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

2017 Supreme(SC) 289

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N. V. RAMANA, PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.
KRISHNEGOWDA & ORS. – APPELLANTS
VERSUS
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ARKALGUD POLICE – RESPONDENT
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 635 OF 2006
WITH
NANJE GOWDA & ANR. – APPELLANTS
VERSUS
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ARKALGUD POLICE – RESPONDENT
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1067 OF 2006
Decided On : 28-03-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : P. Narasimhan, Adv.
For the Respondents:- V.N. Raghupathy, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINT
When there is contradiction between medical and ocular evidence, severe contradictions in oral evidence and latches in investigation; conviction would be bad and the accused would be entitled to benefit of doubt.

Headnote:Criminal trial – Appreciation of evidence – Oral evidence consistent on aspects of injuries inflicted on deceased – Lot of contradictions on all other aspects – No in dependent witness examined – Conviction held bad. (Para 21, 25)

       Criminal trial – Appreciation of evidence – Latches in investigation – Names of A2 & 5 not given to police at earliest point of time – Injuries to accused not explained – Recovery of MOs not established – Conviction bad. (Para 26, 27)

       Criminal trial – Conviction – Contradiction between medical and ocular evidence – Severe contradictions in oral evidence – Latches in investigation – Conviction would be bad – Accused entitled to benefit of doubt. (Para 29)

       (2001) 6 SCC 145; (2003) 9 SCC 426 – Referred

       Facts of the case:

       On 27th February, 1991 at about 8 am, when Sannegowda (PW1), Channegowda (PW5) and Swamygowda (PW6) - all belonging to victim party, were carrying milk to the collection centre, accused Nos. 1 to 7 and 9 to 13 restrained Sannegowda (PW1) and assaulted him with clubs and stones. At that point of time Channegowda (father of PW1), Mogannagowda (PW2) and Papegowda (PW3) came and interfered questioning the accused reasons for the assault. Then Puttegowda (A5) and Nanjegowda (A2) attacked Channegowda (father of PW1) seriously injuring him with chopper and club respectively. Sannegowda (PW1), Moganangowda (PW2) and Papaegowda (PW3) were injured at the hands of A2 and A3. The injured were shifted to hospital and the same was informed to police.

       The Trial Court has acquitted the accused.

       The High Court found A2 and A5 guilty of committing the offence under Section 302/34, IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, in default, to suffer further imprisonment of one year. A1 to A5, A9 and A10 were convicted under Section 324/149, IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to suffer further imprisonment of two months. Whereas A6, A7, A9, A10 and A13 were convicted under Section 323, IPC and they were directed to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to suffer two months imprisonment. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.

       Finding of the Court:

       Accused entitled to benefit of doubt.

       Result: Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT

N.V. RAMANA, J.

These two appeals arise out of a common judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka in Criminal Appeal No. 763/1999 wherein the High Court has set aside the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court and convicted the accused under various sections of Indian Penal Code (for short `IPC').

2. The Criminal Appeal 635/2006 is preferred by accused [A1, A4 and A10] who were convicted by the High Court for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 149, IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo 2 months further imprisonment. A10 was further convicted for the offence under Section 323, IPC and imposed fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to undergo imprisonment for a further period of 2 months.

3. The Criminal Appeal 1067/2006 is preferred by accused Nos. 2 & 5 who were convicted by the High Court for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with 34, IPC and Section 324 read with 149, IPC. Under Section 302 they were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default to undergo further imprisonment for one year. Under Section 324 the punishment imposed was imprisonment for a period of one year and fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to undergo imprisonment for a further period of 2 months.

4. Brief facts as unfolded by the prosecution are that Chennegowda (deceased), the resident of Mudugere Village, had 12 acres of land near Masarangala Village out of which eight acres were consisting of coffee plantation and four acres were wet land. Due to construction of bridge over Hemavathi river which caused submersion of some surrounding lands in the backwaters, Channegowda and his sons used to pass through the cart track in Survey No. 42 and other lands in Survey No. 43 belonging to the accused persons since they were located between coffee estate of Chennegowda and the road to Kendenne village, to have access to his coffee estate, the deceased could get a road sanctioned from the authorities. Accused No. 7, Rajappa got temporary injunction against that sanction which led to the deceased to move the Court and got the temporary injunction vacated. When a Court commissioner inspected the disputed lands, a quarrel had erupted between the accused and victim parties. The Panchayat settled the issue by directing the deceased to pay Rs. 1000/- to the brother of Accused No. 13. Accordingly the payment was made but the enmity between the two groups continued.

5. In the backdrop of this factual scenario, on 27th February, 1991 at about 8 am, when Sannegowda (PW1), Channegowda (PW5) and Swamygowda (PW6) - all belonging to victim party, were carrying milk to the collection centre of Daarikongalale village, accused Nos. 1 to 7 and 9 to 13 formed into an unlawful assembly and restrained Sannegowda (PW1) near Higher Primary School and assaulted him with clubs and stones. At that point of time Channegowda (father of PW1), Mogannagowda (PW2) and Papegowda (PW3) came and interfered questioning the accused reasons for the assault. Then Puttegowda (A5) and Nanjegowda (A2) attacked Channegowda (father of PW1) seriously injuring him with chopper and club respectively. Sannegowda (PW1), Moganangowda (PW2) and Papaegowda (PW3) were injured at the hands of A2 and A3. The injured were shifted to hospital and the same was informed to police.

6. The Investigating Officer, Lakshmi Prasad, PSI (PW19) recorded the statement (Ex.P1) of Sannegowda (PW1) and registered the case against Krishnegowda (A1) and five others for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 324 read with Section 149, IPC. Meanwhile, the seriously injured Channegowda (father of PW1) was treated in S.C. Hospital at Hassan for two days, thereafter he was shifted to NIMHANS, Bangalore, from there to Victoria Hospital, Bangalore and finally again to S.C. Hospital at Hassan where on 6th March, 1991 he succumbe


























































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