Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
K.N. PHANEENDRA, B.A. PATIL, JJ.
Kumara @ Bhete Kumara - Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 945 of 2014
Decided On : 07-01-2019
MURDER - Property Dispute - IPC Section 302, 506, 109 - The judgment discusses the evidence of eye-witnesses, motive factor, recovery of material objects, and medical evidence. The court found that the prosecution proved the guilt of accused No.1 beyond reasonable doubt. However, the conviction and sentence of accused No.2 were set aside due to lack of sufficient evidence of instigation. The court rejected the argument that the offence committed by accused No.1 may fall under Section 304(I) or (II) of IPC, and upheld the judgment and conviction of accused No.1 for the offences under Section 302 and 506 of IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased purchased the property of the accused in a court auction. The accused did not deliver possession, leading to a dispute. On the day of the incident, the deceased and his associates demanded removal of sheets put in front of the accused's house. Accused No.2 permitted the removal but called accused No.1, who assaulted the deceased with a sickle, resulting in his death.
Finding of the Court:
The court found accused No.1 guilty of murder based on the evidence of eye-witnesses, motive factor, and recovery of material objects. The conviction and sentence of accused No.2 were set aside due to lack of sufficient evidence of instigation.
Issues: The main issues were the guilt of accused No.1 in committing the murder and the involvement of accused No.2 in instigating the crime.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution proved the guilt of accused No.1 beyond reasonable doubt based on the evidence of eye-witnesses, motive factor, and recovery of material objects. The court rejected the argument that the offence committed by accused No.1 may fall under Section 304(I) or (II) of IPC.
Final Decision: The judgment and conviction of accused No.1 for the offences under Section 302 and 506 of IPC were upheld. The judgment and conviction of accused No.2 were set aside.
K.N.P HANEENDRA, J.
1. The appellants are the aggrieved accused Nos.1 and 2 in Sessions Case No.22/2012 on the file of the III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mandya sitting at Srirangapatna vide judgment dated 02.08.2014, wherein the learned Sessions Judge has convicted appellants No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life. Accused No.1 was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC and sentenced to under rigorous imprisonment for two years. He was also sentenced to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/-. Accused No.2 was sentenced to pay a fine amount of Rs.10,000/- with default sentence. The said sentence was passed read with Section 109 of IPC.
2. We have heard the arguments of the learned senior counsel for the accused/appellants and also the learned Addl. SPP for the State. We have carefully perused the oral and documentary evidence placed for consideration by the prosecution and we have also examined the judgment of the trial Court.
3. Before adverting to the grounds urged and elaborated by the learned counsel for the appellants and countered by learned Addl. SPP, we feel it just and necessary to have the brief factual matrix of this particular case.
4. About 9 to 10 years prior to the incident dated 01.08.2011 the accused was indebted with a lady Chikkathayamma. With reference to the same, she had filed a suit for recovery of the said amount and the said suit was decreed in favour of Chikkathayamma and the decree was put into execution bringing the house of the accused for auction. Deceased Ramalingegowda who is the resident of the same village by name Palahalli in Srirangapatna, Mandya District was the successful bidder and purchased the said property in auction for a sum of Rs.2,85,000/-. Even after the said decree and the deceased purchasing the said property in the Court auction, the accused did not deliver the possession of the said property. However, it is the case of the prosecution that by executing the said decree, the said Ramalingegowda had taken the possession of the property and locked the house. In-spite of that, the accused had put up some sheets on the platform in front of the house and started living there in front of the house itself.
5. In this background, it is alleged that on 01.08.2011 the deceased Ramalingegowda along with his associates by name Shankar, Santhu, Ramu and Krishna went near the house of the accused and demanded for removal of the said sheets put in front of the said house. In that context, accused No.2 (appellant No.2) told them that they can remove the said sheets. However, she telephoned to accused No.1 to come back to the house complaining about the removal of the said sheets. Immediately after hearing accused No.2, accused No.1 came to the house and as soon he came there and asked the deceased as to why he has removed the sheets in spite of his request not to remove and that he would not leave him. By saying so, the accused assaulted the deceased with a sickle on various parts of his body. It is also alleged that as soon as the accused came to the spot and told the deceased that, he would kill him, accused No.2 also instigated accused No.1 not to leave deceased Ramalingegowda and to chop him off. Due to the injuries sustained in the above said incident, the deceased Ramalingegowda died on the spot. Accused, threatening the other witnesses not to come near him, ran away from the spot along with the chopper. The wife of the deceased lodged a report narrating the above said factual aspects and a case has been registered against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Section 302 of IPC read with Sections 114, 506 and also read with Section 34 IPC and the Police have investigated the matter and laid down the charge sheet against accused Nos.1 and 2.
6. It is the case of the prosecution that accused No.1 is the main culprit who has assaulted the deceased and done to death. Ac
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
