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

2019 Supreme(Kar) 297

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENCH AT DHARWAD
BELLUNKE A.S., J.
Devaraja Ramappa Ramannavar - Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2773 of 2010
Decided on : 15-05-2019

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
K.L. Patil, Adv., R. Ravindra Naik, Adv.

The admissibility and reliability of dying declarations, the principle of separating credible evidence from non-credible, and the impact of delay in lodging the FIR on the case.

Headnote:

IPC - Conviction under Sections 504 and 304 (II) - [IPC 504, IPC 304 (II)] - The court found the accused guilty of intentionally insulting the deceased and causing culpable homicidal death. The judgment relied on the dying declaration of the deceased, corroborated by medical evidence and witness testimonies, to establish the accused's guilt. The court also cited legal precedents to support the admissibility and reliability of the dying declaration, ultimately confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court.

Fact of the Case:

The deceased was assaulted by the accused, resulting in severe injuries and eventual death. The accused appealed against the conviction and sentence, raising issues related to the delay in lodging the FIR, reliability of the dying declaration, and credibility of witnesses.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the accused guilty based on the dying declaration, medical evidence, and witness testimonies. It rejected the appellant's arguments regarding the delay in lodging the FIR and the credibility of witnesses, ultimately dismissing the appeal and confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court.

Issues: The issues included the admissibility and reliability of the dying declaration, the credibility of witnesses, and the impact of delay in lodging the FIR on the case.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the admissibility and reliability of the dying declaration, citing legal precedents to support its decision. It also applied the principle of separating the credible evidence from the non-credible, ultimately relying on the dying declaration, medical evidence, and corroborative testimonies to establish the accused's guilt.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court was confirmed. The accused's bail bond was cancelled, and any period of detention undergone during the trial was set off.

JUDGMENT :

Bellunke A.S., J.

This is an appeal filed by the accused-appellant against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad in Special Case No.82/2008 by order dated 24.08.2010.

2. By the impugned order the accused came to be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 504 and 304 (II) of IPC and imposed sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay fine of Rs.15,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount, the accused shall further undergo simple imprisonment for one year.

3. The brief facts for the purpose of this appeal are: That on 29.04.2017 the deceased Devappa Mallappa Ramanavara, the husband of PW6, was sitting on the Katta of the house after finishing his dinner. At about 9.30 p.m., the accused Devaraja Ramannavar while passing on the road in front of the house of deceased by looking the deceased in a different manner. The deceased questioned him as to why he was gazing towards him. The accused started abusing him in filthy language stating that “Le bosadi magane ninna sokku bahala aagaithi, hinde hodetha bidhdhidhdhu nenapu aithi illa”. The accused after abusing the deceased lifted him and threw him on a slab stone. He picked up a butt of an axelying in front of the house and assaulted on the back of the deceased caused an injury. Thereby on hearing hue and cry PW9 to 11, PW3 Ramanna, PW4 Mahadevappa were came there and pacified the quarrel and the accused went away. At that time it was 11.30 p.m. Intimation was sent to PW7, the brother of the deceased and later to the wife of deceased, PW6 and also to PW8. The said persons came in the morning shifted the injured to a Hospital. Later the injured was shifted to German Hospital at Gadag Betageri. The Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the injured Devappa. The said complaint is at Ex.P14. On that basis Cr.No.42/2007 was registered for the offences punishable under Section 324 and 504 of IPC. FIR was sent to jurisdictional Court. Finally the injured was taken to Shivakripa Hospital, Hubli where he died on 08.05.2007.

4. The Police on receiving the intimation, the Investigating Officer went to the Hospital. Inquest Panchanama was conducted. After conducting postmortem examination, the dead body was handed over to the family members of the deceased. Later, the accused was arrested and he was sent to Judicial Custody. The Investigation Officer recorded the statement of witnesses. After investigation, he filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 302 of IPC.

5. After receipt of the charge sheet, the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate took the cognizance of offences supplied the copies of charge sheet and committed the case to the Sessions Court vide his order dated 18.07.2008 in C.C. No.7/2008.

6. After receipt of the records, the Sessions Court registered Sessions case against the accused. After hearing both the sides, the learned Sessions Judge framed charge against the accused for the offences punishable under 504 Section 302 of IPC. After conducting trial, the learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty for the offences punishable under Section 504 and 302 of IPC. Accordingly, the accused convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 304 (II) of IPC and imposed sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay fine of Rs.15,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount, the accused shall further undergo simple imprisonment for one year. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge the appellant accused filed the present appeal on following grounds :

1. The order of conviction and sentence are contrary to law and evidence on record.

2. It is erroneous and the same has resulted in failure of justice.

3. The trial Court has not considered the delay in lodging the FIR. The reasons assigned for








































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