Back
2003(1) Crimes 440 (SC)
Supreme Court of India
(From Karnataka High Court)
S. Rajendra Babu and P. Venkatarama Reddi, JJ.
State of Karnataka —Appellant
versus
Panchakshari Gurupadayya Hiramath —Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 282 of 1995
Decided on 20-12-2002
For the Appellant :Siddharath Dave, Sanjay R. Hegde and Satya Mitra, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Rajesh Mahale and P.P. Singh, Advocates.
Important point
In appeal against acquittal the lacunae pointed out by High Court to record acquittal are found by SC as not fatal to prosecution case and that Evidence of PW 3 was rightly believed by trial Court to record conviction. The appeal is thus allowed setting aside the order of acquittal by High Court and confirming conviction under Section 302 IPC of the respondent by trial Court.
Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 302—Respondent found having murdered his uncle on land dispute by the trial Court on the sole testimony of PW 3 who, according to the prosecution was in the company of the deceased while taking walk on the fateful night—High Court acquitted—Appeal to Supreme Court—Whether the lacunae pointed out by the High Court are fatal to prosecution case? (No) (see para 3)—Whether trial Court rightly believed evidence of PW 3? (Yes)—Result—Appeal allowed—Acquittal set aside—Conviction and sentence recorded by Trial Court restored.
Held : We have gone through the deposition of PW 3, who is an independent witness. He would not like to involve the brother of the deceased wantonly. There are no material contradictions or inherent improbabilities in the evidence of PW 3. The trial Court had rightly believed the evidence, but, the High Court was not inclined to place reliance on his evidence mainly in the light of two doubtful features pointed out by the High Court. We have already adverted to them and come to the inevitable conclusion that they do not obliterate the clear account of the eye-witness, namely, PW 3. The judgment under appeal cannot, therefore, be sustained. In the result the appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the High Court and by confirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court. The respondent shall be taken into custody to undergo the remaining period of sentence. (Paras 4 and 5)
Judgment
P. Venkatarama Reddi, J.—The deceased Shankaraiah Hiremath, who was working as DSP, had succumbed to the incised injuries inflicted on him by a cutting weapon on the night of 25.4.1993 in his native village of Ugarkhurd, Belgaum District. The respondent herein who is the brother’s son of the deceased was charged under Section 302 IPC for the murder of Shankaraiah. The trial Court convicted the accused-respondent mainly on the basis of the evidence of PW 3 who, according to the prosecution, was in the company of the deceased while taking walk on the fateful night. On appeal filed by the accused, the High Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the accused, giving the benefit of doubt to the accused. That is why the State of Karnataka has filed the present appeal.
2. According to the prosecution, there was a dispute between the deceased and his brother regarding certain lands in the village and the dispute was settled. However, about 15 days prior to the incident the deceased sent for the accused who is his brother’s son when he heard that he was alienating the land which fell to the share of his brother. In that context there was a quarrel between them. Two or three days later, when the deceased sent the labourers to remove the weeds on the said land the accused objected and turned them away. The deceased then went to the field along with his son and questioned the accused for doing so. There again, a quarrel ensued. The deceased was in the habit of going for a walk along with his friend Sadashiv PW 3 who was the Secretary of local Cooperative Society during night time and returning home by about 10.30 p.m. They used to sit on a ‘katta’ in Jain Basti and chit chat. On the crucial night i.e. 25.4.1993, as usual, the deceased and Sadashiv went for a walk but the deceased did not return till 10.30 p.m. PW 1 who was waiting for his father was apprehensive of the safety of his father and he along with PW 4 went along the road to find his father. They noticed the deceased and PW 3 on the road opposite to the house of Balu Gondali where there was an electric light. At that juncture, the accused came from another road suddently and attacked the deceased with a sickle on several parts of his body. After the assault, the accused went away from the scene. PWs 1, 3 and 4 carried the victim upto the house of one Shankar Joshi which is in the vicinity of the house of deceased and he was placed on the ‘katta’ of Shankar Joshi’s house. Thereafter, he was taken in a jeep to the dispensary at Ugarkhurd. The doctor advised them to take the injured to a major hospital at Miraj. On the way to Miraj, the deceased succumbed to the injuries at about 0.30 hrs. Thereafter, a complaint was lodged at the police station at Kagwad by the son of deceased - PW 1 which led to investigation and filing of charge sheet. PW 7 who held the post mortem examination over the dead body found three incised injuries and one wound over the left little finger. The 4th injury proved to be fatal, according to PW 7. The description of the injury is as follows :
4. 7 cm x 2 cm incised wound over the anterior aspect of the left ear and neck. Extending from superior aspect of pinna of ear downwards and medially involving external meatus upto below the angle of mandible deeply involving sternocleoid - mastoid muscle parotid gland, fascial nerve, internal jugular vein, external jugular vein carzotid artery, crophar with chopped out bone of angle of mandible and mastoid process of 1 cm long each.”
The doctor opined that the cause of death was shock and haemmorage caused due to the injury to left carotid vessels mentioned. The injury No. 4 was serious in nature and sufficient to cause death. PW 7 further stated that the injuries could have been caused by a sickle.
3. The learned trial Judge placed heavy reliance on the evidence of PW 3. However, the trial Court disbelieved the version of PWs 1 and 4 who claimed to be eye-witnesses to the incident. The learned trial Jud
