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

2018 Supreme(Kar) 423

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
BUDIHAL R.B., B.A. PATIL, JJ.
Kuvendra T.M. Somanna S/o. Late Muthanna – Appellant
Vs.
State of Karnataka - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1249 OF 2012
Decided on : 11-06-2018

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Sri. J.R.Mohan For Sri. Musthaq Ahmed, Advocate
For the Respondent: Sri. Vijayakumar Majage, Addl. SPP

Headnote:INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 [C.A. NO. 45/1860] - Sections 302 & 307 - Murder - Death of deceased, brother of complainant, of multiple gun shot injuries, caused by accused - Testimony of injured eye-witnesses - Previous enmity between parties over ownership of property belonging to the family - On the previous day of the incident, as the deceased removed the fencing put up by the accused around the said property, incident took place the next day - Prosecution theory is supported by version of eye - witnesses - P.W.1 and 2, who are also injured witnesses, by medical and also Forensic Science Laboratory documents and their oral evidence - Establishing that injuries are because of the gun shots - Supported by seizure of gun from the accused, and identification of signature of accused on seizure mahazar - Further on intention to commit offence, considering previous enmity between the parties in respect of the disputed property, subsisting for long -That just on previous day of incident, the deceased has removed fencing put up by accused - That accused, carrying gun, it is not only the single fire at the deceased and injured, but second time also he fired at the deceased - As a result, more than 45 injuries were caused by pellets entering the body of deceased - Clearly going to show that the act of firing is deliberate and intentional to commit murder of deceased, as well as complainant and his wife - But, somehow, they survived - Therefore the contention that incident took place in a spur of moment and hence materials will not attract the alleged offence under Section 302, at the most, it may attract offence under Section 304, Para I or II of the IPC is not sustainable - No illegality in impugned judgment and order of conviction - Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

This is an appeal preferred by accused being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction dated 04.09.2012 passed by the learned Session Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri in S.C.No.27/2007 in which the appellant/accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and also under Section 307 of IPC. For the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, he was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years ; and for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.

2. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction the appellant/accused is before this court in this appeal.

3. The brief facts of the prosecution case as per the complaint averments are that PW 1 filed a complaint that along with his family members he is residing in Nariandada village and he is doing agriculture. His brother K.D.Aiyappa was serving in the military. There was a dispute between the accused Somanna on one hand and the complainant and others on the other hand in connection with Iyne house room. On 12.12.2006 when Aiyappa the brother of the complainant came on leave, there was quarrel between themselves and the accused again with regard to Iyne house room. On 14.12.2006 at about 4.15 pm when the complainant and his wife K.S.Rukmini and Aiyappa, the brother of the complainant came from the land along with their cattle’s, all of a sudden the accused who was holding the gun in his hand fired at them. The pellets hit the back portion of Aiyappa. He collapsed there itself and pellets also hit the wife of the complainant on the right side of the head and chest portion and in the meanwhile accused Somanna again fired towards them and the said pellets hit the right thigh portion of the complainant. Complainant also fell down and Aiyappa, the brother of the complainant expired at the spot itself. After hearing the firing sound, Lava – CW.7 came to the spot and in the meanwhile the accused Somanna went away from the said place by holding the kovi (gun) in his hand. Thereafter, CW5 Ananta Kumar @ Kumar, CW11 Vasantha @ Jaya and CW15 Suraj shifted the complainant and his wife to Napoklu Government Hospital. The Medical Officer was not present when they were shifted to the hospital, so they were shifted to District Hospital at Madikeri. Because of the old enmity, in connection with the Iyen house room between the complainant, his brother and the accused persons, the said incident took place. As there was no conveyance facility, there is some delay in lodging the complaint. Hence, action may be taken against the accused persons for committing the murder of Aiyappa.

4. On the basis of the said complaint, a case came to be registered in Crime No.83/2006 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of IPC and Sections 3 and 25 of the Indian Arms Act.

5. After conducting investigation, the Investigation Officer filed the charge sheet against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of IPC and also under Section 30 of the Indian Arms Act.

6. After hearing both the sides and also after considering the materials placed on record, the learned Sessions Judge framed the charges against the accused persons for the said offences and when the charge was read over and explained to the accused, the accused pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried. Hence, the matter was set down for trial.

7. In support of its case, prosecution in all examined 27 witnesses and produced 34 documents with sub-marking and got marked 20 material objects.

8. Thereafter, the accused has been examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and his statement came to be recorded. On the side of the defence, one witness has been examined as DW1 and one document Ex.D1 got marked at t



















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