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) 1117

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

Advocates appeared:
Vijayakumar Majage, Advocate, N.Ravindranath Kamath, Advocate, H.G.Dawood Kahn, Advocate

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 302, 307, 201, 279, 337 - Indian Arms Act - Sections 25(1)(a)(b), 6, 27 - Accused convicted of multiple offences including murder for shooting deceased during a property dispute - Rigorous imprisonment and fines imposed for each offence, to run concurrently - The Court found that the accused acted under grave and sudden provocation due to a civil dispute, leading to a reduction of conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part 1. (Paras 26-31)

(B) Conviction - Burden of proof - Prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, reliance on eyewitnesses and corroborating medical evidence marks a robust case against the accused. (Paras 12-19)

(C) Provocation - Court acknowledged that killing arose from a sudden provocation during a quarrel regarding property, mitigating culpability. (Paras 26-30)

Facts of the case:
Accused and the deceased had a long-standing property dispute; during an altercation over coffee-picking, the accused shot the deceased and assaulted an eyewitness with a chopper. The incident involved multiple witnesses, both familial and independent.

Findings of Court:
The prosecution successfully proved the commission of the crime, but the court modified the charge to reflect the nature of provocation experienced by the accused.

Issues: The main issues were whether the accused's actions were premeditated and whether his loss of self-control qualified for a lesser sentence.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for careful consideration of evidence, ruling that the act stemmed from sudden provocation rather than cold intent.

Result: Criminal appeal allowed in part; the conviction modified to Section 304 Part 1 IPC with a sentence of incarceration already served, plus fines imposed.

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

    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