Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 21063
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR, VENKATESH NAIK T, JJ
ABDUL RAZAQ @ RAZAQ – Appellant
Versus
STATE BY RURAL POLICE STATION SHIKARIPURA – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.495 OF 2017 | S.C.NO.188/2015
For the Appellants/Petitioners:SRI MOHAMMED UZAIR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI SHAKEEL AHMED
For the Respondents: SRI VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, S.P.P.-II
The court modified the conviction from murder to culpable homicide without intent, emphasizing the lack of premeditation and evidence of a spontaneous altercation. The accused was sentenced to time served and fined.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 374(2) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 341, 504, and 304 Part II - Appeal against conviction - Appellant convicted for murder; court finds evidence sufficient for culpable homicide without intent - Key evidence from eyewitnesses establishes assault with a stone leading to death - Court determines absence of intent for murder and modifies conviction to Section 304 Part II IPC - Accused sentenced to the time already served and a fine. (Paras 8-37)
(B) Crime and Evidence - Eyewitness Testimony - Credibility of witnesses corroborated through medical evidence and forensic reports; prosecution's witnesses not deemed interested; consistent narratives establish the sequence of events leading to the crime. (Paras 10-19)
(C) Mental Health Defense - Defense of mental illness presented by the accused; evidence found insufficient to establish lack of intent during the act - Mental illness not recognized as a mitigating factor in the absence of formal claims during trial. (Paras 21-22)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. incident details and injuries (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 9 , 10) |
| 2. defense arguments about mental state and evidence suppression (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. credibility of eyewitnesses and forensic evidence (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. prosecutions case on circumstantial evidence and forensic report (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 5. distinction between murder and culpable homicide (Para 22 , 24 , 30 , 36) |
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the accused aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 08.02.2017 passed by III Addl. Sessions Judge, Shivamogga in S.C.No.188/2015, whereby the trial court convicted the accused for the offences punishable under sections 302, 341 and 504 of Indian Penal Code , 1860(for short ‘IPC’).
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as under:-
The name of the deceased is Ganeshappa @ Ganesh Rao. The complainant, U. Basavarajappa i.e., PW-1 is an eye witness to the incident. He stated that on 08.07.2015 at 7:30 a.m., when he was on morning walk with his friend PW-2 Vitobarao Pawar at Begur, on the tar road leading to Bendekatte, near SC/ST Hostel, they saw victim Ganeshappa moving on his cycle carrying a can of pesticide towards his land. The accused who was standing by the side of the road stopped and queried him, and when they were witnessing the incident, the accused assaulted victim Ganeshappa with a stone on his head two to three times, hence, PWs-1 and 2 rushed to the spot, pacified the quarrel and the accused on seeing them threw away the stone on the spot and fled away. The neighbours who were working in the nearby fields rushed to the spot and immediately they shifted injured Ganeshappa to Shikaripura Government Hospital and the public caught hold of the accused near Begur bus stand. The accused on seeing the crowd, by hitting his head to the wall of the bus stand caused self injury. After providing first aid to the accused at Shikaripura Government hospital, he was handed over to the police. As per the instruction of PW3-Arun (son of deceased), PW-1 lodged the complaint as per Ex.P1. This led to registration of FIR and investigation. On the same day at 4:20 p.m., victim Ganeshappa succumbed to the injuries at Sahyadri Narayana Hrudayalaya, Shivamogga, hence, PW-3 lodged as per Ex.P5. Thus, the Investigating Officer incorporated Section 302 IPC.
3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined in all eleven witnesses as PW-1 to PW-11 and got marked twenty three documents as per Exs.P1 to P23 and six material objects as per M.Os.1 to 6. For the defence, the accused got examined Dr. Raghu Prasad, Medical Officer, Shivamogga, Central Prison, as DW-1.
4. The accused came to be tried for the aforesaid offences and on the basis of the testimonies of eyewitnesses viz., PWs.1 and 2 and also taking into consideration the evidence adduced by PW-5 Muralidhara, who caught hold of the accused at the bus stand and who claimed to have seen the accused fleeing away from the scene of offence, the medical evidence, the FSL report and by taking into consideration the attendant circumstances, the trial court convicted the accused for the offence under section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- with default imprisonment for a period of one year, for the offence under section 341 IPC, sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and for the offence under section 504 IPC, the accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
5. Assailing the findings of the trial court, Sri Mohammed Uzair for Sri Shakeel Ahmed, learned counsel for the accused argued that the prosecution is guilty of suppression of material evidence and has not come forward with the true version of the incident; the trial court committed an error by wrongly relying upon the evidence of PWs-1, 2 and PW-5 who are interested witnesses in this case. There is no corroborative, clear and
