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
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:
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
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116
Raja v. State (1997) 2 Crimes 175 (Del)
Point of law : Law of evidence does not require any particular number of witnesses to be examined in proof of a given fact
Point of Law : Prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt against the accused and more so, the Trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion by rendering an acquittal judgment.
The prosecution failed to prove grievous injuries beyond reasonable doubt, leading to a modified conviction under Section 324 IPC with increased fines.
Point of Law : Evidence let in by the prosecution has to be assessed carefully and cautiously and it should not be brushed aside. [Para 30]
Conviction for murder upheld based on unlawful assembly doctrine; presence in assembly sufficient for accountability under Section 149 IPC.
Point of Law : Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 even minor contradiction and inconsistency in the testimony of an injured eyewitness do not make him an untrustworthy and unreliable witness.
The court affirmed the conviction of the accused for murder, finding sufficient evidence of an unlawful assembly and individual culpability amid claims of inconsistencies in prosecution testimony.
The prosecution must prove specific overt acts of each accused in a murder case; mere presence is insufficient for conviction.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.