SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1997 Supreme(SC) 384

1997(3) Supreme 63
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.K. Mukherjee and S.P. Kurdukar, JJ.
Pandappa Hanumappa Hanamar & Anr. -Appellants
versus
State of Karnataka Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 90 of 1994
Decided on 28-2-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : S.S. Javeli, Sr. Adv., and S.N. Bhat, Advocate.
For the Respondent : M. Veerappa and Ms. Manjula Kulkarni, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
Simple and minor injuries on the person of the accused could not outweigh the evidence of the large number of independent witnesses examined by the prosecution who consistently deposed about the ghastly crimes committed by them in severing the head of the deceased, inflicting twenty injuries on his person with deadly weapons, parading with it along the village pathway and then tying it to the village gate.

Headnote:(i) APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION-Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Section 379-Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 302/34-High Court set aside acquittal of two appellants of charge under-Appeal against-Deceased was brutally murdered-He was attacked with deadly weapons-Twenty injuries inflicted on his person-His severed head was found tied to village gate stand-Eye witnesses-PW2 is a reliable and truthful witness-PW1 does not stand wholly discredited-Five witnesses, namely, PWs 4, 5, 6, 8 and 11 saw severed head of deceased being carried by two appellants and then tied by them to village gate-They were all independent witnesses-No justifiable ground to disbelieve their testimonies-Minor inconsistencies regarding time of incident-Not relevant when witnesses being village rustics-Reliance of trial court on superficial injuries on accused persons to distrust prosecution case was wholly unjustified-Convictions legally sustainable. (Paras 18, 24, 25, 26, 27)

       (ii) EVIDENCE-Solitary witness -Tests to judge credibility of a witness-Conviction based on;-Sustainable when. (Para 12)

       (iii) EVIDENCE-Hostile witness-Evidence of-Admissibility. (Paras 16 & 17)

       (iv) EVIDENCE-Medical opinion -Time of occurrence-Court not justified in basing its conclusion on opinion given by a doctor when witnesses consistently stated time of actual assault. (Para 25)

       

JUDGMENT

M.K. Mukherjee, J.-This appeal under Section 379 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 149 of 1989 whereby it set aside the acquittal of the two appellants of the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC recorded in their favour by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bijapur in Sessions Case No. 39 of 1987 and convicted and sentenced them thereunder.

2. Put briefly, the prosecution case is as under :

(a) The appellants are the sons of the elder sister of Hanamappa Sabappa Helagals (the deceased) of village Arakeri in Bilgi Taluka of the district of Bijapur. After the death of his first wife, the deceased married Erawwa, the elder sister of the two appellants, i.e. his own sister s daughter. The deceased and Erawwa however did not have a happy conjugal life and, within a month of their marriage, he deserted her and started living with Lakshmawwa (P.W. 1), a widow. The two appellants however were insisting upon the deceased to bring Erawwa back out he refused to oblige them.

(b) In the morning of December 16, 1986 the deceased went to cultivate his land in the outskirts of their village along with Sunderawwa (P.W. 2), a daily labourer. At or about 10 A.M. Lakshmawwa (P.W. 1) reached there carrying the food for the deceased and a basket containing groundnuts. After P.W. 1 reached there all three of them started shelling the groundnuts. While they were so engaged accused Nagappa (since absconding) reached there with a rampige in his hand and when questioned told the deceased that he was in search of his she-buffalo. Nagappa then sat nearby and started eating groundnuts. A little later appellant Lakshmappa (hereinafter referred to as A2 ) also reached there armed with an axe and started gossiping with the deceased and others present there. After sometime A1 arrived there with a knife and stabbed the deceased on his chest. A2 and Nagappa also joined him in the assault with their respective weapons.

(c) Seeing the assault both P.Ws 1 and 2 raised a hue and cry and the latter snatched away the axe from the hands of A2 and threw it away. Both P.Ws. 1 and 2 then left the place and proceeded towards the village. On the way they met Bhagawwa (P.W. 3) near a nala and apprised him of the incident. A little later they found A1 and A2 coming behind them with A1 holding the severed head of the deceased in his hand. Both of them (A1 and A2) then went to the agasi (village gate) and tied the severed head to that gate.

(d) On seeing A1 and A2 carrying the severed head of the deceased and then tying it to the village gate, Hussain Saheb (P.W. 6), a peon of the local Panchayat office, rushed to the village Post Office and gave an intimation to the Kaladagi Police Station about the murder of Hanamappa over telephone. On receipt of that information Sub-Inspector Hemanth Jaganneth Jahagirdar (P.W. 20) made an entry in the Station House Diary book and left for Arakeri with some constables. Reaching there they first went to the Panchayat office and met P.W. 6, and then, accompanied by him, went to the village gate. After getting photographs of the severed head taken, P.W. 20 sent the constables to the spot where the torso of the deceased was lying. In the meantime he (P.W. 20) secured the presence of P.W. 1 at the Panchayat office and recorded her statement (Ext.P-1). Treating the same as the F.I.R. he took up investigation of the case and went to the place of occurrence. He held inquest on the body of the deceased. Meanwhile Ramachandra Benakappe Mane (P.W. 21), Circle Inspector of Police reached the village gate and got the severed head brought down. The head was then taken to the site of the incident and inquest held thereupon. The trunk and the head were then sent for post-mortem examination. P.W. 21 then took over the investigation from P.W. 20 and seized an axe, a pair of chappal, a rampige, a tatta (a sack) some groundnut shells and groundnuts and some blood stained earth fr


































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top