SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Kar) 660

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM, G. BASAVARAJA, JJ.
Janglisab @ Jangalusab Gudusab Mullanavar @ Jangalusab - Appellant
Versus
The State of Karnataka - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 100138 of 2020
Decided On : 06-06-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : K.M. Shiralli
For the Respondent: M.B. Gundawade

Criminal liability under Section 34 requires proof of common intention and active participation; conviction found justified for one accused due to credible evidence, while others acquitted for lack of evidence.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 504, and 34 - Conviction and sentencing challenged - Appeal against trial Court's judgment due to alleged misassessment of evidence and inconsistencies - Complainant alleges murder due to previous enmity over a loan - Prosecution witnesses provided evidence of assault, but defense argues for lack of credibility in their testimonies - Trial Court convicted accused No.1 for murder, but acquitted accused 2-4 due to insufficient evidence of common intention. (Paras 6-52)

(B) Criminal Jurisprudence - Standard of proof - Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt - Any benefit of doubt must go to the accused - Insufficient evidence to establish active participation by accused 2 to 4 in the murder. (Paras 36-42)

Facts of the case:
The incident involving the murder of the deceased Basavaraj by Junglisab and others on September 11, 2017, arises from a longstanding enmity over monetary disputes as stated in the complaint filed by the victim's father. (Paras 1-3)

Findings of Court:
The Court upheld the conviction of Junglisab for murder based on credible witness testimonies, while acknowledging that the evidence against accused 2 to 4 was inadequate for conviction. (Paras 51-52)

Issues: 1. Did the trial Court err in convicting the accused based on the evidence presented? 2. What order is appropriate considering the evidence?

Ratio Decidendi: The appellate court found the conviction of accused No.1 justified due to credible witness statements, while no clear evidence of a common plan was established against accused 2 to 4, leading to their acquittal.

Result: Appeal allowed in part; conviction of accused No.1 upheld; accused 2-4 acquitted.

Table of Content
1. case introduction and procedural background. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. prosecution's evidence and witness testimonies. (Para 4)
3. arguments presented by the accused and state. (Para 5 , 6)
4. court's assessment of evidence. (Para 7 , 8)
5. the court reviews the evidence and assesses the prosecution's claims. (Para 9 , 30)
6. accused's defense and counterarguments. (Para 29)
7. discussion on common intention under section 34 ipc. (Para 31 , 33)
8. common intention in joint criminal acts. (Para 32)
9. final judgment and reasoning for convictions. (Para 51)
10. conclusion and order of the court. (Para 52)

JUDGMENT :

G. BASAVARAJA, J.

1. Appellants/accused have preferred this appeal against the Judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 26th February 2020 passed in SC No.19 of 2018 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Dharwad (for short hereinafter referred to as the “trial Court”.)

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to with their rank and status before the trial Court.

3. Facts leading to the case are that, the Police Inspector Dharwad Rural Circle submitted chargesheet against accused 1 to 4 for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 , 504, read with Section 34 of INDIAN PENAL CODE . It is alleged that on 12th September 2017 at 3.00 am, complainant- Shivappa Irappa Pandeshi lodged complaint as per Exhibit P1 before the Police Sub-Inspector of Garag Police Station. In the complaint it is stated that the complainant, along with his family, is residing at Kottur Village and he is an agriculturist. He has five children, viz. Basavaraj, Suresh, Shobha, Sangamesh, and Manjunath. His eldest son Basavaraj is also an agriculturist. For the past one year, in connection with previous enmity, accused No.1-Junglisab was nurturing ill-will against his son and on the intervening night of 11th & 12th September 2017, he received an information about assault on his son and that his son has been admitted to District Hospital, Dharwad. After confirming the same from Muttu Badiger a friend of his son, he along with his wife, went to Dharwad District Hospital, wherein he saw that his son was dead. On enquiring with Muttu Badiger, he revealed that while he along with his friends, Nagaraj, Sanjeev and Praveen were returning to their village from Kottur Cross, at that time, in front of the Kirana shop of Hosamani, Basavaraj and accused No.1- Junglisab were quarreling. After enquiring about the quarrel, they tried to pacify the same. At that time, the uncle of accused No.1-Imamsab who is accused No.2, and his sons Rajesab and Asif who are accused 3 & 4 respectively, started to quarrel with Basavaraj. When PW5-Muttu Badiger and his friends asked Basavaraj to leave the place, accused No.1- Junglisab came out of his shop by abusing Basavaraj. When Basavaraj objected accused No.1, accused 2 to 4 came near Basavaraj and started assaulting him with fist and also kicked him. At that time, accused No.1-Junglisab stabbed Basavaraj with knife near his nose and on his chest, causing severe bleeding injuries. When they started to shout, accused 1 to 4 fled from the spot. By then, it was about 9:45 pm. Immediately, injured Basavaraj was shifted to District Hospital, Dharwad wherein doctors have told them he has been brought dead. Therefore, complaint-Exhibit P1 came to be lodged before Garag Police where a case came to be registered in Crime No.144 of 2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 , 504 & 324, read with Section 34 of INDIAN PENAL CODE and First Information Report was submitted before the jurisdictional Magistrate as per Exhibit P13. After completion of investigation, Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 and 504 read with Section 34 of INDIAN PENAL CODE . After filing chargesheet, jurisdictional Magistrate has taken cognizance against the accused for the aforesaid offences and case was registered in CC No.1105 of 2017. After committal

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