Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.S. SARKARIA AND P.S. KAILASAM, JJ.
Somappa Vamanappa Madar Shankarappa Ravanappa Kaddi, Appellants
Versus
The State of Mysore, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 42 of 1973,
D/- 24-4-1979.
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Order of Acquittal – Appeal is preferred by accused Nos. 1 and 2 in the trial Court by certificate granted by the Mysore High Court against its judgment reversing the order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge, and convicting them of an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to imprisonment for life – Held, High Court rightly placed considerable reliance on the presence of bloodstains on the weapons. – Evidence of the prosecution witnesses is that they surrounded the accused and caught hold of them and snatched their weapons. – First accused was caught redhanded and was kept by the witnesses and handed over to the police. – Second accused managed to escape. – It was submitted that evidence as to recovery of weapons cannot be acted upon as the police officer did not seize the weapons immediately but allowed P.W. 5 to have them till they were seized at the police station. – Court do not think that this circumstance would affect the prosecution case in any way. – It is not disputed that the two weapons were carried by P. W. 5 and handed over to the police officer. – The fact of the seizure or the time and the place of the seizure is not questioned. – Trial Court has not made any adverse comment on this aspect of the case. – Apart from these facts, the punchanama relating to seizure of the clothes of the first accused clearly shows that the accused was at the station soon after the incident and the case of the witnesses that he was apprehended at the scene and produced before the police officer stands amply corroborated. – Court have been taken through the relevant portion of the evidence of the eye-witnesses and see no reason for rejecting their evidence. – As observed by the High Court the recovery of the blood-stained weapons corroborates the evidence of the eye-witnesses. – Court might add that the production of the first accused at the police station immediately after the occurrence is an equally strong circumstance which proves the truth of the prosecution case. – On a consideration of the entire evidence and appreciation of the testimony of the witnesses we have no hesitation in accepting the testimony of the eye-witnesses – Dying declaration of the deceased immediately after the occurrence in the presence of the eye-witnesses in which he mentioned the two accused as assailants, the recovery of the bloodstained weapons, MOs. 1 and 2, and the production of the first accused at the police station prove beyond all doubt the complicity of the two appellants – Court have no hesitation in agreeing with the reasoning and conclusion arrived at by the High Court and confirm the conviction and sentence imposed on them. – Appeal Dismissed
Judment
KAILASAM, J. :- This appeal is preferred by accused Nos. 1 and 2 in the trial Court by certificate granted by the Mysore High Court against its judgment reversing the order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge, Bijapur and convicting them of an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to imprisonment for life.
2. The two appellants and Ningappa Hanmantappa Polici, the third accused, were charged for the offence of murder of one Basangouda Gurappagouda Biradar alias Patil said to have been committed by them at about 7-45 p.m. on 29th May, 1970 at Bijapur town by cutting him with axe and sickle.
3. The trial Court found that the prosecution had failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted all the three accused of the offences with which they were charged. The State of Mysore preferred an appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge to the High Court of Mysore. By its judgment dated 20th October, 1972 in Criminal Appeal No. 219 of 1971 the High Court allowed the appeal of the State so far as the appellants are concerned, found them guilty of an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to rigorous imprisonment for life. It dismissed the appeal of the State so far as the third accused is concerned. Leave to appeal having been granted to the appellants by the High Court this appeal is before us.
4. The case for the prosecution may be briefly stated. One Shivappa, a resident of Ingalgeri had two daughters and extensive landed property, about 72 acres in extent. He transferred the lands to his son-in-law P.W. 17, Sidappa Dhari, who had married his first daughter Somavva, P. W. 17 undertook to transfer half the extent of land to the person who would marry the younger daughter Sangavva, P.W. 16. Shivappa wanted to give his younger daughter in marriage to Shivappa Irappa Gureddi of Ingalgeri. Irappa Gureddi refused to marry her but he suggested that the girl may be given in marriage to his friend, the deceased Basangouda Gurappagouda Biradar alias Patil. Accordingly, P.W. 16 was married to the deceased and P.W. 17 Sidappa Dhari transferred half of the lands gifted to him by his father-in-law Shivappa. It is the case of the prosecution that Shivappa Gureddi demanded transfer of one of the lands to him by the deceased on the ground that he brought about the marriage. The deceased refused to oblige and on that account there was enmity between the deceased Basangouda Patil and Shivappa Irappa Gureddi. Shivappa Gureddi became a leader of a party to which A-1 to A-3 and others belonged and started threatening the deceased. Basangoudda Patil left the village afraid of the threat and started living with his wife P.W. 16 at Bijapur for about 6 years. While at Bijapur he joined the party of one Basavanataraya Nadagouda of Ingalgeri who was inimically disposed towards Shivappa Gureddi for 20 years. The father-in-law of Baswantaraya Nadagouda was murdered in 1956-57 and Shivappa Gureddi and the third accused Ningappa Policis father Hanmathappa Polici and others were tried for the murder and were convicted and sentenced to 4 years rigorous imprisonment. After the conviction the deceased Basangouda Patil went back to his village Ingalgeri and started living there. After serving their term Shivappa Gureddi and others came back to the village and the trouble again started. The deceased leased his lands and again left the village and came to Bijapur with his wife and children. About 2 years prior to the incident on 12th December, 1968, Shivappa Gureddi was murdered and the deceased Basangouda Patil and 5 others were charged for the murder. They were acquitted but the trouble did not end. The three accused and another started giving trouble to the deceased by looting his crop and burning the hay-stack. Police started proceedings against the two parties for keeping peace. The existe
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
