Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 978
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU (DHARWAD BENCH)
B.A. Patil, M.G. Uma, JJ.
Datta @ Dattarayya Ganapati Deshbhandari - Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka, By State Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Karnataka - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 100123 of 2016
Decided On : 17-06-2020
Anuradha Deshpande, Advocate, V.M. Banakar, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court rejected the contention that the accused should have been convicted under a lesser charge (Section 304-I or II of IPC) due to the absence of evidence to support such a claim.
Headnote:
assault - Property Dispute - Section 302 of IPC - Summary: The court heard the appeal challenging the conviction and sentence of the accused for assaulting and causing the death of the deceased during a property dispute. The court analyzed the evidence, including witness testimonies and previous conduct of the accused, and concluded that the accused was rightly convicted under Section 302 of IPC. The court rejected the contention that the accused should have been convicted under Section 304-I or II of IPC, considering the absence of evidence to support such a claim.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant/accused appealed the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, challenging the conviction for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. The case involved a property dispute between the accused and the deceased, who were brothers. The accused assaulted the deceased with a rod during a quarrel, resulting in the deceased's death. The prosecution established the motive behind the quarrel and assault, leading to the charge and subsequent conviction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accused was rightly convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. The court rejected the contention that the accused should have been convicted under Section 304-I or II of IPC, as there was no evidence to support such a claim. The court also considered the previous conduct of the accused, who had a prior conviction for causing the death of his mother, in reaching its decision.
Issues: The main issue was whether the accused should have been convicted under Section 302 of IPC or under Section 304-I or II of IPC, considering the circumstances of the assault and the absence of evidence to support a lesser charge.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the absence of evidence to support the contention that the accused should have been convicted under Section 304-I or II of IPC. The court also considered the previous conduct of the accused in reaching its decision.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed as devoid of merits, and the judgment of the trial Court was confirmed, upholding the conviction and sentence of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.
JUDGMENT
B.A.Patil, J. - The appellant/accused is before this Court challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar (hereinafter referred to as the trial Court ) in S.C.No.47/2012 dated 26.11.2014.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant Smt.Anuradha Deshpande and the learned Additional SPP Sri.V.M.Banakar for the respondent- State.
3. The genesis of the case of the prosecution in brief is that the accused and deceased were brothers and in respect of some immovable property held by their family, there was a dispute. On 06.02.2012 at about 10.00 p.m., there was quarrel between the accused and the deceased, further they came quarreling near the house of PW4 and at that time, accused who was carrying the rod assaulted the deceased on his head and caused bleeding injuries. Though PW4 and 5 tried to pacify and rescue the deceased, accused also assaulted the complainant-PW3-the second wife of the deceased. By receiving the information police came to the spot and recorded the statement as narrated by PW3 and registered the case in Crime No.30/2012 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Thereafter after investigation, charge sheet has been filed.
4. After committal, Sessions Court took cognizance and secured the presence of the accused and after hearing both the parties, the charge was framed. The accused pleaded not guilty. He claims to be tried. In that light, the prosecution examined 17 witnesses, got marked 22 documents and 7 material objects. The statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded and the accused denied all the incriminating materials but has not led any evidence neither got marked any documents.
5. After hearing both the parties, the trial Court acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC and convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Challenging the legal ity and correctness of the said judgment, the appel lant/accused is before this Court.
6. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appel lant that the al leged incident has taken place without there being any preparation, motive or intention. It is her further submission that the deceased himself has gone to the house of the accused and they started quarrel ing and came near the house of PW4 and assaulted the deceased with a rod, as the deceased was doing centering work, the rod was avai lable there itself. That itself goes to show that the al leged incident has taken place without there being any intention. It is her further submission that in the voluntary statement of the accused, he has stated before the pol ice that the deceased had thrown stone and in that rift, the accused has assaulted with a rod. In that l ight, it is her contention that though the accused has committed the offence, the trial Court without properly appreciating the evidence has convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC instead of convicting him under Section 304-I or II of IPC.
7. It is the contention of the learned Additional SPP that earl ier the accused has committed the murder of his mother in respect of the same property dispute and subsequently in the appeal, the accused has been released and thereafter he has committed the offence of simi lar nature. It is his further submission that PW3 is an injured eye witness. She has clearly deposed that the accused has carried iron rod and whi le quarrel ing with the deceased, has assaulted not only one blow but with multiple blows. The said evidence is also corroborated with the evidence of PW10-the doctor who has conducted autopsy over the body of the deceased. It is his further submission that the prosecution has clearly establ ished the fact that there was a motive behind the al leged quarrel and assault.
8. Taking into consideration the evidence of PW3 to 5, medial evidence and conduct of the accused
