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

2024 Supreme(Online)(SC) 2759

2024 INSC 238

1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2024

(Arising out of SLP(Criminal) No. 6112 of 2022)

RAGHUNATHA AND ANOTHER

APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGEMENT

B.R. GAVAI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal challenges the judgement dated 14th July, 2021, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Criminal Appeal No. 1389 of 2019, thereby partly allowing the appeal filed by the appellants, namely, Raghunatha (Accused No. 1) and Manjunatha (Accused No. 2) and modifying the order of conviction and sentence awarded to them by the Court of III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kolar (sitting at K.G.F.) (hereinafter referred to as “trial court”) in S.C. No. 276 of 2014 on 17th June, 2019. Digitally signed by Narendra Prasad Date: 2024.03.21 12:54:27 IST Reason:

    Signature Not Verified

3. Shorn of details, brief facts leading to present appeal are as under:

3.1. On 7th July 2014, upon complaint being lodged by Sri R. Lokanathan (PW-1), Kaamasamudram police registered Crime No. 44/2014 for offence punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) against unknown persons.

3.2. The prosecution case, in a nutshell, is that complainant and his father-Ramu (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) were running a fertilizer shop and were also involved in agriculture and money lending business. There were misunderstandings in the business run by complainant and accused No.1 on account of which the accused No. 1 bore enmity with the complainant due to loss suffered in the business. Following which, the appellants hatched a conspiracy to murder the deceased. On 7th July 2014, deceased left the house at about 6:45 am on a ‘TVS Moped’ to go to Tholampalli for recovery of loan amount from Ahmed (PW-12). The appellants were waiting on Bisanathamm- Tholampalli road and attempted to assault the deceased with a chopper from backside. When the deceased tried to escape, he fell down, after which accused No.1 caught hold of the deceased while accused No.2 assaulted him on the head with the chopper and murdered him.

3.3. At about 8 am, complainant’s uncle-Babu (PW-6) came and informed the complainant that a TVS Moped was found lying between Bisanathamm-Tholampalli road and took the complainant to the said spot. Complainant identified the Moped and found the deceased lying in prone position in the mud with bleeding injuries on his head. Deceased was not conscious; however, he was alive and his hands were shaking. Thereafter, the complainant and Babu (PW-6) took the deceased to KGF Hospital, where the doctor declared him dead.

3.4. The appellants came to be arrested on 23rd July, 2014. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellants for offences punishable under Sections 120-B and 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. Since the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Judge, the same was committed to the Sessions Judge vide order dated 10th December, 2014.

3.5. On 6th May 2015, charges were framed against the appellants for offences punishable under Sections 120-B and 302 of IPC. Thereafter, on 11th June 2019, altered charges were framed under Sections 120-B and 302 read with 34 of IPC.

3.6. The appellants denied the charges and claimed to be tried. Prosecution examined 23 witnesses and 20 exhibits to bring home the guilt of the appellants.

3.7. At the conclusion of trial, the learned trial court found that the prosecution had succeeded in proving that the appellants had committed the murder of the deceased.

Therefore, the learned trial court convicted the appellants for offences punishable under Sections 120-B and 302 read with 34 of the IPC and were awarded a sentence of life imprisonment. Further, a fine of Rs. 7,500/- for each offence was imposed on both the appellants and out of the said fine amount, Rs. 25,000/- was to be paid as compensation to the complainant.

3.8. Being aggrieved thereby, the appellants preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1389 of 2019 before the High Court. The High Court, vide impugned judgment, partly allowed the appeal and modified the conviction to Section 304 Part-I








                              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