IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
H.B. Prabhakara Sastry, C.M. Joshi, JJ.
Santhosh S/o Dinakar Achargi - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Karnataka Through Ashoknagar Police - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.100027 OF 2020 (C)
Decided On : 21-02-2023
Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 302, 307 - Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 32, 65-B, B(4), D – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 313 - Murder offence – Oral dying declaration - Appeal against conviction - Accused aggrieved by judgment in Sessions Case passed – Prosecution proved that deceased was capable of speaking and he gave oral dying declaration before PW14, PW3 and PW4 and their evidence cannot be discarded at all - Para 70.
Finding of the Court:
Evidence of PW26 discloses that soon after information of incident was received, she rushed to hospital and continuously followed to record dying declaration of deceased through a competent person, but by time she visited Hospital, doctors did not permit her to record dying declaration as condition of deceased had worsened - Therefore, whatever that had been heard by PW26 as PW3, PW4 and PW14 gains importance and Court analyzed their evidence in arriving at conclusions - It has rightly come to conclusion that deceased was capable of speaking when PW3 and PW4 visited him in KIMS Hospital - It has also considered that testimony of PW14, which corroborates with say of PW3 and PW4 - Therefore, Court do not find any reason to interfere with conclusions reached by learned Sessions Judge’s Court - Judgment of conviction convicting accused for offence punishable under section 302 of IPC is hereby confirmed.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
C. M. JOSHI, J.
The accused-appellant aggrieved by the judgment dated 21.11.2019 in Sessions Case No.92/205 passed by the learned I- Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad sitting at Hubbali, for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (for short “the IPC’), has filed this appeal challenging the same.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
3. The police inspector of Ashok Nagar Police Station, Hubballi filed the charge-sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC in Crime No.15/2015 of the said police station. It was alleged in the charge-sheet that on 07.03.2015 at about 12.30 p.m., while Ramadas Kudalkar (deceased) was in his Laxmi Jewelry shop at Bhavani Nagar, Hubballi, the accused with an intention to commit his murder came there in the guise of getting some silver ornaments polished and hit the deceased with a machete (Koyta), which is marked at M.O.2, over his head and in the result the deceased sustained head injury and his right thumb was also chopped in the incident. Immediately, he was shifted to KIMS Hospital and later to Balaji Hospital, where he succumbed to the injuries on the next day, i.e. on 08.03.2015 at about 2.35 p.m. The motive for the alleged offence is stated to be that the accused was indebted to the deceased to pay a sum of Rs.60,000/-and when the deceased demanded the same repeatedly, the accused had a motive to commit the offence and therefore, entered the shop premises of the deceased and assaulted him with M.O.2 and committed crime.
4. According to the prosecution, the incident had taken place at about 12.30 p.m. on 07.03.2015 and adjoining Saloon owner Satish Hadapad (PW2) heard the screams of Ramadas and when he went to the shop of Ramadas, he saw the accused running away with the weapon and Ramadas coming out with bleeding injuries. When Satish raised hue and cry, the Kirana merchant i.e. CW10(PW7), Babe Naik, heard cries of Satish and came out and saw the deceased Ramadas coming out of his jewelry shop sustaining injuries to his head and hand and sat over the steps. Being informed by some bikers about the incident, an Assistant Sub-Inspector of police i.e. PW14Ramachandra Niralgi, who was in the nearby came there and with the help of other people who were gathered at the spot, immediately shifted the deceased to the hospital in the auto-rickshaw of PW8/Basheer. In the meanwhile, the injured was enquired by them and he informed that the accused-Santosh Achari had hit him with machete and escaped. PW14Ramachandra Niralgi remained at the spot and informed the incident to the City Police Control Room through walkie-talkie requesting Ashok Nagar Police to come to the spot which prompted the police inspector PW 26 and other staff to go to the spot. By that time, PW5(CW9)-Shankarappa Ullagaddi, who was proprietor of a tea stall in the nearby, informed the complainant i.e. PW4/Prakash and he came to the spot and then having learnt that the injured was shifted to the hospital, he went to the KIMS Hospital. The PW6-Parashuram Nakod, who was running a garage infront of the Laxmi Jewelry came to know about the incident, informed the PW3-Deepa, who also came to the spot and having learnt about shifting the injured Ramadas to the hospital, went to the KIMS hospital. One of the police constables of Ashok Nagar Police Station i.e. PW11/CW16-Manjunath Enagi had arrived at the spot on receiving the information and at the instructions of the Police Inspector PW26-Pushpalatha N., went to KIMS hospital with a handycam. It is the case of the prosecution that while the deceased was being treated in Emergency Care Unit of KIMS hospital, the police inspectorPW26 and the DCP/Hanumantharaya were asking questions to the deceased-Ramadas and he had disclosed that the accused was due to pay him a sum of Rs.60,000/-and he came with a machete and assaulted the deceased on his head and hands. The entire questioning and reply was recorde
Anwar P.V. Vs. P.K. Bashir and others
Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal
Jayamma and another vs state of Karnataka
A dying declaration can be oral or in writing and in any adequate method of communication whether by words or by signs or otherwise will suffice provided indication is positive and definite.
Murder – Non-examination of Doctor who conducted autopsy on dead body of deceased and who prepared post-mortem report is not fatal to case of prosecution.
A dying declaration can serve as the sole basis for conviction if it is credible and corroborated, emphasizing its legal admissibility in murder cases.
The court reinforces that a dying declaration can be the sole basis for conviction if deemed truthful, voluntary, and corroborated by reliable evidence.
The dying declaration of the deceased was found to be trustworthy and reliable, leading to the appellants' conviction under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
A dying declaration can serve as the sole basis for conviction if found trustworthy, supported by corroborative evidence.
The court affirmed the conviction under Section 302 IPC based on credible eyewitness accounts and a reliable dying declaration, establishing the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
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.