Back
2012 Supreme(UK) 56
2012 (1) N.C.C. 540
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aftab Alam and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave
Criminal Appeal No. 1326 of 2005
LOKESH SHIVAKUMAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
Decided on : 10.02.2012
For the Appellant :Mr. Naresh Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, Advocate
Headnote:(A) Motive — It is well established that if the prosecution case is fully established by reliable ocular evidence coupled with medical evidence, the issue of motive loses practically all relevance — In the present case, ocular evidence led in support of the prosecution case wholly reliable and there is no reason to discard it — The submission, therefore, that the appellant had no motive for the commission of offence is not of any significance. (Para 8)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sec. 302 r/w 34 — Offence of murder — Common intention to kill the deceased — Held — In the facts of the case in hand are quite different — It was found that it was the appellant who struck the first blow on the right side of the head of deceased — And according to the post-mortem report that blow itself had caused his death — Therefore, no doubt that the facts of the case clearly attract Sec 34 of IPC as the appellant is concerned — Thus, appeal accordingly, dismissed — And his bail bonds stand cancelled. (Paras 15 to 17)
¼v½ edln & orZeku ekeys esa] izR;{k o fpfdRlk lk{; iwjh rjg fo'oluh; gS vkSj vfHk;kstu i{k ds leFkZu esa usr`Ro djrk gS rks ogk¡ edln viuh O;ogkfjd :i ls izklafxdrk [kks nsrk gS & izLrqr okn esa ;g vPNh rjg ls LFkkfir gS fd vxj vfHk;kstu i{k dk ekeyk iwjh rjg ls fo'oluh; o fpfdRlk lcwr ds lkFk feydj lcwr }kjk LFkkfir gS blfy, edln O;ogkfjd :i ls lHkh izklafxdrk [kks nsrk gS vkSj bldh fujLrh dk dksbZ dkj.k ugha & blfy, vihykFkhZ dk vijk/k ds deh'ku ds fy, dksbZ edln Fkk] egRoiw.kZ ughaA ¼izLrj 8½
¼c½ Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk] 1860] /kkjk 302 lifBr 34 & gR;k ds vijk/k & e`rd dks ekjus dk vke bjknk & bl ekeys ds rF; dkQh vyx gSa & ;g ik;k x;k fd vihykFkhZ us e`rd ds flj ij nkb± vksj igyk >Vdk ekjk Fkk & vkSj iksLVekVZe fjiksVZ gS fd izgkj gh e`R;q dk dkj.k Fkk & blfy,] dksbZ lansg ugha gS fd ekeys ds rF; Li"V :i ls Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk dh /kkjk 34 dks vkdf"kZr djrs gSa tgk¡ rd vfHk;qDr dk laca/k gS bl izdkj] rnuqlkj vihy [kkfjt vkSj tekur jn~nA
¼izLrj 15 ls 17½
Aftab Alam, J. — The appellant who was accused No.2 before the trial court is convicted under section 302 read with section 34 of the Penal Code and is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.500/- with the default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a week.
2. According to the prosecution case, one Dharamaraj the deceased was engaged in the business of money lending and accused No.1 Madhu @ Mahadeva had borrowed from him Rs.10,000/-. Dharamaraj went to jail in connection with some case, authorizing his younger brother Mallesha (informant-PW. 1) to realise the money from his debtors in his absence. Mallesha tried to realise the loan amount from Madhu but was unsuccessful. On July 18, 1997, when Dharamaraj came out from the jail, Mallesha told him that Madhu had not refunded the money due to him. Dharamaraj said that he would himself get back the money from Madhu. It is further the prosecution case that on July 21, 1997, there was a festival in the village and in the evening at about 5:45 PM, the deceased and his brother Mallesha (PW.1) were in their house. At that time Madhu came to them and asked Dharamaraj to go out with him saying that he wanted to pay back the money that he had borrowed from him. Dharamaraj went along with him but, as he did not return after about half an hour, Mallesha along with two of his associates (Mahesh PW.2) and (Mukunda PW.14) went looking for him in the direction of Madhu’s house. On reaching near the house of Shivanna (accused No.3) they saw Dharamaraj surrounded by Madhu, the appellant and Shivanna and Thomas (accused nos.3 & 4 respectively). Shivanna and Thomas were hitting him with fists as a result of which he fell down. At that point, the appellant picked up one gobbaly tree wood piece which was lying there and swinging it like a club hit Dharamaraj with it on the right side of his head. Madhu then picked up a large stone and flung it on the head of Dharamaraj. Dharamaraj got severe bleeding injuries on his head, face and nose. He was taken to a hospital but was declared brought dead.
3. Before the trial court, PWs. 1, 2 and 14 were examined as eye witnesses, who fully supported the prosecution case. The doctor who had conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of Dharamaraj was examined as PW.11. He proved the post-mortem report. According to the doctor, he found a number of external injuries on the body of Dharamaraj which he described as follows:-
“1. Obliquely situated lacerated wound on the right frontal region measuring 2-1/2" x 4" x bone deep with the compound fracture of underlying frontal bone.
2. Obliquely situated lacerated wound on the lateral aspect of the right eye brow; 1-1/2" x 4" into bone deep with fracture of underlying bone.
3. Compromise at the root of the nose with fracture on nasal bone.”
4. Lacerated wound on the right side of the lower lip 1/2 x 1/4.”
5. Abrasion on the anterior aspect of the right leg 1/2 x 1/4.”
On dissection, the external injuries were found corresponding to the following internal injuries:
1. Fracture of right side of the frontal bone of the skull, fracture of right orbit, fracture of nasal bone with crushing of right eye ball.
2. The membrane of the frontal region was returned.
3. Brain matters of right anterior part of the brain was crushed.
4. The gobbaly tree wood piece used by the appellant and the stone piece that Madhu had flung on the head of the deceased were also produced before the court as MO. 2 and MO.l respectively. On being shown the two material objects, the doctor stated that the injuries found on the dead body were possible if the person was assaulted with the club MO.2 and the stone MO.1. Further, replying to a question in cross-examination the doctor said that injuries Nos.2 & 3 found on the external examination of the body as recorded in the post-mortem report could have been caused if the deceased was hit with a stone and the other injuries could have b
