SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.
M.B. SURESH – APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF KARNATAKA – RESPONDENT
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 985 OF 2007
WITH
BHADREGOWDA – APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF KARNATAKA – RESPONDENT
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.21 OF 2014 (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 5363 OF 2007)
Decided On : 06-01-2014
(b) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 307 - Appellant firing at the deceased - Intention to cause death or knowledge that the act could cause death - Apparent - Appellant liable u/s 307. (Para 8)
(1991) 2 SCC 750 - Relied upon
Facts of the case:
M.B. Suresh and his father Bhadregowda were put on trial for offence punishable under Section 302, 114 and 427 IPC and Section 3 read with Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.
Trial Court acquitted both the accused.
The High Court held M.B. Suresh guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. However, his father Bhadregowda was found guilty of offence punishable under Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code alone.
Finding of the Court:
Appellant M.B. Suresh not liable u/s 302, IPC but u/s 307 IPC.
Conviction of Bhadregowda under Section 427 is on correct appreciation of evidence, which does not call for interference.
Result: Criminal Appeal No. 985 of 2007 is partly allowed. The appeal (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 5363 of 2007) preferred by Bhadregowda is dismissed.
JUDGMENT
CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD,J.
Appellant, besides his father Bhadregowda, was put on trial for offence punishable under Section 302, 114 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 read with Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. Additional Sessions Judge, Hasan, vide judgment and order dated 24th of February, 2000 passed in Sessions Case No. 24 of 1992, acquitted both the accused of all the charges. Aggrieved by the same, the State of Karnataka preferred an appeal. The High Court, vide judgment and order dated 9th of February, 2007 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 991 of 2000, reversed their acquittal and held the appellant M.B. Suresh guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. However, his father Bhadregowda was found guilty of offence punishable under Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code alone. Appellant M.B. Suresh was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. He was also sentenced to undergo one year’s imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2,000/- for offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Both of them were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one week for offence under Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code and fine of Rs. 5,000/- each. Sentences were directed to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the same, M.B. Suresh has preferred the present appeal whereas his father Bhadregowda, aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, has preferred Special Leave Petition No. 5363 of 2007.
Leave granted in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 5363 of 2007.
According to the prosecution there was a long standing enmity between the family of the informant and the accused in respect of land of Survey No. 29/2 and 22 of Marur Village over which the accused Bhadregowda was claiming tenancy rights. According to the prosecution, on 19th of November, 1991 the deceased Chandrashekar, along with his elder brother Raghunath, cousin Krishnegowda, a friend Prakash and one Suresh came to the residence of Halegowda in the Village Marur in a tractor-trailer for unloading the gunny bags. After unloading the gunny bags, they sent the tractor-trailer along with the labourers to the coffee plantation of Ramegowda to pluck coffee seeds. However, the aforesaid persons stayed back at Halegowda’s house to have a cup of coffee and later, at about 10.30 A.M., while they were going to coffee estate by the side of the wetland of Ramegowda, Chandrashekar was ahead of them. At that time, Chandrashekar was shot at by the appellant M.B. Suresh, who was standing near the gate made of bamboo. After the first shot, his father Bhadregowda instigated him to fire again and at that the appellant M.B. Suresh fired for the second time at the deceased and thereafter they left the place. P.Ws. 1 to 3, namely Krishnegowda, Raghunath and Prakash respectively, rushed to the place where Chandrashekar had fallen on the ground and in order to save him, they carried him to the village, but unfortunately he died because of the gun shot injury on their way to the village. On the basis of the report given by Krishnegowda (PW-1), a case was registered at the Bellur Police Station. Post-mortem on the dead body was conducted by Dr. Gunashekar V.C.(PW-10), who found nine injuries on the person of the deceased caused by the appellant.
“1. Three circular pellet wounds present over the left part of the fore head, each measuring 0.5 cm. in diameter bony deep over an area of 4 cm. x 4 cm.
2. Three circular pellet wounds present near the lateral end of the right side of the lip each measuring 0.5 cm. in diameter skin deep over an area of 2 cm. x 2 cm.
3. Two pellet wounds over the left side of the front of the neck 0.5 cm. in diameter the muscle deep, there is an exit lacerated wound over the back of the left side of the neck piercing the skin 2 cm. x 2 cm., with lacerated edges.
4. Three cir
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.