IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
K. Somashekar, Shivashankar Amarannavar, JJ.
Bomma @ Bavaralal - Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 807/2017 C/W Criminal Appeal Nos. 801/2017 and 806/2017 In Crl.A. No. 807/2017
Decided On : 18-07-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of case filings and convictions. (Para 1 , 3 , 9) |
| 2. arguments contesting evidence and witness credibility. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. precedents cited regarding witness reliability. (Para 11 , 14 , 20) |
| 4. procedural validity of fir registration. (Para 21 , 22) |
| 5. final judgment affirming lower court's decision. (Para 30 , 31) |
JUDGMENT
1. Crl.A. No. 801/2017 is filed by accused Nos. 1 and 8, Crl.A. No. 806/2017 is filed by accused Nos. 2 to 5 and Crl.A. No. 807/2017 is filed by accused No. 6. These appeals are filed by the respective accused challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court in S.C. No. 10028/2016 by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga, sitting at Sagar whereunder the accused Nos. 1 to 6 and 8 are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 120 -B of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 5 years and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/- each; accused Nos. 1 to 6 and 8 are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 143 of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months; accused Nos. 1 to 6 and 8 are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 147 IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 years; accused Nos. 1 to 6 and 8 are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 148 IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 years and accused Nos. 1 to 6 and 8 are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 25,000/- each. They are further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 115 IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- each. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. Since all the three appeals arise out of the same judgment, they are taken up together for passing common judgment.
3. The gist of the prosecution case is that the complainant is a resident of Neharu Nagar of Sagar town. His fourth son Hassainer was working in cloth shop in Bengaluru and about 6 months back he had returned to Sagar and was doing fish business with him. In October 2014 there was a quarrel between his son Hassainer and his friends Amazad, Muzamin and Sukka and residents of Armanekeri of Sagar town and his son with his friends assaulted Mohammed Ali and Ismail Shariff with chopper and in this regard there was a case registered against his son and his friends who were sent to jail. After the said incident Mohammed Ali and Ismail Sharif were waiting for an opportunity to kill his son and his friends. On 20.03.2015 at about 08.30 pm complainant was in his house, someone came and informed that someone had assaulted his son Hassainer near Sharavathi Cold Drinks on B.H. Road. Immediately he went there and saw that his son was already taken to the hospital. Hence, he went there and saw that his son was severely injured. On enquiry his son told him that said Mohammed Ali, Ismali Sharif, Pratap, Rakesh, Imran, Bomma, Rahil and their persons assaulted him with deadly weapons when he was standing near Sharavati Cold Drinks house. Thereafter the said Hassainer died on the way to Shivamogga Hospital. The said complaint came to be registered in Sagar town P.S. in crime No. 56/2015 for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 218, 149, 302 of IPC. The Police, after investigation, have filed charge sheet against accused Nos. 1 to 9 for the offence punishable under Sections 115 , 143, 147, 148, 149, 302 and 120-B IPC. Since accused No. 7 was a juvenile, his case was tried before the Juvenile Justice Board. The learned Sessisons Judge framed charges for the offence punishable under Sections 120 -B, 143, 147, 148, 149, 302, and 115 IPC. The prosecution had examined P.W.1 to P.W.15 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.39 and M.O.1 to M.O. 33. The accused were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and they have
A.P. vs. Punati Ramulu and others
Amar Singh vs. Balwinder Singh and others
Amar Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
Arun Bhanudas Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra
Bahal Singh vs. The State of Harayana
Balakrushna Swain vs. State of Orissa
Dhanaj Singh alias Shera and others vs. State of Punjab
Ganesh Bhavan Patel vs. State of Maharashtra
Khujji @ Surendra Tiwari vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Lalit Kumari vs. State of U.P.
Motiram Padu Joshi and others vs. State of Maharashtra
Pedda Narayana & Ors. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1975 SC 1252
Ram Ashrit Ram vs. State of Bihar
Ram Kumar Pandey vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Rana Partap and Others vs. State of Haryana
Satish Narayan Sawant vs. State of Goa
Sonia Bahera vs. State of Orissa
State of A.P vs. Punati Ramulu and Others
The appellate court emphasized that eyewitness accounts must be given due weight, and mere flaws in investigation do not automatically discount credible testimonies in murder trials.
Eyewitness testimony from injured relatives is credible and can support a conviction, provided it is consistent and corroborated by medical evidence.
Direct eyewitness testimony can establish guilt in murder cases, supported by physical evidence, where minor discrepancies do not diminish credibility.
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.