Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 12159
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR, J
MR. EERAPPA S/O LATE NANJUNDA – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRL.A 1415 / 2012
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. M.T. NANAIAH, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. PRABHUGOUD B. TUMBIGI
For the Respondents: SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP
The court upheld the conviction for attempted murder, affirming that consistent eyewitness testimony and medical evidence established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 307 - Arms Act, 1959 - Section 3 read with Section 25 - Conviction for attempting to murder - Appellant convicted for shooting his brother over a property dispute, sentenced to 5 years rigorous imprisonment and fines - Court affirmed the conviction based on eyewitness accounts and medical evidence of grievous injuries sustained by the complainant. (Paras 1, 60, 62)
Facts of the case:
The appellant shot his brother during a dispute over property, resulting in serious injuries to the complainant who was hospitalized for 20 days after the incident. (Paras 2-4)
Findings of Court:
The evidence from the complainant, his wife, and sister was consistent and credible, establishing the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The trial court's findings were upheld. (Paras 60, 62)
Issues: Whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellant under Section 307 IPC and Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act? (Paras 13)
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant attempted to murder the complainant, supported by eyewitness testimony and medical evidence. (Paras 60)
Result: Criminal appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence confirmed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of the crime and initial police actions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments presented by the defense and prosecution. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. court's analysis of evidence and witness credibility. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 4. medical evidence supporting the complainant's injuries. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 5. conclusion on the credibility of witness testimonies. (Para 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56) |
| 6. final determination of the court on the validity of the conviction. (Para 60) |
| 7. order of the court regarding the appeal and sentencing. (Para 61 , 62 , 63) |
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)
This judgment would decide the appeal filed by the appellant, Sri. Eerappa @ Panni S/o Late. Nanjunda, challenging his conviction under Section 3 07 of IPC and Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act for attempting to murder his brother P.N.Belliappa. By judgment of conviction dated 12.12.2012 and order of sentence dated 20.12.2012 passed in Session Case No.42/2006 by the Ad-hoc District Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Kodagu, Madikeri, the appellant – accused was sentenced as under:
"The accused-Erappa @ Panni is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of Five years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand), in default of payment of fine, shall, have to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence p/u/s. 307 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- in default of payment of fine, shall have to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months for the offence p/u/s. 3 read with section 25 of Arms Act .
The substantive sentence of imprisonment should run concurrently and default sentence should run separately.
In the event of payment of fine made by the convict, the sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) is ordered to be paid to the injured PW.1/P.N.Belliappa under Section 357 of CR.P.C . by way of compensation after appeal period is over."
Facts of the case:
2. Crime No.15/2006 was registered at Madikeri Rural Police Station, Madikeri, on the basis of the information statement given by the complainant – injured P.N. Belliappa, resident of the address so stated in the complaint, who was admitted in the hospital and under treatment. The said FIR was registered on 04.02.2006 at 7.15 p.m and after recording the statement of the complainant, the concerned police officials came to the police station and registered the aforesaid crime. It is stated in the complaint that the complainant is an agriculturist by occupation and residing with his family in his village. His father had four sons. Amongst them, complainant brother Kalappa is no more. Another brother, Uthaiah, had left the village. He and his brother Eerappa i.e., the accused by effecting the partition in the family properties are residing separately.
3. When the land properties were divided, threshing floor belonging to their father was also divided into two parts and the front portion was allotted to the share of the complainant and hind portion was allotted to the accused - Eerappa. With regard to the said threshing floor, from the last nine years prior to filing of this complaint, there were objections. It is alleged that, the accused, Eerappa, used to leave his cattle towards the said threshing floor allotted to the complainant's share. Whenever the complainant used to enquire about the same, the accused used to quarrel with him and used to give a threat that, by firing, he would kill the complainant. Every year the same fate used to follow.
4. As usual during 2006, the complainant had cut the coffee crop and for the purpose of drying the same, he had put the same in threshing floor. At that time, accused did galata. It is alleged that, on 04.02.2006, the complainant, along with his wife Thangamma, went to attend the 'Kodava Mela' in the mor
