Back
2016 Supreme(Kar) 567
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
H.G. RAMESH & K.N.PHANEENDRA, JJ.
K. N. KIRAN KUMAR S/O LATE NAGARAJU – APPELLANT
Versus
STATE BY MANDYA RURAL POLICE – RESPONDENT
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1402 of 2012 C/W CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.52 of 2013 & 108 of 2013
Decided On : 25-11-2016
For the Appellant : SRI. C N RAJU
For the Respondent: SRI. P M NAWAZ
Headnote:INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 – Section 27 – Recovery evidence: Recovery of incriminating weapon and clothes of deceased at instance of accused – All panch witnesses of recovery, turned hostile – Nexus of incriminating articles with that of crime, was not ascertained – Blood stained clothes of deceased, allegedly recovered at instance of accused, were not sent for FSL – Use of recovered incriminating articles in crime, was not corroborated by eye-witnesses – Connection of accused with crime not established, on basis of recovered articles.
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 – Section 300 – Murder – Appreciation of evidence – Accused assaulting deceased and injured witnesses with deadly weapons – No motive for assaulting deceased – Connection of accused with crime, was not established, on basis of recovered articles – None of eye-witness identifying any of accused before Court – Use of recovered incriminating article in crime, was not corroborated by eye-witnesses – No evidence available on record to prove guilt of accused – Conviction of accused based on conjectures and surmises was set aside.
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 – Section 300 – Homicidal death – Accused assaulting deceased and injured witnesses with deadly weapons – Investigating officer conducting inquest of dead body recording injuries inflicted by sharp weapons – Left hand of deceased also chopped and removed from body – Injuries stated by doctor in post-mortem report, specifically matching with injuries marked during inquest proceedings – Cause of death recorded as cumulative effect of injuries sustained by deceased – Held, Homicidal death of deceased, established.
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 – Section 300 – Motive – Accused persons allegedly hatching conspiracy and thereafter assaulting deceased and injured witnesses with deadly weapons – Prosecution however not producing sufficient evidence, to prove conspiracy – Prosecution witnesses, turned hostile – No motive can be attributed to accused, in absence of proof of any conspiracy hatched.
K.N. PHANEENDRA, J.
We would like to begin this judgment with a quote that “A SANER THOUGHT WILL ALWAYS THROW LIGHT EVEN ON THE SAME SUBJECT”.
2. The important moot question that arises for our consideration apart from the merits of this case is:
‘as to how the courts have to understand and appreciate the contradictions and omissions in a criminal case’.
Though laudable decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court facilitate us to understand the legal effect of the expressions, “contradictions and omissions”, but still the courts are unable to comprehend the said expressions in a proper perspective. Therefore, it is just and necessary for all of us to be innovative every day. It is said that yesterday is not ours, whatever happened has happened. But tomorrow is ours. Hence, we have to be very innovative in order to achieve excellence in our day to day work. Therefore, we would like to discuss the above said aspects i.e., contradictions and omissions in a detailed manner supported by earlier and latest decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court. Though the courts cannot make a judgment of Zero Defective, in our opinion, we can march towards to make our judgments minimum defective as far as possible. The innovative thoughts always to be towards such remedial measures and to rectify the defects in our judicial endeavours. With these observations, we feel it is just and necessary to proceed with this case.
3. These connected three appeals are preferred by the accused persons (appellants herein) calling in question the judgment dated 5.12.2012 passed in SC No.114/2008 by the Addl. Sessions Judge at Mandya, wherein the appellants are convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 302, 307 of IPC and also u/s.27 of the Indian Arms Act.
4. Criminal Appeal No.1402/2012 is preferred by A19, whereas Criminal Appeal No.52/2013 is preferred by A2 to A6, 9, 10 and 16 and Criminal Appeal No.108/2013, is preferred by A1, A12 and A18 against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed against them as noted above. The appellants (accused Nos.1 to 6, 9, 10, 12, 16, 18 and 19 as noted in the cause title) are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under section 143 of IPC; further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under section 147 of IPC; further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default to undergo seven months rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under section 148 of IPC; further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month with fine of Rs.5,000/- each with default clause of one week rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under section 341 of IPC; they are further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each with default clause of one year rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under section 307 of IPC; and to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each with default clause of one year rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under section 302 of IPC.
4.1 The appellants 1 to 5 in Criminal Appeal No.52/2013 (A2 to A6) and the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.108/2013 (A1 to A12 and 18) are also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default clause of 7 months rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under section 27 of the Indian Arms Act. The appellants are also ordered to pay compensation of Rs.5, 000/- each to the legal heirs of the deceased u/s.357 (3) of Cr.P.C.
5. As all the appeals are arising out of a common judgment of conviction and sentence, they are taken up together for disposal.
6. The brief fact
