Back
2022 Supreme(Kar) 379
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
K. SOMASHEKAR, PRADEEP SINGH YERUR, JJ.
Rangappa S/o. Late Rajappa - Appellant
Versus
The State by Betamangala Police Bangarpet Taluk, Kolar, Rep. By Its SPP - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 268 of 2017
Decided On : 10-08-2022
For the Appellant : Sri N.R. Krishnappa.
For the Respondent: Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, HCGP.
Point of Law: The intention and knowledge These two elements are important relating to heinous offences of Section 302 of IPC i.e., when the death is caused by a single blow.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302, 300 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1860 - Section 209, 313, 233, 174(2), 374(2) - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 106, 3, 134 - Murder Offence – Illicit Relationship - Appeal Against Conviction - Accused had a illicit relationship with deceased and they were residing together at village - Deceased decided to stop her illicit relationship with accused person and also she informed same to him and by convening panchayath relating to return of Rs.25,000/- which she owed to him, in front of panchayathdars she returned a sum of Rs.25,000/- to accused and in spite of that accused person who intended to continue his illicit relationship with deceased and also used to quarrel with her frequently - Accused had came to house of deceased at Village and whereby, picked up a quarrel with her and brutally assaulted her with means of crow bar on her chin, right ear, right jaw, left hand, chest and also pierced on head of deceased and committed murder of deceased - Subsequent to committing murder of deceased by accused brutally, he ran away from scene of crime. [Para 40]
Finding of the Court: Due to insistence by accused, deceased and also her daughter having been paid amount by sold out their cow - Same has been seen in evidence of PW.1 - But there was no chance or time to PW.1 to think to falsely implicate accused person in connection with brutally murder of her mother - Therefore, prudent man can infer evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 are naturally and also genuine and even truthful and also unimpeachable - Therefore, it is said that prosecution has prove guilt of accused with beyond all reasonable doubt and consequently, trial court has rendered conviction judgment for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC - Consequently, Court is of considered opinion that that accused do not deserve for seeking any intervention for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC - Even nature of offence, involvement of accused that brutally murder of deceased even she had some illicit relationship with him for several years - Same could be seen in evidence of PW.1 itself - Therefore, judgment of conviction rendered by trial Court does not suffer with any perversity or illegality for seeking intervention and no warranting circumstance would arise for any interference of judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by trial Court - Consequently, appeal deserves to be rejected being devoid of merits - Consequently, judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by trial Court in is hereby confirmed.
Result: Appeal rejected.
JUDGMENT :
This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Court of the III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kolar (Sitting at K.G.F.) in S.C.No.122/2015 dated 08.12.2016 whereby, the trial Court sentenced the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’ for short). In this appeal, the appellant is seeking intervention of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, to consider the grounds urged in this appeal, to set aside the judgment of conviction rendered by the trial Court and to acquit the accused for the offence under Section 302 of IPC.
2. Heard the learned counsel Sri. N.R. Krishnappa for the appellant and so also, learned HCGP Smt. Rashmi Jadhav for the respondent-State. Perused the judgment of conviction passed in S.C.No.122/2015 consisting the evidence of PW.1 to PW.22 and so also the documents marked as Exs.P1 to P19 including MO.1 to MO.5.
3. The factual matrix of the appeal are as under:-
It transpires from the case of the prosecution that, since about 15 years i.e., prior to 26.12.2014, the accused namely Rangappa had a illicit relationship with the deceased Gowramma and they were residing together at Kannur village, Bangarpet Taluk, Kolar District. The deceased Gowramma decided to stop her illicit relationship with accused person and also she informed the same to him and by convening panchayath relating to return of Rs.25,000/- which she owed to him, in front of panchayathdars i.e., elderly persons, she returned a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the accused and in spite of that the accused person who intended to continue his illicit relationship with the deceased Gowramma and also used to quarrel with her frequently. The deceased did not agree to continue her illicit relationship with him. Therefore, on 26.12.2014 at around 3.00 p.m., the accused had came to the house of the deceased Gowramma at Kannur Village and whereby, picked up a quarrel with her and brutally assaulted her with means of crow bar on her chin, right ear, right jaw, left hand, chest and also pierced on the head of the deceased Gowramma and committed murder of the deceased. Subsequent to committing the murder of the deceased by the accused brutally, he ran away from the scene of crime i.e., house of the deceased Gowramma. In pursuance of act of the accused and so also on receipt of a compliant made by PW.1-Smt.Malathi, who is none other than the daughter of the deceased Gowramma and based upon her complaint, criminal law was set into motion by recording FIR as per Ex.P18.
4. Subsequent to registration of the crime, case in C.C.No.269/2015 has been registered in the committal Court and whereby, the Investigating Officer has taken up the case for investigation and during investigation has recorded the statement of witnesses and so also drew the spot mahazar, seizure mahazar and also inquest mahazar of the dead body of Gowramma and secured the post mortem report at Ex.P15 inclusive of FSL report at Ex.P16 and thereafter, laid the charge sheet against the accused before the committal Court for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Subsequent to committing the case by the committal Court by passing the order by following the requisite provision under Section 209 of Cr.P.C., the case has been committed to the Court of Session for trial and whereby, the case in S.C.No.122/2015 came to be registered and wherein, the accused was required to face a trial.
5. The accused has engaged a service of a counsel to defence his case.
6. The trial Court has heard all charges by the public prosecutor and the defence counsel and on prima facie case against the accused, framed the charge for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, moreover, the accused was not pleaded guilty but claims to be tried. Accordingly, the plea of the accused was recorded separately.
7. Subsequently, the prosecution let in the evidence by subjecting to examination
