Partly allowed

Honnappa v. State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC22 Jul 2013CRL.A/660/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Appeal challenging conviction for murder and related offences. The Court allowed the appeal in part, confirming conviction and sentence for Accused No.1 but acquitting Accused No.2 due to lack of evidence regarding her specific involvement in the murder.

What did the court decide?

Arraignment of Appellant No.1 (Conviction confirmed). Appellant No.2 (Accused No.2) is acquitted and directed to be set free forthwith.

Honnappa Vs State of Karnataka by — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF JULY 2013

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K SREEDHAR RAO

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.V.PINTO

¶8

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.660/2010 (C)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

HONNAPPA S/O. MAHADEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/O. BHADRAPPA LAYOUT NAGASHETTYHALLI POST BANGALORE. NATIVE PLACE: HONAGERI VILLAGE YADAGIRI TALUK, GULBARGA DISTRICT KARNATAKA STATE.

¶11

SHARANAMMA

¶12

W/O. MAHADEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS R/O. BYAPPANAHALLY BEHIND NGEF, BANGALORE CITY NATIVE PLACE: HONAGERI VILLAGE YADAGIRI TALUK, GULBARGA DISTRICT KARNATAKA STATE.

¶13

… APPELLANTS

¶14

[BY SRI.N.R.KRISHNAPPA, ADV.,]

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HEBBAL POLICE STATION.

¶17

... RESPONDENT

¶18

(BY SRI.P.M.NAWAZ, ADDL.S.P.P.)

¶19

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S.374 (2) CR.P.C. BY THE ADV., FOR THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DT.29.4.10 PASSED BY THE XLV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & S.J., BENGALURU (CCH-46) IN S.C.NO.109/09- CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S. 498 (A), 302, 201 R/W. 34 OF IPC. 1) THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED ARE SENTENCED TO UNDERGO S.I. FOR TWO YEARS AND PAY A FINE OF RS.10,000/EACH, IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF FINE THEY SHALL UNDERGO FURTHER S.I. FOR 60 DAYS EACH FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S. 498(A) R/W. 34 OF IPC. 2) THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED ARE SENTENCED TO UNDERGO S.I. FOR TWO YEARS AND PAY A FINE OF RS.10,000/EACH, INDEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF FINE THEY SHALL UNDERGO FURTHER S.I. FOR 60 DAYS EACH FOR THE OFFENCE U/S. 201 R/W. 34 OF IPC. 3) THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED ARE SENTENCED TO UNDERGO LIFE IMPRISONMENT AND PAY A FINE OF RS.20,000/EACH, IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF FINE THEY SHALL UNDERGO FURTHR S.I. FOR THREE MONTHS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S. 302 R/W. 34 OF IPC. ALL SENTENCES SHALL RUN CONCURRENTLY.

¶21

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, K.SREEDHAR RAO J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

The material facts of the prosecution case

¶24

discloses that Smt.Basamma is the deceased. A1 is the husband of the deceased. A2 was having illicit relationship with A1.

¶25

It is the case of the prosecution that both of them caused murder of the deceased. A1, deceased and

¶26

¶27

two children were residing at Bhadrappa Layout, Kodigehalli, Bangalore. On 20.5.2005 the deceased was killed. A1 took the dead body by ambulance to their native place at Honagere village in Yadgiri district. The brother of the deceased found marks of violence on the dead body. Therefore, he gave a compliant to Yadgiri police. The inquest is conducted by Yadgiri police. The dead body was subjected to postmortem. The postmortem report discloses that the death is due to strangulation and that there were abrasion and contusion injuries on the face and other parts of the body.

¶28

The brother of the deceased - PW1 was

¶29

advised that the complaint should be lodged before Bangalore Police, where the offence has taken place. Therefore, he came to Bangalore. Complaint is filed as per Ex.P.2 and a case is registered. In the course of investigation, it is found that PWs.5 and 6 – sons of the deceased are eyewitnesses to the incident. At the instance of A1 and A2, a rope and club were recovered.

¶30

¶31

The medical report discloses that the rope produced by the accused is tallied with the ligature mark found on the dead body. FSL report discloses that thyroid cartilage is also fractured. Upon completion of the investigation, final report is filed. A1 and A2 are charged for committing the said offences.

¶32

In the evidence, PWs.5 and 6 have supported the case of the prosecution and they say that they found in the evening on 19.5.2008, A2 had come to the house; both of them had abused and assaulted the deceased. In the night all of them took food and slept and that both of them in the midnight strangulated and killed their mother. The Trial Court on the basis of the said evidence has convicted the accused for the offences they are charged. Accused are in an appeal.

¶33

Upon thorough consideration of the facts and evidence, it discloses that the dead body was taken by A1 to his native place in Yadgiri District along with him and PWs.5 and 6 had also been accompanied him.

¶34

¶35

PW.1- brother who suspects that there is some foul play in the death, hence, the dead body was subjected to postmortem examination at Yadgiri Hospital. After the postmortem, it reveals that the death is due to asphyxia secondary to homicidal ligature strangulation. PW.1 gave a complaint to Bangalore police on 1.9.2008, almost after 3 months 15 days. The version that PWs.5 and 6 are eyewitnesses become doubtful to be believed because, if they had really seen the incident they should have informed PW.1 before complaint came to be lodged. PW.1 should have come out with a categorical version of the murder against A1 and A2 and not merely suspecting the foul play. Therefore, the theory of the prosecution that PWs.5 and 6 are eyewitnesses is incredible.

¶36

Upon thorough scrutiny on the facts and evidence of the prosecution, it discloses that A1 has been in the company of the deceased in the night of 19.5.2008 and it constitutes last seen circumstances. A1 brought the dead body to his native place saying that

¶37

¶38

it is a case of heart attack. He gave misinformation about the cause of death. However, admittedly after the postmortem, it reveals that it is a homicidal death. All these circumstances are borne out by the evidence on record. Therefore, last seen circumstances of A1 being in the company of the deceased; bringing the dead body of the deceased and giving misinformation about the cause of death clearly suggests the guilt of A1. However with regard to A.2, there appears to be no evidence regarding her involvement in the murder. It may be that she may have illicit relationship with A1, but that does not be a sufficient material to convict her.

¶39

In that view of the matter, the appeal is allowed in part.

¶40

Accused No.1 is convicted for the offences U/Ss.302 & 201 of IPC. The sentence imposed by the trial Court for the offence U/s.302 of IPC is confirmed.

¶41

¶42

Accused No.2 is acquitted. A-2 is directed to be set

¶43

free forthwith if she is not required to be detained in any

other case.

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

Honnappa v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Honnappa v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Kumaraswamy @ Kumara Vs State by T N Pura Police

Mr Aleem Vs State of Karnataka

Shankarappa S/O Venkateshappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Rekha Mehta Vs the Police Commissioner

Chethana @ Harmoniam Master Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Manikanta @ Ayyappa Vs the State of Karnataka