Case Note & Summary
The judgment pertains to a set of criminal appeals filed by accused Nos. 2 to 8 against their conviction and sentence by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madhugiri, in S.C. No. 89 of 2013. The prosecution alleged that on 25 March 2012, following a fire incident in the land of the deceased Krishnappa, the accused formed an unlawful assembly armed with lethal weapons and attacked Krishnappa and two others near their village gate. Accused No. 1 and accused No. 2 allegedly used a rotikudlu and a sickle to sever Krishnappa’s right hand, leading to his death. Accused No. 2 also struck PW 2, Krishnappa’s wife, with a sickle, causing simple injuries, while accused Nos. 3 and 4 assaulted PW 3 with clubs, causing grievous injuries. The trial court examined 33 prosecution witnesses and marked extensive documentary and material evidence. It found all accused guilty under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302, 307 read with 149 IPC, sentencing them to imprisonment for life and other terms with fines. In these appeals, the accused challenged the conviction on multiple grounds. Counsel for accused Nos. 2 and 3 argued that there was no charge against accused No. 3 for Section 302, no direct evidence, reliance on interested witnesses, and medical evidence suggesting alternative explanations for the injuries. Counsel for accused Nos. 5 and 6 contended that no overt acts were attributed to them, their names were absent from the complaint, and the recoveries of weapons were not proved as the panch witnesses turned hostile. The High Court heard the parties and reserved the matter. The instant judgment, delivered on 17 March 2021, addresses these contentions. However, the provided text is incomplete, covering only the background, trial court findings, and a portion of the appellants’ arguments, without the court’s analysis, findings, or final decision.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction and sentence of accused Nos. 2 to 8 by the trial court under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302, 307 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code is sustainable in law and on facts.
Case Details
2021 LawText (KAR) (03) 18
Criminal Appeal No.1869/2016 c/w Criminal Appeal Nos.1381/2019, 1870/2016, 1913/2016, 1936/2016 and 1939/2016
B. Veerappa, Ravi V. Hosmani
Madhukar Deshpande, S. Victor Manoharan, Chandrashekar R.P., M. Gayathri Rangaswamy, Vijayakumar Majage
Ashok C.R., Mallikarjuna, Jaganna, Hanumantharayappa, Kantharaju, Dhananjaya, Ramesh
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeals against conviction and sentence for offences of rioting, murder, and attempt to murder under the Indian Penal Code.
Remedy Sought
The appellants (accused Nos. 2 to 8) seek to set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.10.2016 passed by the IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Madhugiri in S.C. No.89/2013, and to be acquitted of all charges.
Filing Reason
The trial court convicted them under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302, 307 read with 149 IPC, based on the prosecution case that they formed an unlawful assembly, murdered Krishnappa, and caused injuries to PWs 2 and 3; the appellants contend the conviction is erroneous and contrary to material on record.
Previous Decisions
The IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Madhugiri, in S.C. No.89/2013, convicted and sentenced the accused for the said offences on 05.10.2016.
Issues
Whether the conviction and sentence by the trial court is sustainable in law and on facts?
Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against each accused, given the reliance on interested witnesses, medical evidence contradictions, and lack of independent corroboration?
Whether the recoveries of weapons were proved in accordance with law?
Submissions/Arguments
Accused No.3 was not charged for Section 302 IPC, and there was no evidence to implicate him in that offence; conviction was without basis.
Evidence of PWs 2 to 5 was interested and unreliable; the prosecution failed to examine independent witnesses to corroborate the incident.
Medical evidence suggested that injuries on PW.3 could have been caused by a fall after consuming alcohol, and PW.2's injuries could be from falling on a rough surface, contradicting the assault narrative.
No overt acts were attributed to Accused Nos.5 and 6 in the complaint; their names were not mentioned in Ex.P2.
Recovery of weapons MOs.3 and 4 was not proved as the panch witnesses turned hostile, and the FSL reports did not cover those weapons.
The post-mortem report and doctor's opinion linked only MOs.1 and 2 to the homicidal death, and there was no direct evidence against the appellants other than recovery.
Judgment Excerpts
It is the case of the prosecution that there was fire incident in the land of the deceased Krishnappa on 25.3.2012 at 8.00 p.m., in which some trees were burnt and therefore, the deceased Krishnappa and PWs.2 to 5 had been to the land. When they were returning back, the deceased Krishnappa was scolding the accused in view of the fire incident in his land and they were all going near the gate of their village at about 9.30 p.m.. At that time, the accused persons forming an unlawful assembly came there armed with lethal weapons, in the background of earlier enmity, with an intention to kill Krishnappa...
Based on the aforesaid pleadings, the learned Sessions Judge formulated five points for consideration. Considering both the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge recorded a finding that the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused persons formed an unlawful assembly to attack the deceased Krishnappa.
absolutely there is no charge against Accused No.3 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and there is also no evidence for implicating Accused NO.3 in the commission of the offence punishable under Section-302 of IPC and other offences.
Procedural History
On 25.03.2012, the incident occurred. A complaint was lodged by PW.2, and the jurisdictional police registered a case under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302, 307 r/w 149 IPC. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed. The trial in S.C. No.89/2013 was conducted by the IV Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Madhugiri. Charges were framed, and the accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined 33 witnesses and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P47 and MOs.1 to 14. The defence did not adduce any evidence. Statements under Section 313 CrPC were recorded. On 05.10.2016, the trial court convicted and sentenced the accused. Accused Nos. 2 to 8 filed the present appeals under Section 374(2) CrPC. The appeals were heard by the High Court of Karnataka on 17.03.2021.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 374(2), 313
- Indian Penal Code: 143, 147, 148, 302, 307, 149
