SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Kar) 322

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
K.SOMASHEKAR, RAJESH RAI K, JJ.
Harish, S/o Doddegowda – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1234 of 2017 C/w Criminal Appeal No. 836 of 2017
Decided on : 18-07-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :SRI. VEERANNA G. TIGADI, ADVOCATE)
For the Respondent: SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP

Point of Law: When other evidence are available, non-examination of witness is inconsequential.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 120(B), 201, 309, 34 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 357(2), 313 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 27 - Murder offence – Criminal conspiracy - Appeal against conviction - Accused No.2 had illicit affair and same was opposed by her husband in order to eliminate deceased, himself and accused No.2 hatched a conspiracy and accordingly, while deceased was working, accused No.1 assaulted him with wooden rod and committed his murder – Prosecution failed to prove his guilt by leading any cogent evidence. [Para 41]

Finding of the Court: Accused No.3 involved in crime by way of facilitating/assisting accused No.1 to shift dead body by an auto rickshaw from place where accused No.1 murdered deceased to place where accused No.1 buried dead body of deceased - Ownership of auto rickshaw was not proved and more over, there is no such evidence deposed before Court about shifting of dead body by accused No.3 along with accused No.1 - Accused No.3 cannot be convicted for offences charged against him - Both crime and criminal tests have been satisfied against accused but, rarest rare test is concerned, prosecution failed to prove same by leading cogent evidence that crime was committed in a barbaric manner and hence instant case would not fall under category of rarest of rare case - Judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed is hereby modified in respect of accused No.1 for offence punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC.

Result: Criminal Appeal allowed-in-part.

JUDGMENT :

These appeals filed by the convicted accused Nos.1 and 3 are directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed in S.C.No.215/2012 dated 25.04.2017 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 120(B), 201 r/w Section 34 of IPC wherein, accused No.1 was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-for the offence punishable under Section 120(B) r/w Section 34 of IPC in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo further simple imprisonment of three months. Further, accused No.1 was directed to undergo imprisonment for life i.e., till his last breath and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo imprisonment for a period of 2 years for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC. Accused Nos.1 and 3 were directed to undergo rigours imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-each in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo three months simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 201 r/w Section 34 of IPC. It is also ordered that accused No.1 shall pay sum of Rs.3,00,000/-to both the children of deceased under the provisions of 357 Cr.P.C., in default, they are entitled to recover the said amount from accused No.1 under Section 357(2) of Cr.P.C. Further, it directed to run the entire sentence concurrently.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 29.03.2012, one Radha/accused No.2, who is the wife of the deceased-D.R.Kumar in this case, lodged a complaint before the respondent-police alleging that on 16.02.2012 around 9.00 p.m., her husband-D.R.Kumar had been to the field near Chollemarada village and from that relevant point of time, her husband was not returned to the home and was missing. Based on the said complaint, FIR has been registered for man missing in Crime No.44/2012. During the course of investigation, the respondent-police arrested accused No.1 on 13.06.2012 and recorded his voluntary statement as per Ex.P43 wherein, accused No.1 revealed that he and accused No.2 i.e., wife of deceased had illicit affair and the same was opposed by her husband i.e., the deceased and as such, in order to eliminate the deceased, himself and accused No.2 hatched a conspiracy and accordingly, on 16.02.2012 at about 8.00 p.m., while the deceased was working near Chachatanna Village road in Sy.No.121, accused No.1 assaulted him with the wooden rod (MO.5) on his head and thereby, the deceased fell down and at that time, accused No.1 kicked on his neck and chest and committed his murder. Thereafter, he called his brother accused No.3 to bring the goods auto rickshaw bearing registration No.KA-18-A-526 and they both shifted the dead body in the said auto from Devappanahalli village to the land of Rathnamma bearing Sy.No.155 and buried the dead body of the deceased in the pit which already dugged in the JCB. Later, accused No.2 gave the missing complaint that her husband was missing from 29.03.2012 in order to mislead the investigation. Based on the same, the dead body of the deceased recovered by exhumation proceedings vide Ex.P7-Mahazar and subsequently, another FIR was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 120 (B), 302, 201, r/w Section 34 IPC against accused Nos.1 to 3 based on the suo moto complaint lodged by the Deputy Superintendent of police as per Ex.P35. Later, the respondent-police investigated the matter, drew up the spot mahazar as per Ex.P7, conducted the inquest proceedings over the dead body as per Ex.P27 and after recording the statement of witnesses, the investigation officer laid the charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence punishable under Sections 120(B), 302, 201 r/w Section 34 IPC before the committal Court. On committal of the case to the Sessions Court, the learned Sessions Judge framed the charges against the accused and read o

          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
          1
          2
          3
          4
          5
          6
          7
          8
          9
          10
          11
          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
          supreme today icon
          logo-black

          An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

          Please visit our Training & Support
          Center or Contact Us for assistance

          qr

          Scan Me!

          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

          whatsapp-icon Back to top