2010 Supreme(SC) 993

2010 (7) Supreme 42
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Markandey Katju and T.S. Thakur, JJ.
Vithal Laxman Chalawadi & etc. — Appellants
versus
State of Karnataka Rep. by P. Prosecutor — Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos.69-70 of 2008
Decided on : 19-10-2010
Text1

Headnote:Indian Penal Code,1860-Sections 302r/w 34-Prosecution of six persons for commission of offences punishable under Sections 143, 451, 323, 324, 355, 504, 506, 302, 109 and 149 IPC- Trial Court acquitted four of them while convicting the remaining two under Section 323 and Section 324 IPC - The Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge of murder against the accused-On Appeals thereagainst High Court held that prosecution had established its case against accused 1 to 4, for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Sec. 34 IPC-Appeals- That the relationship between the two families was strained on account of the refusal of the deceased to marry P and in preference tying the knot with the younger sister of the accused without their consent had been sufficiently established by material on record-No dispute that deceased had died a homicidal death having suffered as many as 17 injuries-A careful analysis of the depositions of the eye-witnesses showed that N who had since died was the first to assault deceased with his knife- Version given by injured eye-witnesses PW-1 and PW-6 that appellant, V had then taken the knife from N to inflict injuries on the body of the deceased was credible and had been rightly relied upon by the High Court-Hence held that V was responsible for inflicting injuries attributed to him by the eye-witnesses that resulted in death of deceased- As regards the role of appellant, G evidence on record showed that he gave a chappal blow to PW-6 the mother of the deceased-No other overt act attributed to accused-appellant No.3 - The allegation that he exhorted accused 1 and 2 to kill the deceased not satisfactorily proved to justify his conviction for murder with the help of Section 34 IPC- His conviction under Section 323 IPC by the Trial Court and the High Court however affirmed- Prosecution case against U not being free from doubt, he was acquitted of charges framed against him giving him the benefit of doubt-Appeals disposed off. (Para 8 to 12)

       Facts of the Case :

        Six persons were prosecuted herein in the instant case for commission of offences punishable under Sections 143, 451, 323, 324, 355, 504, 506, 302, 109 and 149 IPC. Trial Court acquitted four of them while convicting the remaining two under Section 323 and Section 324 IPC . The Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge of murder against the accused. On Appeals thereagainst High Court held that prosecution had established its case against accused 1 to 4, for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Sec. 34 IPC 2.Present appeals have been filed against said order of High Court.

       Findings of the Court :

        That the relationship between the two families was strained on account of the refusal of the deceased to marry P and in preference tying the knot with the younger sister of the accused without their consent had been sufficiently established by material on record. No dispute that deceased had died a homicidal death having suffered as many as 17 injuries. A careful analysis of the depositions of the eye-witnesses showed that N who had since died was the first to assault deceased with his knife. Version given by injured eye-witnesses PW-1 and PW-6 that appellant, V had then taken the knife from N to inflict injuries on the body of the deceased was credible and had been rightly relied upon by the High Court. Hence held that V was responsible for inflicting injuries attributed to him by the eye-witnesses that resulted in death of deceased. As regards the role of appellant, G evidence on record showed that he gave a chappal blow to PW-6 the mother of the deceased-No other overt act attributed to accused-appellant No.3 . The allegation that he exhorted accused 1 and 2 to kill the deceased not satisfactorily proved to justify his conviction for murder with the help of Section 34 IPC. His conviction under Section 323 IPC by the Trial Court and the High Court however was Affirmed- Prosecution case against U not being free from doubt, he was acquitted of charges framed against him giving him the benefit of doubt. Appeals were disposed of.

       Result : Appeals disposed of.