Case Note & Summary
The case involves two appeals arising from the judgment of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu, in SC No.50/2014 dated 30.03.2016. In the first appeal, convicted accused Nos. 1 to 3 challenge their conviction and sentence for the offences of murder, criminal conspiracy, and abetment under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The trial court had sentenced them to life imprisonment and other terms for the murder of one Nousheer. In the second appeal, the State challenges the acquittal of the same accused for the offence under Section 5 of the Arms Act, 1959, punishable under Section 27(1) read with Section 34 IPC. The prosecution case is that on 17.04.2014, due to ill-will, accused Nos. 1 and 2, with common intention, restrained the deceased Nousheer near the house of CW6 and assaulted him with a sickle, causing fatal injuries, while accused No. 3 provided information about the deceased's movements. A complaint was lodged by PW23, a relative, leading to registration of FIR and investigation. The trial court examined 32 witnesses and relied on 72 documents and 13 material objects. The defence was one of total denial. The trial court convicted the accused for the principal offences but omitted to pass an order on the Arms Act charge, resulting in the State's appeal. In the High Court, the accused-appellants argued that the trial court's judgment was perverse, failed to appreciate inconsistencies in evidence, and wrongly relied on interested eyewitnesses PWs 22 and 24, who were relatives. The State defended the conviction and sought conviction under the Arms Act. The High Court reserved judgment after hearing arguments on 05.06.2023 and delivered its judgment on 21.06.2023. The final decision and ratio are not detailed in the available text as it cuts off mid-argument.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Proof and Evidence - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 34 - Conviction of three accused for the murder of Nousheer by assault with sickle based on eyewitness testimony of PWs 22 and 24, who were relatives of the deceased. The trial court held that prosecution evidence established guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Appeal challenges reliability of these witnesses due to inconsistencies. (Paras 4, 7, 9)
B) Criminal Law - Conspiracy and Abetment - Common Intention - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 109, 120B, 34 - Accused No. 3 charged with facilitating the murder by providing information about the deceased's movements. Trial court convicted all accused for criminal conspiracy and abetment read with Section 34. Appeal contends lack of corroborative evidence. (Para 4)
C) Arms Law - Illegal Possession - Arms Act, 1959, Sections 5, 27(1) - Trial court framed additional charge under the Arms Act but acquitted the accused. State appeals seeking conviction, arguing that the trial court failed to pass a specific order on the charge despite evidence of weapon use. (Paras 3, 7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court's conviction is perverse due to reliance on inconsistent evidence of interested eyewitnesses; whether the acquittal under the Arms Act, 1959 is justified.
Law Points
- Proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt required for conviction
- eyewitness testimony must be scrutinized for consistency and reliability
- common intention under Section 34 IPC must be established
- appeal against acquittal under Arms Act for unlawful possession of weapon
Case Details
2023 LawText (KAR) (06) 24
Criminal Appeal No. 879 of 2016 c/w Criminal Appeal No. 2118 of 2016
K. Somashekar, Rajesh Rai K
Murthy D. Naik, Goutam S. Bharadwaj, Arun Shyam M, Suyog Herele E, Nishanth S.K, Dinesh Kumar K. Rao, Vijay Kumar Majage
K.R. Pushpesh @ Puppi, P.V. Vinaya @ Vini, K.R. Radhish (in Crl.A.879/2016); State of Karnataka (in Crl.A.2118/2016)
State of Karnataka (in Crl.A.879/2016); K.R. Pushpesh, P.V. Vinaya, K.R. Radhish (in Crl.A.2118/2016)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeals against conviction and sentence, and State appeal against acquittal.
Remedy Sought
Accused sought to set aside conviction and sentence; State sought conviction under Arms Act after acquittal.
Filing Reason
Accused alleged perversity, misappreciation of evidence, and reliance on interested witnesses; State contended erroneous acquittal under Arms Act charge.
Previous Decisions
SC No.50/2014 decided by I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu, on 30.03.2016, convicting accused for IPC offences and acquitting under Arms Act.
Issues
Whether the trial court's judgment of conviction is perverse and based on misappreciation of evidence.
Whether the evidence of eyewitnesses PWs 22 and 24, being relatives, is credible despite inconsistencies.
Whether the acquittal under the Arms Act is sustainable in law.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the trial court failed to consider inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony, which was from interested witnesses, and the judgment caused miscarriage of justice.
State defended the conviction and argued that the trial court should have convicted the accused under the Arms Act as the weapon was used.
Judgment Excerpts
On 17.04.2014, at about 3.55 p.m. within the limits of Virajpet Town Police Station, in Navanagara, Perumbadi of Arji Village, due to ill-will between the deceased in this case, one Nousheer and accused No.1 i.e. appellant No.1-Pushpesh, accused Nos.1 to 3 with a common intention of committing the murder of the deceased went in Kharishma Motor vehicle bearing Regn.No.KA 45/R-5333 and while the deceased Nousheer was going to his house, accused Nos.1 and 2 restrained him near the house of CW.6-Raman and assaulted the deceased on his head, face, neck, shoulder and both hands with sickle causing grievous injuries to him and thereby, committed his murder.
The learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused for the aforesaid offences. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the accused preferred Crl.A.879/2016 before this Court to set aside the impugned judgment and order of sentence. However, the State preferred Crl.A.No.2118/2016 to convict the accused for the charged offence under Section 5 of the Arms Act, which is punishable under Section 27(1) of the Arms Act, 1959 read with Section 34 of IPC.
The learned Senior Counsel ... vehemently contended that the judgment under appeal suffers from perversity and illegality inasmuch as the learned Sessions Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence on record. He would further contend that the Trial Court failed to consider inconsistency and discrepancy in the evidence rendered by the witnesses before the Trial Court. ... The Trial Court totally relied on the evidence of PW.22 and PW.24, who are the alleged eyewitness to the incident without scrutinizing/appreciating their evidence, though the same does not inspire confidence of the Court as the same is highly inconsistent.
Procedural History
On 17.04.2014, FIR registered as Crime No.52/2014 by Virajpet police. After investigation, charge sheet filed against accused for IPC and Arms Act offences. Case committed to Sessions Court as SC No.50/2014. Trial held with 32 PWs, 72 documents, 13 MOs. On 30.03.2016, trial court convicted accused for IPC offences and sentenced them; acquitted for Arms Act charge. Accused filed Crl.A.879/2016; State filed Crl.A.2118/2016. Both appeals heard together, reserved on 05.06.2023, and judgment pronounced on 21.06.2023.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 302, 109, 120B, 341, 34
- Arms Act, 1959: 5, 27(1)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 374(2), 378(1), 378(3)
