Case Note & Summary
The appeal arises from the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 08.02.2017 passed in S.C.No.85/2014 by the Principal Sessions Judge at Tumakuru. Accused No.1, the appellant, was convicted under Sections 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment along with fine for the murder offence and four months imprisonment for causing hurt. The appeal by accused No.2 was withdrawn, leaving only accused No.1's appeal. The prosecution case involved a civil dispute between accused No.1 and his brother, for which accused No.1 requested PW.1 (Krishnappa) and his family members to give evidence in his favour. Upon their refusal and filing of a police complaint, on 11.02.2014 at about 7:00 p.m., when PW.1, PW.2 (Made Hanumakka), and the deceased (Mohankumar) were passing in front of accused No.1's house, the accused picked a quarrel, abused them, and assaulted Mohankumar with a club on the head, causing bleeding injuries. When PW.1 tried to intervene, accused No.1 attempted to assault him with a javelin on his shoulder, while accused No.2 kicked PW.2 and hit her with a stone on her stomach. The injured Mohankumar was initially treated at Tumakuru District Hospital and later shifted to NIMHANS, Bengaluru, where he succumbed to the injuries on 14.02.2014. The police recorded the complaint of PW.1 while he was under treatment at the Government Hospital, Tumakuru, and initially registered a case under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506 read with 34 IPC. Section 307 IPC was later added based on the further statement, and after the death, Section 302 IPC was incorporated. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed, and the case was committed to the Sessions Court. The trial court framed charges under Sections 324, 307, 302, 504, and 506 read with 34 IPC. The prosecution examined 18 witnesses and marked 16 documents and 9 material objects. The accused did not lead any defence evidence. The trial court convicted accused No.1 as aforesaid. In appeal, the appellant contended that the prosecution failed to prove the homicidal death because the doctor who conducted the autopsy was not examined. He further pointed out contradictions in the evidence of injured eyewitnesses and partial hostility of PW.5. The recovery of weapons was challenged, and it was argued that the death occurred four days after the incident because of complications in surgery, not directly due to the assault. The appellant submitted that at most, the offence would fall under Section 304 Part I IPC, as the single blow was delivered in a sudden quarrel without intention to kill, attracting Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC. The State refuted these contentions, arguing that the homicidal death was proved by the postmortem report and the evidence of the treating doctor, that the eyewitnesses were consistent, and that the minor contradictions were not fatal. The State relied on the motive of the civil dispute and the identification of weapons by witnesses. The court heard arguments and reserved the matter for judgment, stating that points for consideration would be framed, but the available text ends without a final decision.
Issue of Consideration
Final Decision
Not mentioned; the provided judgment text is incomplete and does not contain the final decision.
Case Details
2023 LawText (KAR) (06) 42
Criminal Appeal No. 376 of 2017
Justice K. Somashekar, Justice Rajesh Rai K
Sri M. Shashidhara for appellant; Sri Vijayakumar Majage, Additional SPP for respondent
State of Karnataka, by Hebbur Police
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction
Remedy Sought
The appellant (accused No.1) sought to set aside the conviction and sentence for offences under Sections 302 and 324 IPC, or alternatively modify the conviction to Section 304 Part I IPC.
Filing Reason
The appellant was convicted by the Sessions Court for murder and voluntarily causing hurt, and challenged the legality of the conviction on grounds of insufficient evidence and incorrect application of law.
Previous Decisions
The Principal Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, in S.C.No.85/2014, convicted accused No.1 under Sections 302 and 324 IPC, sentencing life imprisonment and fine, and convicted accused No.2 under Section 235(2) CrPC (appeal withdrawn). The present appeal is against that judgment.
Issues
Whether the prosecution proved the homicidal death of the deceased beyond reasonable doubt?
Whether there are material contradictions in the evidence of eyewitnesses?
Whether the recovery of weapons was properly proved?
Whether the conviction under Section 302 IPC is sustainable or should be modified to Section 304 Part I IPC?
Whether the trial court erred in law by not considering the four-day survival and cause of death due to complications?
Submissions/Arguments
The appellant argued that the prosecution failed to prove homicidal death because the autopsy doctor was not examined, and the postmortem report alone was insufficient. Contradictions in the injured witnesses' evidence and partial hostility of PW.5 weakened the case. Recovery of weapons was not proved, and the seized weapons were not shown to the doctor for correlation. The death occurred after four days due to complications in surgery, not directly from the assault; therefore, at most, the offence fell under Section 304 Part I IPC as the single blow was given in a sudden quarrel without intention to kill, attracting Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC.
The State contended that the homicidal death was proved by the postmortem report and not seriously disputed by the defence. The injured eyewitnesses (PW.1 and PW.2) and other witnesses (PW.3 to PW.5) gave consistent accounts, and minor contradictions did not affect the prosecution's case. The treating doctor (PW.14) and MLC register (Ex.P11) established that the death resulted from the fatal head injury. The weapons were identified by witnesses and seized under the spot mahazar. The motive was established by the evidence regarding the civil dispute and the accused's insistence on evidence in his favour. Hence, the conviction was justified.
Judgment Excerpts
the death of the deceased took place after four days from the date of incident on account of complication in the surgery and treatment.
the appellant should be granted the benefit of modified conviction to one under the provision ... under Section 304 part I of IPC.
the accused gave a single blow and caused injuries to the deceased without any intention to do away his life and also without any preparation.
the evidence of PW.14-doctor who treated the injured initially and the MLC register marked as Ex.P11 clearly show that the deceased was died due to the fatal assault made by accused No.1 on his head.
Procedural History
FIR registered initially under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC on the statement of PW.1; later Section 307 IPC added based on further statement; after the death of Mohankumar on 14.02.2014, Section 302 IPC was invoked. Investigation conducted, charge sheet filed. Case committed to Sessions Court, Tumakuru. Trial held in S.C.No.85/2014, wherein prosecution examined 18 witnesses and marked 16 documents and 9 material objects. Accused neither examined witnesses nor produced documents. Statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. recorded. On 08.02.2017, the Principal Sessions Judge convicted accused No.1 under Sections 302 and 324 IPC and accused No.2 under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. Appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. by both accused. By order dated 03.06.2023, appeal against accused No.2 dismissed as withdrawn. Appeal by accused No.1 heard on 26.06.2023.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 302, 324, 307, 504, 506, 34, 300, 304
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 235(2), 374(2), 313
