IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH
S.Sunil Dutt Yadav, Ramachandra D. Huddar, JJ.
Anjalappa, S/O Hanamappa Damargidda And Ors. – Appellants
Versus
The Sate Of Karnataka Through Mudhol P.S., - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No.200093/2016 (374(Cr.PC)/415(BNSS)
Decided On : 19-09-2024
Murder - Conviction - IPC Sections 302, 34 - The court interpreted Sections 302 and 34 of IPC, emphasizing the necessity of proving intention and the nature of injuries to establish murder, ultimately affirming the conviction based on eyewitness accounts and medical evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for the murder of Sharanappa, stemming from a dispute over trees on their properties. The deceased was assaulted with axes by the accused, leading to his death after treatment for severe injuries.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution established the guilt of the accused through credible eyewitness testimony and medical evidence, confirming the nature of the injuries as sufficient to cause death.
Issues: Whether the trial court's conviction of accused No.1 for murder under Section 302 IPC was justified based on the evidence presented.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the evidence of eyewitnesses and medical reports sufficiently proved the accused's intention to kill, thus justifying the conviction under Section 302 IPC.
Result: The appeal is dismissed, and the conviction and sentence of the trial court are upheld.
JUDGMENT :
RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR, J.
The appellants, arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2 in S.C. No.322/2012 on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi (Hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’ for the sake of convenience), have questioned the judgment of conviction dated 19.06.2013 and order of sentence dated 20.06.2013 passed by the trial Court convicting and sentencing them “to undergo IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and in default of payment of fine, they shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 5 months”.
2. The parties to this appeal are referred with reference to their rank before the trial Court.
3. The records of this appeal do reveal that the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court on hearing the arguments of both the sides vide judgment dated 14.02.2019 passed an order acquitting accused No.2 on the ground that as on the date of incident he was a juvenile as defined under the provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and found no material to convict accused No.2 i.e. appellant No.2 and ordered to release him from custody forthwith. It is also ordered that so far as appeal against appellant No.1-accused No.1, the matter has to be considered on its merits in accordance with law. Therefore, now in view of the judgment passed by the Co- Ordinate Bench of this Court dated 14.02.2019, this appeal is restricted with regard to accused No.1 only.
4. The brief facts leading to filing of this appeal by the accused No.1 are as under:
i. The State of Karnataka (Hereinafter referred to as ‘the State’ for the sake of convenience) prosecuted the appellants in relation to an incident leading to death of one Sharanappa. The prosecution’s case was, that on 14.04.2012, the A.S.I. Mudhol Police Station, received a M.L.C. Report from Basweshwara Hospital, Gulbarga, stating that, one Sharanappa having sustained injuries due to assault has died who was under treatment in the said hospital. Therefore, the A.S.I. Mudhol Police Station visited the hospital at 4.00 p.m., got confirmed death of Sharanappa on account of injuries sustained by him and to that effect he received complaint from one Smt. Kashamma Damargidda, resident of Lakshmi Nagar, Mudhol, who is the sister of the deceased present in the hospital. It was alleged in the complaint that, deceased Sharanappa and accused No.1 are her brothers and they used to reside separately for the last six years prior to filing of the complaint. According to the complaint allegations, in between deceased and accused No.1 there was a dispute with regard to the grown up trees on the bund situated in between their respective lands. It is stated in the complaint that often accused No.1 used to give a life threat to the deceased that he will commit his murder. It is alleged that, on 14.04.2012 when this complainant was in the house at 10.00 a.m., some persons came to her house and informed that her brother Sharanappa had sustained grievous injuries, therefore, he was admitted in Government Hospital, Mudhol. She went to the said hospital and noticed that, Sharanappa was taking treatment. He had suffered bleeding injuries on his head, on both hands and on legs. When she enquired him, he informed her stating, that at about 9.00 a.m., on that day when he was cutting the trees grown up on the Bund in his landed property, at that time, the accused No.1 and his son accused No.2 – Ashok came there, quarreled with him and with an intention to commit his murder assaulted him by using axes. Because of this assault by them, he sustained the injuries. She has stated that because of sustaining grievous injuries on the person of deceased, he was given the first aid treatment at Mudhol Government Hospital and for further treatment he was shifted to Basweshwar Hospital Gulbarga in an ambulance. He was accompanied by one Balamma also, who was cultivating the land of her deceased br
AI
The court reaffirmed that intention and the nature of injuries are critical in distinguishing between murder and culpable homicide under IPC.
(1) Murder – Adequacy or otherwise of medical attention is not a relevant factor when doctor who conducted post-mortem clearly deposed that death was caused due to cardio respiratory failures, as a r....
The court reclassified the conviction from murder under Section 302 IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-II IPC due to lack of intent and motive.
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 actions of the appellants amounted to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, reducing their conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II IPC due to lack of intent.
The court affirmed that evidence must establish intention to commit murder, ruling that provocation claimed by the accused did not mitigate the crime, reaffirming conviction under Section 302 IPC.
The court established that sudden provocation can reduce a murder charge to culpable homicide under Section 304 if the act occurs without premeditation and in the heat of passion.
The court affirmed the conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC, highlighting that the accused acted with sufficient intent, despite claims of provocation, based on consistent eyewitness testimoni....
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.