Page 1

JUDGMENT

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.683 OF 2005

GANGAPPA NINGAPPA UGARKOHOD

… APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF KARNATAKA

… RESPONDENT

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1064 OF 2005

AND

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.47 OF 2007

J U D G M E N T

Aftab Alam, J.

1.

These three appeals arise from a common judgment and order passed

by the Karnataka High Court. By the impugned judgment, the High Court

1

Page 2

JUDGMENT

disposed of two appeals, which came to it from a common judgment and

order passed by the trial court. The High Court allowed the appeals insofar

as Smt. Nagavva (accused no. 2) and Doddappa Ningappa Ugarkhod

(accused no. 13) are concerned and acquitted them of all the charges. In

regard to the rest of the accused (the present appellants before this Court) the

appeals were dismissed and their conviction and the sentences given to them

by the trial court was confirmed by the High Court.

2.

Criminal Appeal No. 47 of 2007 (that was the last among the three

appeals to come to this Court) is at the instance of Sataveer Basappa Hariyal

(accused no.1: He died on November 10, 2009 during the pendency of the

appeal), Honnappa Shiddappa Banni (accused no. 3), Beerappa Shiddappa

Huggi (accused no. 9) and Yallappa Kenchappa Vibhuti (accused no. 16).

Criminal Appeal No. 1064 of 2005 has been filed by Beerappa Demasheppa

Deshanur (accused no. 5) and Maruti Demasheppa Deshanur (accused no.

6). All the six appellants in these two appeals are convicted under section

302 read with section 149 and some other ancillary sections of the Penal

Code. For committing murder, they are sentenced to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each with the default sentence

of imprisonment for six months. They are also given some lesser

2

Page 3

JUDGMENT

punishments for the various other offences but all the sentences are directed

to run concurrently.

3.

Criminal Appeal No. 683 of 2005 (which was the first among the

three to come to this Court) is filed by Gangappa Ningappa Ugarkhod

(accused no. 12). His conviction is mainly under section 326 read with

section 149 beside some other ancillary sections of the Penal Code. He is

sentenced under section 326/149 to rigorous imprisonment for three years

and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- with the default sentence of imprisonment for six

months. The relatively lesser sentences for other offences in his case too are

directed to run concurrently with the main sentence.

4.

Both the appellants-accused and the members of the prosecution party

belong to the same family and live in the same village. According to the

prosecution, Sataveer (accused no.1: appellant no. 1 in Criminal Appeal No.

47 of 2007) is the step brother of Siddappa. He carried a grudge against his

father Basappa and the step brother Siddappa due to his father’s refusal to

give him land in excess of his step brother. About three months prior to the

occurrence, giving rise to the present case, there was an incident of assault

by Sataveer and his mother Nagavva on Basappa. At that time Ningappa (the

Complainant) had taken Basappa to hospital and had also prevailed upon

3

Page 4

JUDGMENT

Basappa to lodge a police report against Sataveer. Sometime later, the starter

of the electric pump set in the land of Ningappa was stolen. He suspected the

hand of Sataveer and his men in the theft and had filed a complaint with the

police against some of the accused in the present case. This had further

strained the relations between the two sides. Two days before the occurrence

the complainant’s son Rudrappa had gone to fetch water from the bore-well.

There the daughter of Beerappa (accused No. 9: appellant no. 3 in Criminal

Appeal No. 47 of 2007) quarreled with him and abused him. On the same

evening Beerappa and his people went to the house of the complainant and

gave threats that they would finish off the complainant’s m