Back
2023 Supreme(Kar) 1387
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
H.B. Prabhakara Sastry, C.M. Joshi , JJ.
Pandurang Narayan Harikantra - Appellant
Versus
The State of Karnataka - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.100188 of 2020
Decided On : 24-02-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Sri. Namadev S.Badiger, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Sri. M.H.Patil, AGA.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 504, and 506 - Conviction of appellant for the murder of son by throwing a grinding stone - Evidence of multiple eyewitnesses supporting prosecution's case - Accused's arguments regarding discrepancies and validity of FIR rejected - Court finds prosecution proved charges beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 34, 36, 38)
(B) Criminal Intimidation - Elements of Section 506 examined - Court finds insufficient evidence of threat - Conviction under Section 506 set aside. (Paras 36, 38)
Facts of the case:
Appellant, after a quarrel over money with his son Vinod, struck him with a grinding stone resulting in death. The incident was witnessed by family members and neighbors, who confirmed it as a homicide.
Findings of Court:
The prosecution’s evidence, including eyewitness testimony and medical reports, established that the deceased died from injuries inflicted intentionally by the accused.
Issues: Whether the accusations of the murder and the other charges were proven beyond reasonable doubt? Was the conviction under Section 506 valid given the lack of evidence for intimidation?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the evidence was sufficient to conclude the accused intentionally committed murder; however, the requirements for criminal intimidation under Section 506 were not met.
Result: Conviction under Section 506 set aside; convictions under Sections 302 and 504 upheld.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accused's conviction and appeal background. (Para 1 , 2 , 4) |
| 2. details surrounding the incident and prosecution's case established. (Para 10 , 11 , 20) |
| 3. defense arguments challenging the prosecution's claims. (Para 12 , 13 , 26) |
| 4. evidence proving the homicide and the accused's responsibility. (Para 19 , 23 , 35) |
| 5. conclusion of the appeal and the court's order. (Para 36 , 38) |
JUDGMENT :
H.B.Prabhakara Sastry, J.
The present appellant, who is accused in Sessions Case No.30/2017, in the Court of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar, (hereinafter for brevity, referred to as the 'Sessions Judge's Court'), has challenged the impugned judgment of conviction dated 06.06.2019 and order on sentence dated 07.06.2019, convicting him for the offences punishable under Sections 504 , 506 and 302 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (hereinafter for brevity, referred to as 'the IPC') and sentencing him accordingly. It is against the said judgment of conviction and order on sentence, the appellant/accused has preferred this appeal.
2. The summary of the case of the prosecution in the Sessions Judge's Court was that on 25.06.2017, at about 9.30 p.m., in his house at Seabird Colony, Harwada, Ankola Taluk, within the limits of complainant-police station, the accused, after picking up a quarrel with his elder son Vinod for non payment of money to him, abused him in filthy language, threatened him to his life and also throwing a grinding stone on the head of his sleeping son Vinod and inflicting multiple injuries upon him committed his murder and thereby committed the offences punishable under Section 504 , 506 and 302 of IPC.
3. Since the accused pleaded not guilty, in order to prove the allegations made against the accused, the prosecution got examined in all ten witnesses from PW-1 to PW-10 and got marked twenty-eight documents from Exhibits P-1 to P-28 and Material Objects from MO-1 to MO-7. From the accused side, no witness was examined, however, portions of statement of PW-2 was got marked as Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2.
4. After recording the evidence led before it and hearing both side, the learned Sessions Judge's Court by its impugned judgment dated 06.06.2019 convicted the accused for the alleged offences. By its order on sentence dated 07.06.2019, for the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC it imposed rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. The accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months with a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC. The accused was also sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed against him, the accused in the learned Sessions Judge's Court has filed the present appeal.
5. The respondent-State is being represented by the learned Additional Government Advocate.
6. The records from the learned Sessions Judge's Court were called for and the same are placed before this Court.
7. Perused the materials placed before this Court, including the memorandum of appeal, impugned judgment and the records from the Sessions Judge's Court.
8. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to as per their rank before the Sessions Judge's Court.
9. After hearing the learned counsels from both side, the points that arise for our consideration in this appeal are:
(i) Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that on the date 25.06.2017, at about 9.30 p.m., in his (accused) house at Seabird Colony, Harwada, within the limits of complainant police
