Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
B.Veerappa, S.Rachaiah, JJ.
Satish – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 96 of 2018
Decided On : 21-04-2022
IPC - Conviction under Sec. 302, 307, 333 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court convicted the accused under Sec. 302, 307, 333 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC. The judgment discusses the evidence of eyewitnesses and the application of Sec. 34 of IPC in determining the liability of the accused. The court acquitted accused Nos. 2 and 3 and confirmed the conviction of accused No. 1 under the mentioned sections.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved an incident where the accused were convicted for stabbing a police constable and causing the death of a military personnel. The prosecution relied on the evidence of eyewitnesses and the injured constable to establish the guilt of the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt against accused No. 1, but failed to establish the guilt of accused Nos. 2 and 3. The court also discussed the lack of evidence regarding the involvement of accused Nos. 2 and 3 in the crimes they were charged with.
Issues: The main issues were whether the trial court was justified in convicting the accused and whether the appellants had grounds to interfere with the judgment of conviction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the evidence of eyewitnesses and the injured constable established the guilt of accused No. 1, but failed to prove the involvement of accused Nos. 2 and 3. The court also discussed the application of Sec. 34 of IPC and the requirement of a conscious mind to establish common intention.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed in part, with the conviction of accused Nos. 2 and 3 being set aside and their acquittal ordered. The conviction of accused No. 1 was confirmed, and the necessary directions were given to the registry and jail authority.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
S.RACHAIAH, J. - This appeal is filed by the appellants/accused against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed on 16/11/2017 by the Principal City Civil and Session Judge at Bengaluru in S.C.No.585/2011 whereby the Trial court sentenced the appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC with a fine of Rs.10, 000.00 each, in default of payment of fine, the appellants shall further undergo imprisonment for six months. Further the trial Court sentenced the appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with fine of Rs.10, 000.00 each for the offence punishable under Sec. 307 of IPC r/w Sec. 34 in default of fine. They shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Further the trial Court directed the appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs.10, 000.00 each for the offence punishable under Sec. 333 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC, in default of payment of fine, they shall further undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:- The complainant was working as Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police in Railway Police Station, Bangalore. That on 7/11/2010, at about 3.00 p.m., he has lodged a complaint with an allegation that, some unknown persons have stabbed P.W.7 who was working as his colleague in the Railway Police Station. It is submitted that, P.W.7 was on duty on 7/11/2010 at the Railway Station. He received an oral complaint from some unknown persons stating that they had been robbed by some unknown miscreants a wrist watch and cash of Rs.100.00 from them. It is further submitted that, the unknown persons who lost their valuable have complained to P.W.7 and sought his help to trace the miscreants. P.W.7 had accompanied those persons and started searching the miscreants. It is further submitted that, the unknown complainants have identified the miscreants and told P.W.7 & the P.W.7 has tried to take the miscreants to the Police Station and held the collar of the miscreants. When the miscreants were being taken to the Police station, one of the miscreants took his knife out and stabbed on the stomach of the P.W.7 and caused injury. P.W.7 even though sustained injury, held the accused firmly and tried to drag the accused to the Police Station and again the accused assaulted with the knife on the hand of P.W.7, as a result, P.W.7 had to lose the accused. On seeing the assault being made by the accused to P.W.7, one Sardarji had rushed to rescue P.W.7 and tried to arrest the accused. In the scuffle, the Accused had stabbed on the chest of the Sardarji, though said Sardarji sustained grievous injury on his chest, he has managed to snatch the knife and hit the accused. Though the prosecution has stated, one more Sardarji had sustained injury in the scuffle, and had taken treatment at Commando hospital, he has not been examined. Again the Prosecution submitted that, immediately the staff of the Railway Police Force Police Station rushed to the spot and shifted the injured to the hospitals, the injured Sardarji succumbed to the injury and P.W.7 after having obtained the treatment had survived. However, the accused have escaped from the scene of occurrence.
3. On the basis of the complaint by PW.9 Hassan Khan, a case came to be registered in Crime No.129/2010 for the offences under Ss. 302, 307, 333 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC. The police have conducted investigation and filed the charge sheet against the accused persons for the above said offences.
4. On committal being made by the Magistrate Court, the Sessions Court framed the charges against the accused persons for the above said offences and read over and explained in the language known to the accused persons. The accused persons after understanding the said charges have denied the charges and claimed to be tried.
5. In order to appreciate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined 28 witnesses i.e. PW.1 to PW.28
The court upheld the conviction for attempted murder but granted probation instead of imprisonment, emphasizing rehabilitation over punishment due to the appellant's age and reformation.
The prosecution must prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and contradictions in the evidence can raise doubts about the case.
The court emphasized the necessity of corroborating witness testimonies with medical evidence and recognized the spontaneous nature of the incident in determining culpability.
(1) Minor discrepancies should not be given undue importance that don’t go to root of matter. Such contradictions are not material contradictions and evidence of such witnesses cannot be brushed asid....
When plea of alibi is raised, it is bounden duty of accused to prove the same in a convincing manner and on failure to do so, plea of alibi shall be negatived.
The court affirmed the conviction for attempt to murder but granted probation instead of imprisonment due to the appellant's age and subsequent conduct, emphasizing rehabilitation over punishment.
Eyewitness testimony, even from an interested witness, can sustain a conviction if corroborated by credible evidence and circumstances.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
