Back
1995 Supreme(Kar) 362
Karnataka High Court
Vishnu Narayan Moger and another - Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka - Respondent
Decided On : 08-08-95
CRIMINAL APPEAL : 423 of 1989
A.B.PATIL, V.P.KULKARNI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of witness credibility, the rejection of self-defence and provocation pleas, and the application of the provisions of the Indian Penal Code to determine the guilt of the accused.
Headnote:
Criminal Appeal - Conviction under Sections 304 Part II, 324 of the Indian Penal Code - Summary of Acts and Sections: Sections 304 Part II, 324 of the Indian Penal Code - The court found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 302 I. P. C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. The court also confirmed the conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 324 I. P. C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years. The sentences awarded to the accused were ordered to run concurrently.
Fact of the Case:
The accused assaulted the deceased and caused injuries to other individuals. The trial court held that the accused committed the offence under Sections 304 Part II and 324 I. P. C. The deceased died a homicidal death due to injuries, and the injured individuals sustained dangerous injuries caused by a sharp instrument.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 302 I. P. C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. The court also acquitted the accused of the offences with which she was charged.
Issues: The issues involved the assessment of evidence, the credibility of witnesses, and the applicability of the provisions of the Indian Penal Code to the actions of the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the evidence of related or interested witnesses should be assessed cautiously but can be accepted if found credible. The court also emphasized that the previous conduct of a witness should not automatically discredit their testimony in a subsequent case. Additionally, the court rejected the plea of self-defence and provocation, concluding that the accused acted in a calculated manner to cause harm.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeals, setting aside the conviction of one accused and modifying the conviction of the other. The accused was convicted for the offence under Section 302 I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. The sentences awarded to the accused were ordered to run concurrently.
( 1 ) - Criminal Appeal No. 473 of 1989 is preferred by the appellants who were the accused in the trial Court against the judgement dated 6-7-1989 passed by the Session Judge, Karwar, in S. C. No. 6 of 1989 convicting the 1st appellant/accused No. 1 for the offences punishable under Sections 304 Part II and 324 of the Indian Penal Code and 2nd appellant/accused No. 2 for the offence under Section 114 punishable under Section 109 Indian Penal Code and sentencing the 1st appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years for the offence under Section 304 Part II and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years for the offence under Section 324 Indian Penal Code, and ordering the sentences to run concurrently and releasing the 2nd appellant on the Probation of Offenders Act.
( 2 ) CRIMINAL Appeal No. 736 of 1989 is preferred by the State against the very judgement of the Sessions Judge, Karwar, acquitting the 1st appellant of the offence punishable under Section 302 and 307 Indian Penal Code and the 2nd appellant of the offence under Section 114 I. P. C.
( 3 ) CRIMINAL Appeal No. 473 of 1989 is to be heard by a learned Single Judge. It has been clubbed with Criminal Appeal No. 736 of 1989, since both the appeals are directed against the same judgement of the trial Court. As both the appeals are directed against the same judgement and the parties are also the same, we have heard both the appeals together and pronounced a common judgement in both the appeals.
( 4 ) WE have heard Shri A. B. Patil, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the State, and Shri V. P. Kulkarni, the learned counsel for the accused, fully and perused the record of the case.
( 5 ) THE case of the prosecution is as follows :-Accused No. 1 is the son of accused No. 2 P. W. 1 is the complainant and she is the sister of P. W. 17. P. W. 1 was residing in the house of her brother, husband of P. W. 2. The house of the accused is situated opposite to the house of P. W. 3 Kamala. About 6 months prior to the incident quarrel started between the accused on the one hand and Kamala and her family members on the other on account of straying of dogs and fowls. About a week prior to the incident the accused is alleged to have assaulted P. W. 3 Kamala and her daughter C. W. 27 Tara. On the advice of P. W. 4 a police complaint was given by C. W. 27 as per Exhibit D. 12. The parties were summoned by the Police Sub-Inspector, Bhatkal, and an undertaking was taken from them that hey would not indulge in quarrelling in future. On 1-12-1988 at about 11. 00 or 11. 30 a. m. both the accused came in front of the house of P. W. 1 and accused No. 1 told as follows :"then P. Ws. 1 and 2 came out of the house and questioned accused No. 1 why he wanted to harm them and they also sent a word for P. W. 4 Laxmi to come there. After some time both the accused returned to their house. Thereafter P. W. 1 went and informed P. W. 16 the Mandal Panchayat Chairman, who assured P. W. 1 that he would look in to the matter. On the very day at about 1. 30 or 2. 00 p. m. both the accused came again in front of the house of P. W. 1. Accused No. 1 was holding a broken bottle in his right hand and a bicycle in his left hand. Accused No. 2 was holding a chappal in her hand. Accused No. 1 started abusing the women folk and asked them to come out of the house. P. Ws. 1 to 4 came out of the house. P. W. 2 asked accused No. 1 as to why he was abusing them. Then accused No. 2 instigated accused No. 1 to finish all those ladies. Then accused No. 1 threw the broken bottle, kept the cycle on stand, removed a dagger from his waist portion and stabbed P. W. 2 When deceased Venkatamma went forward saying that he has assaulted Narayani, accused No. 1 abused and also stabbed her. After stabbing the deceased, accused No. 1 stabbed P. W. 3 Kamala who was also present there. Accused No. 1 threatened the on-lookers and went towards Shirali on his bicycle after stabbing the ladies. Due to the
