Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, heard two criminal appeals against the acquittal of six accused persons by the Trial Court in a case of alleged abduction and murder of one Martandagouda. The prosecution case was that Martandagouda went missing on 11.12.2011. His son, Linganagouda, lodged a complaint on 16.12.2011 and later gave a further statement on 03.01.2012, suspecting his uncle, the first accused, and five others. The motive was a property dispute following a partition suit and a stay order obtained by the deceased on 07.12.2011 against the first accused's attempt to sell family lands. Additionally, other accused persons had personal grudges against the deceased. It was alleged that on 11.12.2011, all accused conspired, abducted the deceased from Kurtakoti, murdered him by strangulation inside a vehicle belonging to P.W.5, and disposed of the body by tying a stone and submerging it in water. The Trial Court acquitted all accused, primarily disbelieving the sole eyewitness P.W.5, finding his testimony unreliable due to delayed disclosure, inconsistencies in his Section 164 statement, and doubtful signature verification. The State and the victim's son filed appeals, arguing that the Trial Court erred in rejecting P.W.5's evidence, which was corroborated by medical evidence (hyoid bone fracture and asphyxia due to strangulation) and the identification of the body by P.W.1 based on clothes and a sacred thread. The appeals were reserved for judgment on 21.11.2023 and pronounced on 28.11.2023.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment of acquittal dated 30.03.2019 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gadag in S.C.No.37/2012 is liable to be set aside and the respondents-accused convicted for the offences charged.
Case Details
2023 LawText (KAR) (11) 7
Criminal Appeal No.100190/2019 c/w Criminal Appeal No.100284/2019
H.P. Sandesh, Ramachandra D. Huddar
L.S. Sullad (for appellant in Crl.A.100190/2019), M.B. Gundawade (Additional State Public Prosecutor for State), Santosh Naragund (for R2), B.V. Somapur (for R3, R6, R7), B.C. Jnanayyaswami (for R4)
Linganagouda @ Santosh (in Crl.A.100190/2019) and State of Karnataka (in Crl.A.100284/2019)
Veerupakshagouda, Tulasareddi @ Mudakappa, Ningappa, Neelavva (deceased), Basavaraj, Dandevva, and State of Karnataka (in Crl.A.100190/2019 as respondent no.1)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeals against acquittal under Section 372 CrPC by victim's son and under Section 378(1) and (3) CrPC by State.
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought setting aside of acquittal and conviction of respondents-accused for offences under Sections 143, 147, 120-B, 364, 302, 201, 506 read with Section 149 IPC.
Filing Reason
The Trial Court acquitted all accused in Sessions Case No.37/2012 on 30.03.2019, finding the prosecution evidence, especially that of the sole eyewitness, unreliable.
Previous Decisions
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gadag, acquitted all accused on 30.03.2019 in S.C.No.37/2012.
Issues
Whether the Trial Court erred in discarding the testimony of P.W.5, the sole eyewitness?
Whether the medical evidence (P.W.14) corroborated the eyewitness account regarding strangulation?
Whether the prosecution proved motive, conspiracy, and the chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants contended that P.W.5's evidence was voluntary, consistent, and reliable despite cross-examination, and his conduct of non-disclosure was explained by threat from accused.
P.W.20 recorded P.W.5's Section 164 statement as per Ex.P18, and the Trial Court gave no proper reason to discard it.
Medical evidence of hyoid bone fracture and death by asphyxia due to strangulation fully corroborated the eyewitness account.
P.W.1 identified the dead body by clothes and a sacred thread with Hanuman locket, and P.W.6 spoke about civil disputes establishing motive.
The Trial Court failed to appreciate the quality of evidence and instead focused on minor inconsistencies, ignoring corroborative material.
Judgment Excerpts
The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that one Martandagouda was missing from 11.12.2011...
The Trial Court, while acquitting the accused persons, has come to the conclusion that the evidence of the material witnesses, who have been examined before the Trial Court does not inspire the confidence of the Court.
The main witness of the prosecution is P.W.5 and according to P.W.5, an event has occurred on 11.12.2011 and till the accused persons were apprehended, he has not revealed about the same with anyone.
The Trial Court comes to the conclusion that conduct of P.W.5 during the alleged course of event has to be looked into and the same does not inspire the confidence of the Court.
Learned Additional SPP for the State... would vehemently contend that P.W.5 is the sole eye witness, who has categorically stated regarding the commission of the offence and also overt act of each of the accused...
P.W.14-Doctor had conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased and opined that there is a fracture of hyoid bone and opined that death was due to asphyxia by strangulation.
Procedural History
On 16.12.2011, Linganagouda lodged a missing person complaint (Crime No.277/2011) regarding his father Martandagouda, who disappeared on 11.12.2011. A further statement was given on 03.01.2012 implicating the accused. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed for offences under IPC. The case was tried as S.C.No.37/2012 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gadag. The Trial Court, after examining P.Ws.1 to 22 and marking Exs.P1-P41 and M.Os.1-14, acquitted all accused on 30.03.2019. Aggrieved, the victim's son filed Criminal Appeal No.100190/2019 under Section 372 CrPC, and the State filed Criminal Appeal No.100284/2019 under Section 378(1) and (3) CrPC. Both appeals were heard together and reserved for judgment on 21.11.2023, and pronounced on 28.11.2023.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 143, 147, 120-B, 364, 302, 201, 506, 149
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 164, 372, 378(1), 378(3)
