Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Karnataka heard an appeal filed by the accused against his conviction and sentence of life imprisonment and fine for the offence of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The case arose from an incident on 07.03.2015 when the deceased, Ramadas Kudalkar, was attacked with a machete in his jewelry shop, allegedly by the accused over a debt of Rs. 60,000. The deceased was shifted to KIMS Hospital and later to Balaji Hospital, where he succumbed the next day. The prosecution relied on multiple oral dying declarations made by the deceased to witnesses including his wife, a police officer, a relative, and a complainant, as well as a video recording of a statement made at the hospital. The trial court convicted the accused based on this evidence. On appeal, the appellant contended that the deceased was not medically fit to make statements, that the video recording was inadmissible for want of a certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, and that the dying declarations were tutored and unreliable. The respondent argued that the statements were consistent, admissible under Section 32 of the Evidence Act, and that the video recording, made before FIR registration, constituted a dying declaration and was properly seized. The High Court reserved judgment after hearing arguments. The text of the judgment provided ends without the court's analysis or decision; the outcome of the appeal is therefore not mentioned in the available material.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution proved that the death of Ramadas Kudalkar was homicidal and that the accused caused it due to enmity over money, amounting to murder under Section 302 IPC; whether the conviction judgment warrants interference
Law Points
- Admissibility of oral dying declarations under Section 32 of Indian Evidence Act
- Requirement of certificate under Section 65-B of Evidence Act for electronic evidence
- Evidentiary value of video recording as dying declaration
- Need for medical certification of fitness for dying declaration
- Corroboration of dying declarations by independent witnesses
Case Details
2023 LawText (KAR) (02) 36
Criminal Appeal No.100027 of 2020 (C)
Dr. H.B. Prabhakara Sastry and C.M. Joshi
Sri. Ravi B Naik, Senior Counsel for Appellant; Sri. M. H. Patil, AGA for Respondent
Santhosh S/O Dinakar Achargi
The State of Karnataka Through Ashoknagar Police, Hubballi
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction and sentence for murder
Remedy Sought
Accused-appellant sought to set aside conviction and sentence of life imprisonment and fine
Filing Reason
Aggrieved by conviction under Section 302 IPC by the trial court
Previous Decisions
I-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad at Hubballi in Sessions Case No.92/2015 convicted the appellant for offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 75,000/-
Issues
Whether the prosecution proved that the death of Ramadas Kudalkar was homicidal and that the accused caused it due to enmity over money, amounting to murder under Section 302 IPC
Whether the judgment under challenge calls for interference by the High Court
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the deceased could not have made a dying declaration due to heavy medication, and doctors had opined he was not fit to give statement
Appellant contended that the video recording (CDs) lacked a certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act and was inadmissible, citing Ravinder Singh and Arjun Panditrao cases
Appellant submitted that the dying declarations were tutored and suspicious, as no permission was taken from the medical officer before recording, relying on Jayamma case
Appellant pointed out that neighbouring shopkeepers did not support the prosecution case or identify the accused
Respondent argued that the multiple oral dying declarations were consistent and admissible under Section 32 of the Evidence Act
Respondent submitted that the video CDs were recorded before FIR registration, could be treated as a dying declaration and not part of investigation, and were properly seized
Respondent contended that the trial court had viewed the CDs and found the deceased capable of speaking, and that the statements were reliable
Judgment Excerpts
the accused with an intention to commit his murder came there in the guise of getting some silver ornaments polished and hit the deceased with a machete (Koyta), which is marked at M.O.2, over his head
the prosecution contends that under Section 32 of the Evidence Act, what has been heard by these witnesses cannot be a hearsay but it amounts to dying declaration by the deceased
Procedural History
On 07.03.2015, incident occurred at Laxmi Jewelry shop; FIR lodged by PW4 at Ashoknagar Police Station, Hubballi, in Crime No.15/2015 for offence under Section 302 IPC. Police investigated and filed charge-sheet. Case committed to Sessions Court and tried as Sessions Case No.92/2015. The I-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, sitting at Hubballi, convicted the accused on 21.11.2019 and sentenced him on 25.11.2019 to life imprisonment and fine. Accused filed Criminal Appeal No.100027/2020 before High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. Appeal heard on 24.01.2023; judgment reserved and pronounced on 21.02.2023.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 302
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 374(2), 313
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872: 32, 65-B
