Manjunath v State of Karnataka

Date of Order/Judgment: November 6, 2023
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Rajesh Bindal

Background of Manjunath v State of Karnataka

• Incident Details: On August 6, 1997, the deceased, Byregowda, along with his brothers, was working in the fields when the accused, armed with clubs, iron rods, and choppers, reportedly approached and threatened them. While Byregowda’s brothers managed to escape, Byregowda was assaulted by A1, A2, and A3 with an iron rod and a steel-edged weapon (chopper).
• Medical Attention: The injured Byregowda was treated by Dr. Loganayaki at Sidlaghatta General Hospital, who also informed the police about the incident. Based on the doctor’s statement, the then-Sub-Inspector of Police registered an FIR on August 8, 1997, under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
• Charges and Investigation: A total of 29 individuals were accused. After investigation, a challan was filed, and the case was committed to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge. The accused denied charges under Sections 120B, 143, 447, 302 read with Section 149 IPC and stood trial.
• Prosecution Evidence: To establish guilt, the prosecution presented evidence under five categories:
  • (a) Ocular evidence
  • (b) Dying declaration
  • (c) Circumstantial evidence
  • (d) Recovery of incriminating material
  • (e) Motive

Trial Court Decision

The Trial Court acquitted all the accused, holding that the evidence failed to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court highlighted the following:

• The evidence presented did not “unerringly, cogently, and positively” point to the guilt of the accused.
• Eyewitnesses failed to attribute specific roles to the accused.

High Court Decision

The State appealed the acquittals to the High Court. The High Court allowed the appeal, overturning the trial court’s judgment and convicting accused Nos. 1 to 5 and 7.

Manjunath v State of Karnataka Supreme Court Judgment

The Supreme Court in Manjunath v State of Karnataka reviewed the High Court’s decision and made the following key observations:

1. Dying Declaration: While a dying declaration is a substantive piece of evidence, it was deemed unreliable in this case because:
   • The person who recorded the declaration was not examined.
   • The police officer (PW19) did not endorse the document with details of who recorded it.
   • There was no clarity on which relatives of the deceased were present during the recording.
2. Circumstantial Evidence: The circumstantial evidence on record failed to support the hypothesis of guilt against the accused.
3. Eyewitness Testimony: None of the eyewitnesses could ascribe a particular role to any of the accused, including A1 to A5 and A7, whose acquittals were overturned by the High Court.
4. High Court’s Interference: The Supreme Court in Manjunath v State of Karnataka held that the view taken by the Trial Court was plausible and based on correct and complete appreciation of the evidence and application of the law. The High Court interfered without assigning cogent reasons, which was unwarranted.

Decision

The Supreme Court in Manjunath v State of Karnataka set aside the High Court’s judgment and restored the decision of the Trial Court (Additional Sessions Judge – Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-II, Kolar). The acquittals of all the accused were reinstated.

Outcome: Acquittals reinstated; High Court judgment overturned.