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

2021 Supreme(Kar) 407

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
K.SOMASHEKAR, J.
Sri. Guruswamy S/o. Doddahydegowda - Appellants
Vs.
State of Karnataka By Bidadi Police Station Ramanagara District - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 520 OF 2011
Decided on : 25-11-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sri. Shivaraj Jaded, Sri. C.H. Hanumantha, Sri. H.C. Hanumaiah
For the Respondent: Sri. Rahul Rai

Point of law : Law of evidence does not require any particular number of witnesses to be examined in proof of a given fact

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 326 read with Section 149 – Appeal Against Conviction – Offence of Murder - It transpires from case of prosecution that on at around in morning hours at village when complainant and injured were present in complainants house accused persons are alleged to have formed an unlawful assembly and trespassed into house of complainant by holding deadly weapons such as chopper clubs in their hands - Accused are alleged to have entered into compound of house of complainant out of previous ill-will or animosity which had developed in between complainant’s family and accused family - In furtherance of common object relating to land in dispute accused is said to have thrown/slashed a chopper on head of PW-1 and in order to avoid hit made by accused that he had prevented it using his hand as wards for rescue -

Finding of the court : Cursory glance of the entire evidence on the part of the prosecution it is found that there shall be some clouds of doubts and when once the doubt has been crept in mind of Court in the criminal justice delivery system doubt it is always in favor of accused and consequently benefit of such doubt shall be held on part of the accused alone even though criminal law was set into motion and some witnesses have been examined on part of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused - Therefore keeping in view the aforesaid reasons in this appeal it is opined that the prosecution did not facilitate worthwhile evidence by producing positive consistent and corroborative evidence to probabalise that the accused have committed the alleged offence as narrated in complaint statement as per and supplementary statement as per and consequently accused deserve for acquittal on the ground that prosecution did not even made any venturing to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under Sections 307 and 506 of IPC which ended in acquittal –

Result : Appeal Allowed

JUDGMENT :

This appeal is directed against the judgment rendered by the Trial Court in S.C.No.7/2009 dated 20.04.2011 convicting the accused for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 326 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and also sentenced to pay fine for the aforesaid offences as incorporated in the operative portion of the order. This appeal is filed seeking for consideration of the grounds urged in this appeal and consequently to set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the Trial Court for the grounds urged therein.

2. Heard the learned counsel Shri H.C.Hanumaiah for Accused Nos.2 to 4 and so also learned Senior counsel Shri C.H. Hanumantharaya in respect of Accused No.1, who is on record, but in conformity with the arguments of the counsel for Appellants No.2 to Appellants No.4. However, heard arguments of the learned counsel for appellants and learned HCGP in toto. Perused the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the Trial Court in S.C.No.7/2009 dated 20.04.2011 consisting the evidence of PWs 1 to 12 and also documents at Exhibits P1 to P9 inclusive of material objects i.e. MO-1 to MO-4.

3. Factual matrix of the appeal are as under:

    It transpires from the case of the prosecution that on 28.02.2007 at around 8.00 a.m. in the morning hours at Thayappanadoddi village, when the complainant and the injured Nanjappa were present in complainant’s house, the accused persons are alleged to have formed an unlawful assembly and trespassed into the house of the complainant by holding deadly weapons such as chopper, clubs in their hands. The accused are alleged to have entered into the compound of the house of the complainant out of previous ill-will or animosity which had developed in between the complainant’s family and the accused family. In furtherance of the common object relating to the land in dispute, the accused is said to have thrown/slashed a chopper on the head of Nanjappa / PW-1 and in order to avoid the hit made by the accused that he had prevented it using his hand as wards for rescue. As a result, he had sustained bleeding injuries on his right hand palm part. In the meanwhile of the incident, wife of the complainant Susheelamma / PW-2 and sister-in-law Manjula / PW-3 had intervened to pacify the quarrel / quell the incident. Because of the said intervention, Accused No.4 is alleged to have assaulted Manjula with the hind portion of the chopper alleged to be used by Accused No.1. As a result of that, Manjula had sustained injuries on her left forearm. In the meanwhile of the incident, PW-1 Nanjappa had sustained injuries on his head part and also on his right palm and his right hand fingers are alleged to be cut off by sustaining grievous injuries. PW-2 / Susheelamma and PW-3 / Manjula had sustained injuries voluntarily and the incident has been narrated in the complaint. In pursuance of the act of the accused, on the filing of a complaint statement at Exhibit P2 by the complainant i.e., the victim Nanjappa / PW-1, criminal law was set into motion by registering the case in Cr.No.103/2007 for alleged offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 506 read with Section 149 of the IPC, 1860. But Section 307 of the IPC has been invoked in the aforesaid crime based upon the supplementary statement given by PW-1 / Nanjappa while he got admitted in Victoria Hospital and was an in-patient in the said hospital for a period of 26 days.

4. It is relevant to refer that the criminal law was set into motion by registering the FIR at Bidadi P.S. for offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 506 read with Section 149 of the IPC, 1860. The informant is none other than PW-1 / Nanjappa and based upon the complaint, criminal law was set into motion.

5. Subsequent to registration of the crime, the I.O. has taken up the case for investigation and conducted thorough investigation and during investigation, recorded the state

        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