Criminal Appeal No. 635, 1067 of 2006. Case: 1. Krishnegowda and Ors., 2. Nanje Gowda and Anr. Vs State of Karnataka By Arkalgud Police. Supreme Court (India)
| Case Number | Criminal Appeal No. 635, 1067 of 2006 |
| Judges | N. V. Ramana and Prafulla C. Pant, JJ. |
| Issue | Indian Penal Code - Sections 323, 324, 149, 302, 34, 143, 147, 148 |
| Citation | 2017 (4) SCALE 42 |
| Judgement Date | March 28, 2017 |
| Court | Supreme Court (India) |
Judgment:
N. V. Ramana, J.
-
These two appeals arise out of a common judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka in Criminal Appeal No. 763/1999 wherein the High Court has set aside the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court and convicted the accused under various sections of Indian Penal Code (for short ''IPC'').
-
The Criminal Appeal 635/2006 is preferred by accused [A1, A4 and A10] who were convicted by the High Court for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 149, IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo 2 months further imprisonment. A10 was further convicted for the offence under Section 323, IPC and imposed fine of Rs 500/- and in default to undergo imprisonment for a further period of 2 months.
-
The Criminal Appeal 1067/2006 is preferred by accused Nos. 2 & 5 who were convicted by the High Court for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with 34, IPC and Section 324 read with 149, IPC. Under Section 302 they were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs 10,000/-, in default to undergo further imprisonment for one year. Under Section 324 the punishment imposed was imprisonment for a period of one year and fine of Rs 500/- and in default to undergo imprisonment for a further period of 2 months.
-
Brief facts as unfolded by the prosecution are that Chennegowda (deceased), the resident of Mudugere Village, had 12 acres of land near Masarangala Village out of which eight acres were consisting of coffee plantation and four acres were wet land. Due to construction of bridge over Hemavathi river which caused submersion of some surrounding lands in the backwaters, Channegowda and his sons used to pass through the cart track in Survey No. 42 and other lands in Survey No. 43 belonging to the accused persons since they were located between coffee estate of Chennegowda and the road to Kendenne village, to have access to his coffee estate, the deceased could get a road sanctioned from the authorities. Accused No. 7, Rajappa got temporary injunction against that sanction which led to the deceased to move the Court and got the temporary injunction vacated. When a Court commissioner inspected the disputed lands, a quarrel had erupted between the accused and victim parties. The Panchayat settled the issue by directing the deceased to pay Rs.1000/- to the brother of Accused No. 13. Accordingly the payment was made but the enmity between the two groups continued.
-
In the backdrop of this factual scenario, on 27th February, 1991 at about 8 am, when Sannegowda (PW1), Channegowda (PW5) and Swamygowda (PW6) - all belonging to victim party, were carrying milk to the collection centre of Daarikongalale village, accused Nos. 1 to 7 and 9 to 13 formed into an unlawful assembly and restrained Sannegowda (PW1) near Higher Primary School and assaulted him with clubs and stones. At that point of time Channegowda (father of PW1), Mogannagowda (PW2) and Papegowda (PW3) came and interfered questioning the accused reasons for the assault. Then Puttegowda (A5) and Nanjegowda (A2) attacked Channegowda (father of PW1) seriously injuring him with chopper and club respectively. Sannegowda (PW1), Moganangowda (PW2) and Papaegowda (PW3) were injured at the hands of A2 and A3. The injured were shifted to hospital and the same was informed to police.
-
The Investigating Officer, Lakshmi Prasad, PSI (PW19) recorded the statement (Ex.P1) of Sannegowda (PW1) and registered the case against Krishnegowda (A1) and five others for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 324 read with Section 149, IPC. Meanwhile, the seriously injured Channegowda (father of PW1) was treated in S.C. Hospital at Hassan for two days, thereafter he was shifted to NIMHANS, Bangalore, from there to Victoria Hospital, Bangalore and finally again to S.C. Hospital at Hassan where on 6th March, 1991 he succumbed to the injuries. Consequently, charge under Section 302, IPC was added against the accused, inquest report prepared, postmortem conducted, statements of witnesses have been recorded and Investigating Officer got prepared sketch of scene of occurrence and seized choppers and clubs from the place of occurrence and sent it to Forensic Science Laboratory at Bangalore.
-
The Principal Sessions Judge at Hassan took cognizance of the offence and framed charges. Before framing charges, accused No. 8 died. Hence charges were framed against remaining 12 accused for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 302/149, 324/149 and 323/249 of IPC. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined 22 witnesses, PWs 1 to 6 and 11 being eyewitnesses, marked Ext. P-1 to P-41 and MOs 1 to 6 were produced at trial. However, in defence no witness was examined on behalf of the accused.
-
The Trial Court after a full fledged trial has acquitted the accused as the Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution could not prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The whole emphasis and basis for the Trial Court to come to such a conclusion is on the following:
(a) The evidence of the eyewitnesses is inconsistent and not trustworthy. The first information report did not contain the names of accused and this would lead to the inference that the evidence given by PW1 before the Court is an obvious improvement.
(b) The evidence of PW2 is that A11 & 12 hit the deceased with stones on his chest which is not spoken by PW1 and also not supported by medical evidence. When there is inconsistency between medical evidence and ocular evidence, the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused.
(c) The omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of the accused assumes greater importance. In view of the inherent improbabilities, the serious omissions and infirmities, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the case.
(d) The police suppressed the factum of the direction given to police to seize the gun held by the deceased and to include an offence punishable under relevant Sections of the Arms Act.
(e) Accused Nos. 7-13 were...
To continue reading
Request your trial