in a Jeep. PW-1 Hanumantha 
presented to him a written complaint about the incident. He 
F ·also narrated
the incident to the police Sub Inspector which 
was reduced to writing by him and treated as the first 
information report marked as Ex. P-1 at the trial. The witness 
further states that it was the ASI of police who directed him to 
untie the ropes from the hands of deceased-Basavaraj which 
G he accordingly did. Deceased-Basavaraj was then shifted in 
an injured condition to Government Hospital at Lingasugur. 
PWs. 1 and 3 also accompanied the injured, but the injured 
Basavaraj breathed his last on the way. The deposition of 
PW-4 mother of the deceased-Basavaraj is also on the same 
H lines.
ABDUL RAZAK & ORS. v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA 
7 
REP. BY SHO, HUTTI PS [T.S. THAKUR, J.] 
9. The Trial Court appraised the version given by the two A 
. witnesses but came to the conclusion that the same was 
unreliable. The Trial Court gave more than one reason for its 
view. In the first place, the Trial Court found the conduct of 
PWs 1 and 4 who are closely related to the deceased unnatural. 
The Trial Court held that if their version that they were witnesses B 
to the occurrence was correct, there was no reason why they 
would not intervene to rescue the deceased from the clutches 
of the assailants. More importantly, the Trial Court held that 
PW1, brother and PW4, mother of the deceased, instead of 
untying the deceased who was in a seriously injured condition, C 
returned home even after the assailants had fled away from 
the spot. What is worse is that even after returning home PWs. 
1 and 4 accompanied by PW-3 who is none other than .the 
father of the deceased had gone back to the place of 0 
occurrence where they found the deceased in an injured 
condition with his hands tied behind his back, his leg broken/ 
fractured and eyes burning with chilly powder, but made no 
effort to untie his hands or rush him to the hospital for treatment. 
Instead PW-3 father of the deceased went to lodge a report E 
with the police leaving the injured in a hapless condition on the 
spot where he was lying only to wait till 10.00 p.m. at night for 
the police to arrive. If the
prosecution version is correct, it is 
only after instructions were given by the Sub-Inspector to PW-
1 to untie the hands of Basavaraj that he does so. The injured F 
Basavaraj was then put in the police Jeep for being taken to 
the hospital where he reached only after he had died. The 
Trial Court found the story, the sequence of events and the 
conduct of the prosecution witnesses who claim to be eye 
witnesses to the incident to be wholly unnatural and unreliable. G 
The Trial Court was, in our opinion perfectly justified in taking 
that view. The conduct of the prosecution witnesses does not 
inspire confidence not only because they did not intervene when 
Basavaraj was being assaulted but also because post the 
event, the witnesses did practically nothing to help the H
8 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015) 7 S.C.R. 
A unfortunate soul, who was left to die with his hands tied for 
over 4 hours without any succor coming from any quarter. The 
High Court has made light of these aspects and thereby fallen 
in an error. 
B 
10. Although the accused have alleged that Hanumantha 
PW-1 who had a dispute over money and land with the 
deceased was actually responsible for causing the injuries 
sustained by him, yet even assuming that there was no such 
bad blood between the two brothers, both PW-1 and his mother 
C PW-4 would have in the ordinary course rushed to intervene to 
save the deceased from being belaboured. No such attempt 
was made by any one of them nor even by PW-5 who happens 
to be chance witness. So much so, they do not make any 
attempt to help the injured after the alleged assailants had fled 
D from the spot. It is most 'Jnnatural for PW-4 mother and PW-1 
brother of the deceased to return home leaving the injured in a 
hapless condition with his hands tied behind his back. Equally 
unnatural is the conduct of the father of the deceased who along 
with PW-1 and PW-4 came to the spot 1Mhere the deceased 
E was lying injured but did nothing to help him. lnstead;,PW-4 
the father of the deceased leaves the deceased in a critical 
condition to report the matter to the poliee. What makes tl)e-/ · 
entire story unacceptable is that the mother PW-4)md the son 
F PW-1 wait till 10.00 p.m. when the police arrive to untie the 
hands of the
deceased. That is not all. After the police arrived, 
PW-1 presents a written complaint about the incident. His 
statement (fardbeyan) is recorded by the Sub-Inspector in 
which Basavaraj is said to have died, meaning thereby that 
G Basavaraj was not alive when the police reached the spot. 
What is amazing is the admission made by PW-19 that the 
report received by him about the incident was destroyed by 
him after ttie fardbeyan of PW-1 was recorded on the spot. 
This implies that the first version regarding the incident was 
H totally obliterated by the Investigating Officer and Exb. P-1
ABDUL RAZAK & ORS. v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA 
9 
REP. BY SHO, HUTTI PS [T.S. THAKUR, J.] 
recorded in its place. It is difficult to appreciate how PW-19 A 
could have destroyed the original complaint given to him by 
Hanumantha PW-1. This implies that the earliest version about 
the incident was destroyed by PW-19 and a new story stated 
in the fardbeyan was tailored to suit the prosecution version. 
This has the effect of completely demolishing the prosecution B 
case and rendering its version wholly unacceptable. The only 
'' ~ ' 
inference which can, in the circumstances, be drawn is that 
Basavaraj was done to death a:id his dead body left at the 
spot from where it was picked-up by the police after they 
arrived around 10.00 p.m. The complaint presented to Sub-
C 
Inspector perhaps did not say what the police intended to 
present as its case. The same was, therefore, destroyed and 
a new version brought in, according to which Basavaraj was 
shown to be alive when the police reached the spot. The fact 0 
of the matter, however, appears to be that Basavaraj was dead 
. when his brother, mother and father discovered the body, for 
otherwise there was no question of the parents of the deceased 
and his brother leaving him alone in the condition, which they 
are alleged to have done. The conclusion drawn by the Trial E 
Courtthatthe prosecution had not proved the charges against 
the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, was, in our opinion, 
correct, no matter the judgment
and order is not as happily 
worded as it ought to be, especially coming from a senior 
judicial officer of the level of Additional Sessions Judge. F 
Inasmuch as the High Court has overlooked all these aspects, 
we are constrained to set aside the order passed by it and 
acquit the appellants of the charges framed against them. We, 
accordingly, allow this appeal, set aside the judgment and order 
passed by the High Court and acquit the appellants of the G 
charges framed against them. The appellants shall be released 
from custody forthwith if not required in connection with any 
other case. 
Deviki: Gujral 
Appeals allowed. 
H 
J