IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
K.Somashekar, Rajesh Rai K., JJ.
Nallachandra Nanjappa – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1894 of 2016
Decided On : 12-07-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction details and procedural background. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. summation of counsel appearances. (Para 6) |
| 3. arguments about evidence reliability and contradictions. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. prosecution's stance on evidence integrity. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. points for consideration by the court. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 6. assessment of eyewitnesses and evidence. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 7. evaluation of medical and eyewitness evidence. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 8. discussion on motive and civil dispute. (Para 20) |
| 9. principles of corroboration and eyewitness credibility. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 10. court findings on the nature of the offence. (Para 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 11. final judgment on conviction and sentencing. (Para 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 12. interpretation of legal definitions of culpability. (Para 30 , 31) |
JUDGMENT
RAJESH RAI.K, J. -
This appeal by the convicted accused is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 7/9/2016 passed in S.C. No.40/2002 by the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu-Madikeri, Sitting at Virajpet, wherein the accused/appellant convicted for the offences punishable under Ss. 302, 307, 201, 279, 337 of IPC r/w Sec. 25(1)(a)(b) r/w 6 and 27 of Indian ARMS ACT and the accused directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs.50, 000.00. In default of payment of fine, he further directed to undergo 1 year simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of IPC. The accused further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and also to pay a fine of Rs.25, 000.00. In default of payment of fine, he further directed to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Sec. 307 of IPC. The accused also directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 7 years and also to pay a fine of Rs.10, 000.00. In default of payment of fine, he directed to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Sec. 201 of IPC. The accused further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months and also to pay a fine of Rs.1, 000.00. In default of payment of fine directed to undergo 1 month simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Sec. 279 of IPC. The accused also directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months and also to pay a fine of Rs.500.00. In default of payment of fine, he further directed to undergo 10 days simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Sec. 337 of IPC. The accused also directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 7 years and also to pay a fine of Rs.25, 000.00. In default of payment of fine, he further directed to undergo 1 year simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Sec. 25(1)(a)(b) of Indian ARMS ACT . The accused further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 7 years and also to pay a fine of Rs.5, 000.00. In default of payment of fine, he further directed to undergo 1 month simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Sec. 6 r/w Sec. 27 of Indian ARMS ACT . It is further ordered that all the above sentence shall run concurrently.
2. The factual matrix of the prosecution case is that:- On 25/12/1999 at about 4:30 p.m. in Nalvathoklu Village in the land bearing Sy.No.237/4, due to property dispute, when the accused/appellant, who is one of the brother of the deceased Kuttappa, PWs.1 and 3, picking coffee along with his labours, the deceased Kuttappa, PW.1 and PW.3 came to the above said land and asked the accused not to pick coffee. Thereby, verbal exchange taken place between the accused and his brothers, at that time, accused brought the gun and fired at Kuttappa and caused the death of Kuttappa. Further, PW.1 gone near the accused to prevent him from further fire, at that time, the accused assaulted PW.1 with kathi/chopper with an intention to commit the murder of PW.1 and thereby PW.1 sustained severe injuries on his head. Later, PW.2 and 3 intervened, the accused made alar
Mrinal Das vs. State of Tripura
Neeraj Dutta vs. State (Nct of Delhi)
Ravasaheb @ Ravasahebgouda and Others vs. State of Karnataka
The court established that a homicide can be classified as culpable homicide not amounting to murder if committed under grave and sudden provocation, emphasizing the importance of context and the acc....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the exceptions under Section 300 IPC, particularly in cases involving sudden quarrel and loss of self-control, and the need to e....
The court reaffirmed that intention and the nature of injuries are critical in distinguishing between murder and culpable homicide under IPC.
The court ruled that actions taken under grave and sudden provocation can lead to a conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, distinguishing it from murder under Section 302 IPC.
The court ruled that the appellant's actions were provoked by the victim's threats, justifying a conviction under Section 304 IPC instead of Section 302 IPC.
The court established that circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain to prove guilt, and the appellant's actions were mitigated by grave and sudden provocation, reducing the charge from murd....
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.