Page 1

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 435 OF 2006

M. G. Eshwarappa and others … Appellants

Versus

State of Karnataka …Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Prafulla C. Pant, J.

1. This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated

07.02.2006,  passed  by  the  High  Court  of  Karnataka  in

Criminal Appeal No. 1055 of 1999 whereby the High Court has

allowed  the  appeal  filed  by  the  State,  and  reversed  the

judgment  of  acquittal  passed  by  the  Additional  Sessions

Judge, Shimoga, in Sessions Case No. 40 of 1998.

2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that PW-16 Niranjanappa

(complainant)  was  elder  brother  of  accused  No.  1  M.G.

Eshwarappa.  Accused No. 2 M.G. Shivaraj and accused No. 3

M.G.  Girish are sons of  M.G.  Eshwarappa.   Accused No.  4

Hebballi  Shivappa  is  brother-in-law  of  accused  No.  2  M.G.

Page 2

Page 2 of 22

Shivaraj.  There was a family dispute between the complainant

and  his  brother  Eshwarappa  pertaining  to  immovable

property,  and  reaping  of  fruits  of  tamarind  tree  in  the

backyard  of  the  complainant’s  house.   There  used  to  be

quarrel  every  now  and  then  between  the  families  of  two

brothers.  Prior to the incident, on 03.03.1998 at about 3.00

p.m. the accused persons, armed with deadly weapons, came

to the house of the complainant objecting to the plucking of

tamarind fruits by the complainant’s  family, and threatened

them  of  dire  consequences.   With  the  intervention  of  the

neighbours  dispute  got  pacified  temporarily.   Thereafter,  as

the accused persons went away, the complainant along with

his son Basavaraj (deceased) and daughter Rajeshwari (PW-1)

went to Honnali to consult their legal counsel, and to get the

complaint  lodged  against  the  accused.   The  three  left  the

village Marigondanahalli at about 5.00 p.m. for Honnali, but

the  counsel  was  not  found  at  his  residence.   On  this,

complainant  Niranjanappa  (PW-16)  asked  his  son  and

daughter to return to the village as he wanted to wait for the

arrival  of  the  counsel.   At  about  6.30  p.m.  Basavaraj  and

Page 3

Page 3 of 22

Rajeshwari left Honnali on way back to their village.  When the

two had covered a distance of about two kilometers, and were

only  one  kilometer  away  from  their  village,  four  accused

namely - M.G. Eshwarappa, M.G. Shivaraj,  M.G. Girish and

Hebballi  Shivappa intercepted them.  Eshwarappa (A-1) was

armed with club, Shivaraj (A-2) was armed with Kandli (heavy

sharp  edged  weapon),  and  Girish  (A-3)  and  Shivappa  (A-4)

were  armed  with  iron  rods.   The  first  blow  was  given  by

Shivaraj with Kandli on the head of Basavaraj on which he fell

down.  His sister Rajeshwari (PW-1) to save her brother lied

down on him and requested the accused to leave her brother.

On this Shivaraj (A-2) dragged her on one side.  In the process

she also suffered minor injuries.  Thereafter Girish (A-3) and

Shivappa (A-4) assaulted already injured Basavaraj with iron

rods.  Basavaraj started bleeding from the injuries received by

him.  The accused persons presuming that the injured is dead

left the place.  PW-1 Rajeshwari started crying.  One Kammar

Rudresh, who was returning on a bicycle from Shimoga after

selling his flowers, asked her as to what had happened, and

then left for the village to inform his family members of the

Page 4

Page 4 of 22

injured  in  order  to  get  some  bullock  cart.   This  incident

occurred around 7.30 p.m.  There was moon light.  At about

8.00 p.m. Parvathamma (PW-29) mother of the injured, along

with other villagers reached at the spot and injured Basavaraj

was  first  taken  to  Chellur.   After  some  time  Niranjanappa

(PW-16) also reached there, and after engaging a motor van,

the  injured  was  taken  to  Shimoga  hospital,  where  he  was

admitted  at  10.45  p.m.   However,  Basavaraj  could  not  be

saved and succumbed to the injuries soon after midnight at

about 0040 hrs.  A report (Ext. P-5) was given at the nearest

Police  Station  Doddapet  on  which  PW-28  M.  Gopalappa

(Station  House  Officer)  rushed  to  the  hospital.   He  sent

intimation  (Ext.  P-6)  to  the  jurisdictional  Police  Station

Nyamathi, where the same was registered as Crime No. 49 of

1998.   PW-33  S.G.  Patil  (Police  Inspector)  took  up  the

investigation  and,  after  taking  the  dead  body  in  his

possession,  prepared  the  inquest  report  (Ext.  P-28)  and

interrogated  witnesses  including  Rajeshwari  (PW-1),

Niranjanappa (PW-16) and Parvathamma (PW-29).  PW-2 Dr.

C.  Francis  conducted  the  post  mortem  examination  on

Page 5

Page 5 of 22

04.03.1998 at  11.00  a.m.  and prepared the  autopsy  report

(Ext. P-2).  He opined that the deceased had died due to shock

and haemorrhage as a result of injuries suffered by him on the

head.   On conclusion of  investigation the  charge-sheet  was

filed against all the four accused for their trial in respect of

offences punishable  under  Sections 506, 354 and 302 read

with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC).

3. After the case was committed to the Court of Sessions,

the  trial  court  framed charge  of  offences  punishable  under

Sections 506, 323, 354 and 302 read with Section 34 IPC, to

which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

As  many  as  33  witnesses  were  got  examined  by  the

prosecution.  The oral and documentary evidence was put to

the  accused  and,  after  hearing  the  parties,  the  trial  court

acquitted the accused holding that the charge against them is

not proved beyond reasonable doubt.   

4. The State of Karnataka preferred appeal against acquittal

of the accused before the High Court.  The High Court, after

re-appreciating the evidence, held that the finding recorded by

the  trial  court  is  perverse  and contrary  to  the  evidence  on

Page 6

Page 6 of 22

record.  The appeal was allowed by the High Court.  (Since

accused No.  3 M.G.  Girish had meanwhile  died,  his  appeal

stood  abated.)   The  High Court  convicted  rest  of  the  three

accused, namely Eshwarappa, Shivaraj and Hebballi Shivappa

under Sections 506, 354 and 302 read with Section 34 IPC,

and  after  hearing  on  sentence,  each  of  the  convicts  is

sentenced  under  Section  302  read  with  Section  34  IPC  to

imprisonment for life and to pay fine of 10,000/-.  In default₹

of  payment  of  fine,  the  defaulter,  if  any,  was  directed  to

undergo  rigorous  imprisonment  for  a  further  period  of  one

year.  In view of the sentence awarded in respect in respect of

offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC, qua rest of the

offences no punishment was awarded by the High Court.  The

convicts have preferred this appeal under Section 379 of Code

of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).   During pendency of appeal

before this Court, appellant No. 1 (M.G. Eshwarappa) has died

and his appeal stands abated.

5. We have heard learned counsel  for the appellants (A-2

M.G. Shivaraj and A-4 Hebballi Shivappa) and learned counsel

for the State and perused the evidence on record.

Page 7

Page 7 of 22

6. Perusal  of  the  record  shows  that  the  prosecution  got

examined PW-1 Rajeshwari (sister of the deceased), PW-2 Dr.

C. Francis (who conducted post mortem examination),  PW-3

Dr. Nanda Koti, PW-4 Kammar Rudreshi @ Rudrachari, PW-5

H.R. Haleshi, PW-6 Basavangowda, PW-7 Eshwarappa (not the

accused), PW-8 Palakshappa, PW-9 Shankarappa, PW-10 M.

Raju,  PW-11  Chandrashekaraiah,  PW-12  B.  Vasavarajappa,

PW-13 T.R. Mahadevappa, PW-14 C. Chandrappa, PW-15 S.

H.  Parameshwarappa,  PW-16  M.G.  Nirannjanappa

(complainant), PW-17 H.N. Puttaiah, PW-18 Shankar, PW-19

Aravind,  PW-20  Basavarajappa  @  Basappa,  PW-21  M.R.

Haleshappa,  PW-22  Rudreshappa,  PW-23  Angadi  Nataraja,

PW-24  Koti  Rudreshi  @  Rudreshappa,  PW-25  Dr.  Suresh

(Incharge of  General  Hospital  Honnali),  PW-26 C.R.  Umesh,

PW-27  N.M.  Shankar,  PW-28 M.  Gopalappa  (SHO of  Police

Station  Doddapet),  PW-29  Parvathamma  (mother  of  the

deceased),  PW-30  Chanabasappa,  PW-31  Laxmappa,  PW-32

M.K. Gangal and PW-33 S.G. Patil (Inspector, who investigated

the crime).

Page 8

Page 8 of 22

7. Before further discussion, we think it just and proper to

mention the ante-mortem injuries found on the dead body of

the deceased, recorded by PW-2 Dr. C. Francis in Ext. P-2 as

under: -

(1) Lacerated wound 3” x ½” bone deep on the scalp and left

fronto-parietal region. (2) Sutured wound ½” x ¼” on the helix of left ear. (3) Sutured lacerated wound ½” x ½” on the left muscular

region. (4) Sutured wound ½” x ¼” on the back of left elbow. (5) Sutured wound ½” x ¼” on the back of lower right arm. (6) Multiple,  irregular,  sutured wounds about  ½” x ¾” all

over the left leg. (7) Multiple, irregular, sutured wounds situated all over the

right leg. (8) Punctured  would  ¼”  x  ¼”  bone  deep  situated  on  the

medial aspect of lower third of right leg.  On dissection

the  muscles  are  irregularly  lacerated  and  comminuted

fractures  of  tibia  and  fibula  on  the  upper  third  and

compound fracture of tibia and fibula at the lower third,

the  muscles  are  lacerated  and  plenty  of  blood  clots

present. (9) Diffused swelling of left arm, on dissection, the muscles

are lacerated and large blood clots present.

Page 9

Page 9 of 22

In  the  opinion  of  the  medical  officer  (PW-2  Dr.  C.

Francis), as mentioned in Ext. P-2, the deceased died of shock

and haemorrhage as a result of injury to vital organ, i.e. brain.

8. The star witness of the prosecution case is PW-1 Kumari

M.N.  Rajeshwari  who  is  the  sister  of  the  deceased.   After

narrating the prior incident of 03.03.1998 which occurred at

3.00  p.m.,  she  has  stated  that  her  father  (PW-16

Niranjanappa) along with her brother (deceased) and herself

left  the  village  Marigondanahalli  at  about  5.00  p.m.  for

Honnali  to  consult  their  lawyer  to  lodge  the  report.   She

further  told  that  Mr.  Srinivas,  advocate,  to  whom they had

gone to meet, was not available at Honnali and as such her

father  decided  to  wait  for  him,  and  advised  her  and  her

brother to go back to the village.  She further told that she left

Honnali at 6.30 p.m. and came with her brother Basavaraj to

Kadadakatte on their way back.  PW-1 Rajeshwari has further

stated  that  at  7.00  p.m.  she  and  her  brother  reached

Kadadakatte, and by 7.30 p.m. they had covered distance of

about two kilometers on foot, when the four accused namely

Page 10

Page 10 of 22

Eshwarappa,  Girish,  Shivaraj  and  Shivappa  appeared,  and

intercepted  them.   Accused  Girish  said,  “Anna  Bandaru”

(brother! they have come), and Shivaraj (A-2) gave a blow with

Kandli (heavy sharp edged weapon) on the head of Basavaraj.

She further told that she lied down on her brother and pleaded

to the accused to leave him, but Shivaraj (A-2) dragged her

away, and thereafter Girish (A-3) and Shivappa (A-4) assaulted

Basavaraj with iron rods.  She further told that Shivappa (A-4)

assaulted on her leg.  And Eshwarappa who was armed with

club,  assaulted  her  brother  near  his  ear,  and  also  at  the

elbow.   After  assaulting  the  two,  the  accused  persons  left

towards the  village uttering  “Soolemaga Sathu Hoda”  (he  is

dead).

9. PW-1 Rajeshwari, narrating the incident further, stated

that left helpless after the incident, she started crying, when

one Kammar Rudresh passing through on bicycle came, and

she told about the incident.  And said Rudresh went to the

village  and  informed  to  the  villagers,  who  in  turn  came  in

bullock cart.  Thereafter, in another bullock cart her mother

(PW-29 Parvathamma) reached.  And Basavaraj was taken on

Page 11

Page 11 of 22

a  bullock  cart  upto  Kadadakatte  crossing  from  where  an

autorikshaw was engaged up to Chellur.  According to PW-1

Rajeshwari,  on receiving  the  information about  the  incident

her  father  also  came  to  Chellur,  and  from  there  they  all

boarded matador van, and took the injured Basavaraj to the

Shimoga Hospital.  She further told that at about 10.30 p.m.

Basavaraj  was  admitted  in  the  Hospital  but  succumbed  to

injuries in the night.  Lastly she told that her father (PW-16

Niranjannappa)  gave  report  to  the  police.   She  has  also

corroborated  the  fact  that  the  police  prepared  the  inquest

report, and that she had shown place of incident to the police

during interrogation.  PW-1 Rajeshwari has been subjected to

lengthy cross-examination but nothing  has come out  which

creates doubt in her testimony.

10. Explaining the motive of the commission of crime PW-16

M.G.  Niranjanappa (complainant)  has  stated that  there was

dispute  of  property  between  him  and  his  brother  (A-1

Eshwarappa) for fifteen years prior to partition.  It is further

stated  by  PW-16  Niranjanappa  that  in  the  family  partition

when  the  land  was  partitioned,  four  acres  of  land  was

Page 12

Page 12 of 22

separately  kept  aside  for  maintenance  of  their  mother  who

used to live with A-1 Eshwarappa.  But A-1 sold the property

given to their mother.  He has further stated that when the

mother  purchased  a  property  in  village  Marigondanahalli,

complainant demanded his share which was denied to him.

Not only this, the house in which the two brothers used to live

separately  with  their  families,  stood  in  the  name  of  the

complainant  which  A-1  Eshwarappa  demanded  to  be

transferred  to  his  name.   A  Panchayat  was  called  which

resolved the dispute by directing A-1 to pay ₹15,000/- to the

complainant,  but  A-1  paid  only  5000/-.   PW-16₹

Niranjanappa further told that about eleven months before the

incident,  due  to  above  dispute  there  was  Galata

(commotion/scuffle)  between the rival parties with regard to

which  a  criminal  case  was  registered  which  was  pending

against  A-1 Eshwarappa and A-3 Girish.   Also,  fifteen days

prior to the incident in question there had been quarrel over

plucking of tamarind fruits by the family of the complainant.

This witness (PW-16 Niranjanappa) has also corroborated the

fact that on the date of incident (03.03.1998) at 5.00 p.m. he,

Page 13

Page 13 of 22

along with his son Basavaraj  and daughter PW-1 Rajeshwari,

had gone to meet their counsel, but he was not available, and

Basavaraj and Rajeshwari were asked by him to go back to the

village as he wanted to wait to meet the counsel.  The witness

has further told that he made the complaint (Ext. P-17) to the

police which was signed by him.

11. PW-30 Chanabasappa has corroborated the fact that one

Rudresh came to his house on 03.03.1998 at 8.00 p.m. and

informed about the incident on which he went to Chellur and

saw Basavaraj in injured condition.

12. PW-3  Dr.  Nanda  Koti  of  Mc  Gann  Hospital,  Shimoga,

where Basavaraj was taken after the incident, has stated that

at 10.40 p.m. the injured was brought to the hospital with the

history of assault by four accused (Eshwarappa and others).

This witness has proved the wound certificate (Ext.P-4) and

stated that the injured succumbed to injuries in the night at

about  00.45  hours.   He  further  told  that  at  the  time  of

admission in the hospital Baswavaraj was unconscious.

13. PW-29  Pavarthamma  has  also  corroborated  the

prosecution  story  and  stated  that  after  she  received  the

Page 14

Page 14 of 22

information of the incident through one Kammar Rudresh, she

rushed to  the  spot  with  Halesh,  Nataraj,  Kammar  Rudresh

and  M.  Rudresh  on  a  bullock  cart.   She  further  told  that

Gurushanthappa,  Basavanagowda,  Umesha  and  Shankara

had already reached there with their bullock cart.  She further

narrated that they all  took the injured to some distance on

bullock  cart  whereafter  an  autorikshaw  was  engaged  upto

Chellur and from Chellur, where her husband (Niranjanappa)

also  joined,  they  took  the  injured  in  a  van  to  Mc  Gann

Hospital,  Shimoga.   She  has  also  stated  that  her  daughter

PW-1 Rajeshwari had also suffered minor injuries.

14. PW-25 Dr. Suresh has stated that on 04.03.1998 (next

day of the incident) he medically examined PW-1 Rajeshwari

and found following injuries on her person: -

(i) Contusion on medial aspect of the right leg which was

about 3 cms x 1 cms in size. (ii) Pain and tenderness was present on the left side of the

neck. (iii) Abrasions  on the  left  hand is  about  1 cm x  ½ cm in

diameter. (iv) Tenderness present all over the body

Page 15

Page 15 of 22

He also proved the wound certificate (Ext.P-25).

15. The trial  court  has  disbelieved the  evidence  of  injured

eye-witness PW-1 Rajeshwari observing that the same is not

corroborated  by  other  witnesses  of  fact  who  have  turned

hostile  or partly hostile.   But the trial  court has committed

grave error in ignoring the fact that such witnesses were not

witnesses of the incident.  The prosecution case is that they

reached the spot subsequently.  The trial court strangely did

not believe the prosecution story on the ground that advocate

Srinivas was not produced by the prosecution.  It is relevant to

mention here that as per the prosecution story he was not at

his  residence  when  PW-16  Niranjanappa  with  his  son  and

daughter had gone to meet him in connection with the earlier

incident of the day.   

16. Having gone through the entire evidence on record,  as

narrated above, we agree with the High Court that the trial

court committed grave error by accepting the defence case that

the deceased might have died of  the injuries suffered in an

accident, as the possibility was not ruled out by PW-2 Dr. C.

Francis.  We have carefully gone through the statement of Dr.

Page 16

Page 16 of 22

C. Francis.  What he has stated in the cross-examination is

“such injuries can be caused to a person if he meets accident”.

There is no suggestion of the fact that at the place of incident

any vehicle had passed through at the time of the indicent.

The trial court appears to have taken support of conjectures

and surmises.  In the circumstances, we are of  the opinion

that the High Court has correctly held that the view taken by

the trial court is perverse and against the evidence on record.

17. As discussed above, the statement of  PW-1 Rajeshwari

(injured)  is  corroborated  not  only  from  the  statements  of

PW-16  Niranjanappa,  PW-29  Parvathamma  and  PW-30

Chanabasappa but also from the medical evidence on record.

The First Information Report in the present case is prompt and

copy of the same appears to have been sent on the very next

day to the Magistrate without delay.  On behalf of the State it

is pointed out that from the record it is clear that all the three

appellants were absconding from the village after the incident,

and  could  be  arrested  only  on  10.03.1998.   Also,  there  is

mention in the Wound Certificate (Ext. P-4(b)), issued by PW-3

Page 17

Page 17 of 22

Dr. Nanda Koti, regarding history of assault - which is quoted

below: -

“WOUND CERTIFICATE

Wound or  injuries  found on the  person of  a male  calling  himself  Basavaraj  aged 28 years,  an inhabitant of Marigondanahalli  who was sent with --from -- and accompanied by Channappa for report as  certain  injuries  said  to  have  been  caused  on 3.3.98 and to be due to said to have been assaulted by 4 persons, Eswarappa and others with club on 3.3.98 at about 7.30 p.m…………………..”

18. On  behalf  of  the  accused/appellants  Shri  B.H.

Marlapalle,  learned  senior  counsel  argued  that  had  the

incident  taken  place  in  the  manner  suggested  by  the

prosecution,  the  injured  would  have  been  taken  to  nearest

hospital available was at Chellur but he was taken to hospital

at Shimoga which creates doubt as to the place of the incident.

We find no force in the argument for the reason that there is

nothing on record to show that there were facilities to treat the

critically injured patient at  Chellur.   It  has come on record

that  the  injured  was  in  a  critical  condition  and  he  was

unconscious when admitted in Shimoga hospital.  Merely for

the reason that one doctor used to be posted at Chellur does

Page 18

Page 18 of 22

not  mean  that  there  were  facilities  to  treat  the  patient  of

critical  condition,  as  such,  in  our  opinion,  there  appears

nothing unusual in taking the injured to the hospital where

the injured could be given better treatment and time is not

lost. 19. The  another  argument  advanced  on  behalf  of  the

appellants is that there are no details of assault in the First

Information Report and the story narrated by PW-1 Rajeshwari

is nothing but an improvement.  However, on carefully going

through the First Information Report we find that all necessary

facts are narrated and only the details like from which side

particular accused came are not stated.  It is settled law that

the First Information Report is not an encyclopaedia, and if

the necessary details are there, on its basis detailed narration

by the witnesses cannot be doubted. 20. The third point  raised before  us  is  that  in  the  wound

certificate  (Ext.  P-4)  there  are  only  two  injuries,  i.e.  bone

fracture of right leg and puncture wound below left angle of

mandible covered with blood are mentioned, while in the post

mortem report there are nine ante mortem injuries.  As such

there  is  apparent  discrepancy  between  the  two  documents.

Page 19

Page 19 of 22

On  deeper  scrutiny,  we  find  that  there  is  no  material

contradiction  for  the  reason that  PW-3 Dr.  Nanda Koti  has

proved  Ext.  P-4(b)  wherein  it  has  been  mentioned  that  the

patient  needed  immediate  treatment,  as  such,  only  gross

injuries were entered in the register (not the minor injuries)

and  the  patient  was  shifted  to  emergency  ward.   In  the

cross-examination  he  has  clearly  stated  that  Basavaraj

(deceased) was unconscious.  In the circumstances, addition of

stitched  wounds  in  post  mortem report  (Ext.  P-2)  does  not

create doubt regarding the incident in question.

21. As to the source of light it is argued that it is not clear as

to  how PW-1 Rajeshwari  recognized  the  accused.   Had  the

accused been unknown persons, we would have accepted this

argument.  But the accused were close relatives living in the

house of the witness, as such, it cannot be said that it was

difficult at all for her to recognize them when they assaulted

her  brother  at  7.30 p.m.  on the way back from Honnali  to

Marigondanahalli.

22. Shri  B.H.  Marlapalle  further  contended  that  not

recording of  dying declaration of  the deceased is  a material

Page 20

Page 20 of 22

fact  in the  present case.   We are unable  to agree with the

contention of learned senior counsel for the reason that it has

come  on  record  that  the  deceased  was  not  in  a  conscious

condition when he was admitted in the hospital.   As such,

there is no question of recording of dying declaration of the

patient in such a critical condition.  

23. Learned  senior  counsel  for  the  appellants  drew  our

attention  to  the  case  of  Irlapati  Subbaya  v.  The  Public

Prosecutor,  Andhra  Pradesh1,  and  submitted  that  in  the

similar circumstances this Court did not find sufficient reason

for  the  High Court  to  set  aside  the  order  of  acquittal.   On

perusal of said case law, we find that that was a case where

prosecution witnesses had given different time of occurrence

between noon and just before sunset.  There was also doubt as

to the place of incident in said case.  But in the present case

there is no doubt either as to the time of incident or to the

place of incident.

24. Next case referred on behalf of the appellants is Joseph

v. State of Kerala2, and it is submitted that the evidence of 1 (1974) 4 SCC 293 2 (2003) 1 SCC 465

Page 21

Page 21 of 22

the sole injured eye witness should not be accepted without

corroboration and caution.   On going through the case law

referred, we find that this Court observed in said case that the

testimony of the sole injured eye witness was not reliable as

there were two separate versions of the incident in two First

Information  Reports  and  one  was  suppressed.   The  First

Information Report relied upon was found doubtful as PW-1

himself  did  not  acknowledge  his  signature  in  the  First

Information Report relied by the prosecution.  In the present

case,  in  our  opinion,  the  evidence  of  PW-1  Rajeshwari  is

sufficiently  corroborated  from  the  statements  of  PW-16

Niranjanappa,  PW-29  Parvathamma  and  PW-30

Chanabasappa.

25. Lastly, learned senior counsel for the appellants referred

to the case of Muluwa son of Binda and others v. The State

of Madhya Pradesh3 and it is submitted that where two views

are  possible,  the  High  Court  should  not  interfere  with  the

order of acquittal passed by the trial court.  We agree with the

principle of  law that  when two views are possible,  the view 3 (1976) 1 SCC 37

Page 22

Page 22 of 22

taken by the trial court should not be disturbed, but in the

present case the view taken by the trial court, as discussed

above, was perverse and rightly held so by the High Court.

26. For the reasons, as discussed above, we find no force in

this appeal which is liable to be dismissed.  Accordingly, the

same is dismissed.

27. The  appellants  M.G.  Shivaraj  and  Hebballi  Shivappa

(appellant  Nos. 2 and 3) are on bail.  Their bail bonds stand

cancelled  and  the  sureties  are  discharged.   They  shall

surrender  forthwith  before  the  trial  court  to  undergo  the

sentence awarded by the High Court.

………………………..…….J. [N.V. Ramana]

………………………..…….J. [Prafulla C. Pant]

New Delhi; March 02, 2017.