IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
K.S. Mudagal, J.M. Khazi, JJ.
GIRIMALLAPPA @ GIRIMALLA @ GIREPPA – Appellant
Vs.
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 200063 of 2016
Decided On : 08-09-2021
IPC - Conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The accused, father and son, were convicted for the murder of the deceased, who was the father of the accused's daughter-in-law. The deceased had intervened in the accused's ill-treatment of his daughter-in-law and had conducted panchayats to resolve the issue. The accused mistook the deceased's advice to set up a separate residence for his daughter-in-law as an attempt to break the family, leading to the fatal assault on the deceased.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused guilty based on the testimony of eyewitnesses, the motive established by the deceased's intervention, and the recovery of blood-stained clothes and a motorcycle used in the crime. The court rejected the defense's claims of false implication and upheld the conviction and sentence.
Issues: The court addressed the issues of motive, eyewitness testimony, delay in registering the case, and the recovery of evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the motive established by the deceased's intervention in the accused's ill-treatment of his daughter-in-law, the eyewitness testimony, and the recovery of blood-stained clothes and a motorcycle to uphold the conviction.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, converting the sentence of imprisonment for the entire life to imprisonment for life, while maintaining the fine and compensation orders.
JUDGMENT :
1. In this appeal the accused have challenged their conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to their rank before the Trial Court.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that accused are father and son and they were residing in the farm house situated within the jurisdiction of Indi police station. The granddaughter of brother of deceased Apparaya Lalaseri, by name Giremma @ Revamma was given in marriage to accused No. 2 about 10 months prior to the date of the incident. After the marriage, she started living with the accused persons in their house. It is alleged that intending to perform the second marriage of accused No. 2, accused No. 1 started harassing and making allegations against his daughter-in-law Giremma @ Revamma and sent her back to her parents' house. In this regard, about 3-4 times, panchayat was held by the deceased in the presence of CWs.8, 11, 12, 17 to 20 and the accused persons were advised not to ill-treat Giremma @ Revamma or if they are unable to treat her properly in their house, at least accused No. 2 should set up a separate residence for his wife and live with her, failing which, the deceased gave a threat that he is going to file a criminal complaint.
4. In this background, the accused persons mistook the advise given by deceased to set up a separate residence as though he is trying to break the family and on 08.01.2013 at about 8:45 a.m. while deceased along with complainant-Kasturibai was proceeding from Alur Maddi towards Alur Tanda by walk and when they were near the borewell, accused persons came on motorbike and after stopping their vehicle in front of the deceased, both accused persons assaulted the deceased with two koyta which are used for cutting the sugarcane and gave about 5-6 blows and thereafter, accused No. 2 severed the head of the deceased and threw the head towards the drain.
5. According to the prosecution the incident was witnessed by CW.6-Rudrappa, CW.7-Mahadevappa, CW.14-Dundappa Natikar, CW.15-Annaraya Maragur and CW.16-Basavaraj Walikar. After the incident, Smt.Kasturibai who was the kept mistress of the deceased and who was accompanying him at the time of incident and is an eyewitness informed the said fact to the wife of deceased i.e. CW.10/Smt.Bheemabai and after who and others came to the spot, she went to the police station i.e. complainant went to the police station and lodged the complaint.
6. Based on the complaint, the jurisdictional police registered the case in Crime No. 5/2013 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and transmitted FIR to the Court. The PSI who registered the case handed over the further investigation to the CPI. On telephonic message to him about the registration of the case, the CPI immediately visited the spot. The PSI who has registered the case was also present at the spot. After going through the records, the CPI conducted inquest panchanama over the dead body in the presence of panchas. He got shifted the dead body to the hospital for post mortem examination. He also conducted spot panchanama in the presence of panchas and collected blood stained soil, plain soil and recovered two choppers i.e. koyta which were left at the spot by the accused persons, a pair of chappal belonging to the deceased through the spot mahazar. He also drew the rough sketch of the scene of offence. Few photographs of the scene of the offence including that of the dead body i.e. torso and severed head were captured. The Investigating Officer has also recorded the statements of some of the witnesses namely, Bheemarayagouda, Rudrappa, Mahadevappa, Shantappa, Rajashri, Bheemabai, Giremma @ Revamma, Dundappa, Annaraya, Basavaraju, Bhimaraya Karale, Doddappa Patil, Malakappa, Hanumanth Mujagonda, Sankappa Biradar and Kallappa Karale at the spot itself. After the post mortem examination, he handed over the dead body to the r
Abdul Waheed vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai vs. State of Gujarat
Leela Ram (D) through Duli Chand vs. State of Haryana and Another
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on motive, eyewitness testimony, and recovery of evidence to uphold the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
Conviction under Section 302, IPC was altered to Section 304 for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, based on the heat of passion during a family quarrel.
The conviction for murder was upheld based on substantial eyewitness testimony and evidence of motive, affirming the principle that direct evidence substantiates a guilty verdict beyond reasonable do....
Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; lack of motive and unreliable witness testimonies undermine conviction.
The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. If there is any doubt as to the guilt of the accused, the accused must be acquitted.
The court modified the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, emphasizing the lack of intent to kill and the nature of injuries inflicted.
Eyewitness testimony, particularly from injured witnesses, is crucial in establishing guilt, even with minor inconsistencies in their accounts.
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.