Back
2004(6) Supreme 85
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Karnataka High Court)
N. Santosh Hegde & B.P. Singh, JJ.
Rudrappa Ramappa Jainpur and Ors. -Appellants
versus
State of Karnataka -Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1026-1027 of 2003
With
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1028-1029 of 2003
And
Criminal Appeal Nos. 991-992 of 2003
All Decided on 2-8-2004
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : S.S. Javali, Sr. Advocate, Kirti S. Javali, K. Lingraja, A.R. Kalyanashetty, Ms. Vandana Jalan and E.C. Vidya Sagar, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Sanjay R. Hegde and Anil K. Mishra, Advocates.
Held : The medical evidence, therefore, discloses that though the deceased had suffered serious injuries, none of them by itself was sufficient to cause the death in the ordinary course. The death was the result of the cumulative effect of all the injuries. Apparently, therefore, even though A-1 and A-2 were armed with axes, as deposed to by the witnesses, they caused injuries to the deceased only from the blunt side of the axes. Injury No.1 was no doubt caused by the sharp side of the axe but that injury was not of a very serious nature, though having fractured a bone, it was grievous in nature. Having regard to the nature of the injuries and the other facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that the object of the unlawful assembly was not to commit the murder of the deceased but certainly to cause grievous hurt to him. (Para 21)
It is also the consistent case of the prosecution that till 15 days before the occurrence their relationship was cordial. Only two weeks before the occurrence the son of the deceased had assaulted the younger brother of A-1 who had tried to dismantle the public tap in the village. This could hardly provide a motive for committing the murder of the deceased. The grievance, if any, was against the son of the deceased and in any event, even if it is assumed that this may have led to ill will between the parties, it would be too much to infer that for this reason the appellants would have decided to commit the murder of the deceased. The injuries found on the witnesses are simple in nature except the fracture of ribs suffered by PW-4. The injuries were not on vital parts of the body. It, therefore, does not appear that A-3, A-4 and A-6 shared the common object to commit murder. So far as the deceased is concerned, injury No.1 caused by A-1 did not endanger the life of the deceased nor was any one of the other injuries sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of the deceased. The serious injuries found on the chest of the deceased by the doctor were caused by use of the axe from its blunt side. Death was the cummulative effect of all the injuries. These facts do indicate that the appellants did not intend to cause the death of the deceased, and the object of the unlawful assembly could not be to cause the death of the deceased. Of course they must have known that if they assaulted the deceased with such weapons as they carried, it may result in grievous hurt to him. We are, therefore, of the view that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the appellants must be held to have formed an unlawful assembly, the common object of which was to cause grievous hurt to the deceased. They are, therefore, guilty of the offence under Sections 326/149 IPC. Since none of the injuries found on the person of the deceased was in itself sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death, neither A-1 nor A-2 can be held guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC on the basis of their individual act. (Para 22)
JUDGMENT
B.P. Singh, J.-This batch of appeals arises out of an incident which is alleged to have taken place on November 2, 1993 in village Utnal at about 7.00 p.m. in which one Sangondappa lost his life while several witnesses, namely PWs, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 received injuries at the hands of the assailants. The case of the prosecution is that there were nine persons who formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with the common object of causing the death of the deceased, and in pursuance of the unlawful object of that assembly the deceased was done to death and the prosecution witnesses abovenamed were injured.
2. The charge-sheet had been submitted against nine accused persons namely, Nanagouda (A-1), Appasab (A-2), Rudrappa (A-3), Siddappa (A-4), Ashok (A-5), Rannugouda (A-6), Raju (A-7), Lalsab (A-8) and Shankaragouda (A-9). However A-9 died during the pendency of the trial, but the remaining accused were tried by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Bijapur in Sessions Case No. 49 of 1994 charged variously under Sections 148/302/326 and 324 all read with Section 149 IPC. The learned Sessions Judge after an exhaustive scrutiny of the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the case of the prosecution as against A-5, A-7 and A-8 was not established and he therefore, acquitted them of all the charges levelled against them. He, however, found A-1 and A-2 guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo one month s rigorous imprisonment. He found A-6 guilty of the offence under Section 326 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo one month s rigorous imprisonment. A-3 and A-4 were found guilty of the offence under Section 324 IPC and they were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
3. Several appeals were preferred by the accused as well as by the State of Karnataka. Criminal Appeal No. 1821 of 2001 was preferred by the State against the acquittal of A-5, A-7 and A-8 by the trial court. Criminal Appeal No. 1829 of 2001 was preferred by the State contending that A-3, A-4 and A-6 had not been adequately punished by the Sessions Court. Criminal Appeal No. 1300 of 2002 was preferred by the State for consolidating the appeals preferred by it and against the acquittal of A-3 to A-8 of the charges under Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC. A-1 and A-2 preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1512 of 2001 against their conviction and sentence while A-3, A-4 and A-6 filed Criminal Appeal No. 1402 of 2001 against their conviction and sentence.
4. The High Court by its impugned judgment and order of November 26, 2002 dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 1512 of 2001 preferred by A-1 and A-2 against their conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC. It also dismissed the appeal preferred by A-3, A-4 and A-6 against their conviction and sentence. So far as the State appeals are concerned, it dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 1829 of 2001 but partly allowed Criminal Appeal No. 1821 of 2001 and found A-5 also guilty, who had earlier been acquitted by the trial court. It also partly allowed Criminal Appeal No. 1300 of 2002 inasmuch as it held A-1 to A-6 guilty of the offences under Sections 302/149 IPC and 148 IPC and sentenced them to imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment for 3 years respectively. It did not pass any separate sentence against A-3, A-4 and A-5 under Sections 324 and 326 IPC. It also upheld the conviction of A-1 and A-2 under Section 302 IPC.
5. Before this Court A-1 and A-2 have preferred Criminal Appeal Nos. 1028-1029 of 2003 against the judgment and order of the High Court in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1512 of 2001 and 1300 of 2002. A-3, A-4 and A-6 have preferred Criminal Appeal Nos. 1026 and 1027 of 2003 against the judgment and order of the High Court in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1402 of 2001 and 1300 of 2002. Criminal Appeal Nos. 991-992 of 2003 ha
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
