Partly allowed

Sri. Harijan Renukaiah @ H Renukappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Dec 2021CRL.A/100328/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka acquitted an appellant of murder (S.302 IPC) reducing the conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (S.304(2) IPC) arising from a sudden quarrel where the deceased died on the way to the hospital, enhancing compensation while affirming imprisonment.

What did the court decide?

Appeal partly allowed; conviction under S.302 IPC reduced to S.304(2) IPC; compensation enhanced to Rs.5 lakhs.

Sri. Harijan Renukaiah @ H Renukappa Vs the… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.100328/2018

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. HARIJAN RENUKAIAH @ H RENUKAPPA S/O G ERAMMA, AGED: 35 YEARS, (NOW 38 YEARS) R/O: HAMPADEVANAHALLI VILLAGE, HOSAPETE TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI.G.M.BHAT, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, BENCH DHARWAD FOR KAMPLI CIRCLE, KAMPLI POLICE STATION, HOSAPETE TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SRI.V.M.BANAKAR, ADDL. SPP)

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 374 (2) OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 11.10.2018 & 12.10.2018 RESPECTIVELY, PASSED IN S.C.NO.5038/2016 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 302, 504 OF IPC, BY THE

¶14

CRL.A.No.100328/2018

¶15

¶16

III-ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARI, SITTING AT HOSAPETE, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL AND CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FROM THE CHARGES LEVELED AGAINST HIM.

¶17

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING ON 07.12.2021 AND THE SAME HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGEMENT, THIS DAY, SURAJ GOVINDARAJ J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The above appeal is filed challenging the judgment of conviction dated 11.10.2018 and the order of sentence dated 12.10.2018 passed by the III Addl.

¶20

District and Sessions Judge, Ballari, in S.C.No.5038/2016.

¶21

The case of the prosecution is that the accused had picked up a quarrel with CW-12/PW-7/Kariyappa relating to a passage in front of the house of Kariyappa, claiming that Kariyappa had blocked the said passage preventing the public from having ingress and egress. These quarrels having occurred in the past from time to time. On

¶22

CRL.A.No.100328/2018

¶23

¶24

12.11.2015 at 7.30 a.m., the accused had picked up a quarrel with CW-12/PW-7 for the same reason and began to remove the stones kept by CW12/PW-7. At that time, the deceased intervened in the fight and called upon the accused to bring the property documents as regards his claim, so that it may be placed before a Panchayath and matter could be settled amicably. It is alleged that the accused was enraged by this and abused the deceased claiming that it is because of his support to CW-12/PW-7 that the matter could not be resolved and all of a sudden the accused picked up one stone lying there, assaulted the deceased on the right cheek and ear due to which the deceased fell down unconscious. By that time, the passersby had congregated at the place. They tried to shift the deceased to the hospital in Tata Ape vehicle. However, on the way, the deceased expired and as

¶25

CRL.A.No.100328/2018

¶26

¶27

such, they came back to the deceased’s house with the body of the deceased. It is on the above basis that a complaint came to be filed by the wife of the deceased which came to be registered as Cr.No.147/2015 by the Kampli police station.

¶28

Upon investigation being completed by CW28/Linganagouda, CPI, Kampli, a charge-sheet came to be filed against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 302 of IPC.

¶29

The committal Court took cognizance of the offence and secured the accused who had already been arrested from judicial custody and later on the accused came to be enlarged on bail on 31.12.2015.

¶30

The committal Court committed the accused to the District and Sessions Judge, Ballari, which came to

¶31

CRL.A.No.100328/2018

¶32

¶33

be allotted to the III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, sitting at Hosapete.

¶34

The Sessions Court after hearing the accused and the prosecution framed charges for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 302 IPC which was read over and explained to the accused in the language known to him. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶35

The prosecution in order to prove its case examined 19 witnesses out of the 28 witnesses cited in the charge-sheet as PWs-1 to 19, got marked 11 documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11 and one material object as M.O.1.

¶36

After closure of the evidence, the incriminating evidence against the accused was put across to the accused. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. wherein

¶37

CRL.A.No.100328/2018

¶38

¶39

the accused denied all the evidence against him. However, he did not lead any evidence on his behalf.

¶40

After hearing the arguments of both sides, the trial Court convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, till his lifetime for the offences punishable under Section 302 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. He was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months for the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment of 15 days. The accused was also directed to pay a compensation of Rs.3 lakhs to the child of the deceased.

¶41

CRL.A.No.100328/2018

¶42

¶43

It is challenging the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence that the accused is before this Court.

¶44

Shri Ganapathi M. Bhat, learned counsel for the appellant submits that

¶45

11.1. All the witnesses who have been examined

¶46

are the family members of the deceased and there are no independent witnesses who have been examined.

¶47

11.2. The deceased admittedly did not die on the spot but died on the way to the hospital. As such, the accused cannot be blamed or found guilty for such death since the cause of death could be different.

¶48

11.3. The cause of death is accidental inasmuch as

¶49

the deceased fell on his own on a stone pathway, hit his head and became

¶50

CRL.A.No.100328/2018

¶51

¶52

unconscious. The accused did not have anything to do with the same. The cause of death could be attributed to the injury after he fell.

¶53

11.4. The complaint was filed belatedly drafted by PW-12 and signed by CW-1 who has subsequently expired and that no evidence of CW-1 was led on this account. Hence, there is no evidence of the complainant which also would have to be considered by this Court and benefit of doubt awarded to the accused.

¶54

11.5. The limestone at M.O.1 is a heavy stone which could not have been lifted and thrown by the accused at the deceased since the same measures 22 cms X 13 cms.

¶55

11.6. The witnesses to the spot panchanama have

¶56

not supported the case of the prosecution.

¶57

CRL.A.No.100328/2018

¶58

¶59

Thus, the only independent witness not having supported the case of the prosecution and the other witnesses being relatives of the deceased, all of them are interested witnesses and their testimony ought not to have been believed by the trial Court.

¶60

11.7. On the basis of the above, he submits that the order of conviction is to be reversed and the accused/appellant ought to be acquitted.

¶61

Per contra, Shri V.M.Banakar, learned Addl. SPP would submit that

¶62

12.1. PWs-3 to 8 are eyewitnesses who have witnessed the crime having been committed. They arrived at the spot as soon as the quarrel between CW-12/PW-7 and the deceased started. Their presence is admitted even by the accused and as such, their

¶63

CRL.A.No.100328/2018

¶64

¶65

evidence is required to be taken into

¶66

consideration they being the eyewitnesses.

¶67

12.2. PW-11 has deposed as regards the seizure of M.O.1 which has been used for the commission of the offence. On the basis of the above, he submits that he being the eyewitness to the crime and had seen the accused having assaulted the deceased due to which the deceased has expired.

¶68

12.3. Hence, the accused is guilty of the offences charged and as such, the sentence is required to be confirmed by this Court.

¶69

I t is in the above background, that we have to consider whether the accused is guilty of the offences alleged against him and if the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court is proper or not. For this purpose, we

¶70

CRL.A.No.100328/2018

¶71

¶72

would be required to reappreciate the evidence on record in relation to the above aspects.

¶73

PW-1 is the witness to the panchanama. He has stood the test of cross-examination and supported the case of the prosecution.

¶74

PW-2 has deposed that at around 7.30 a.m. in the morning he had intervened in the quarrel between CW-11 and the accused and at that time, accused had got angry with the deceased since he was, from time to time, trying to resolve the dispute and/or interfering with the disputes between the accused and CW-11 and at that time, accused assaulted the deceased with the stone on his head and that the deceased fell unconscious. At that time, the others who had gathered around at the spot lifted him and took him to the hospital. On the way, he expired and hence they got back the

¶75

CRL.A.No.100328/2018

¶76

¶77

body to his house and lodged a complaint with the police. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that by the time he reached the spot, the quarrel was going on for 10 to 15 minutes. He has stated that as regards the said quarrels complaints had already been filed with the jurisdictional police, that on account of the assault by the accused, the injury was caused to his brain and the clothes of the deceased became bloodstained, five of them took the deceased to the hospital which is situated 16 kms away from the spot. Thereafter, they took the body of the deceased to VIMS Hospital. He has identified the accused. He has categorically stated that the accused attacked and assaulted the deceased. He has supported the case of the prosecution.

¶78

Similar is the testimony of PWs-3 to 9 and 12. They have also stated similarly about the fight

¶79

CRL.A.No.100328/2018

¶80

¶81

between the accused and CW-11 and the assault by the accused on the deceased. All of them have withstood the test of cross-examination. There is nothing in particular elicited from them to support the case of the defence and they have supported the case of the prosecution.

¶82

PW-10 is the mahazar witness who denied being present at the time of the mahazar. Hence, the Public Prosecutor sought permission to treat him as hostile and cross-examined him. During the crossexamination, he has admitted that he along with CW-7 and had witnessed the panchanama on the date of the murder. He has admitted that the spot where the murder was committed was shown to him. He has admitted that M.O.1 was also shown to him at the spot, that the accused was his childhood friend. He denied that since he had tried to settle the dispute between the parties, he is

¶83

CRL.A.No.100328/2018

¶84

¶85

deposing falsely. During the cross-examination by the counsel for the accused, he has stated that he is a Gram Panchayath Member, the police had called him and asked him to sign the panchanama which he did. This witness though has been treated as hostile has supported the case of the prosecution inasmuch as he identified the place of occurrence and M.O.1 which had been used for the commission of the crime.

¶86

PW-11 is also the mahazar witness who has supported the case of the prosecution.

¶87

PW-13 is the Medical Officer at VIMS, Bellary, who conducted the Post Mortem on the deceased. He has deposed that there was a contusion on right cheek bone with fracture of right ramus of mandible and opined that the death was due to neurogenic shock as a result of the injuries

¶88

CRL.A.No.100328/2018

¶89

¶90

sustained. He has further opined that the injuries sustained could have been caused by M.O.1. During the course of cross-examination, when it was suggested that holding M.O.1 is not possible by a normal person, PW-13 has demonstrated the holding of M.O.1. He has denied that the injury could be caused if a person accidentally fell on a boulder stone when his head came in contact with it. This witness has withstood the test of crossexamination and supported the case of the prosecution.

¶91

PW-14 is the PDO who gave the RTC of the property concerned.

¶92

PW-15 is the Assistant Engineer who prepared the sketch of the spot.

¶93

PW-16 is the Constable who carried the FIR to the Magistrate.

¶94

CRL.A.No.100328/2018

¶95

¶96

PW-17 is the Head Constable who arrested the

¶97

accused from the bus stand at 4.30 p.m. on the date of the incident.

¶98

PW-18 is the PSI who received the complaint and registered the FIR.

¶99

PW-19 is the Police Inspector who carried out the investigation and submitted the charge-sheet.

¶100

Ex.P.1 is the panchanama, Exs.P.2 and 3 are photographs of the deceased and of the spot, respectively. Ex.P.4 is the spot panchanama which has described the scene of occurrence, Ex.P.5 is the complaint, Ex.P.6 is the PM Report in terms whereof it is stated that the death of the deceased has occurred as a result of neurogenic shock due to injuries sustained, Ex.P.7 are the revenue documents relating to the place of occurrence, Ex.P.8 is the sketch of the place of occurrence

¶101

CRL.A.No.100328/2018

¶102

¶103

prepared by the Engineer, Ex.P.9 is the FIR registered, Ex.P.10 is the sketch prepared by PW19, the police Inspector, Ex.P.11 is the report of the Police Inspector, Kampli.

¶104

On examination of all the evidence referred to hereinabove, it is clear that the incident did occur as complained on 12.11.2015 at 7.30 a.m. PWs-2 to 9 and 12 being the eye witnesses have categorically stated about the fight between CW12/PW - 7 and the accused commenced regarding blockage of a path when the deceased sought to intercede in the matter to pacify the quarrel between them, by which time all the witnesses and persons residing in and around the house of CW12/PW -7 had reached the spot, all of them saw the accused lifting the stone in M.O.1 and assaulted the deceased due to which the deceased fell to the ground unconscious. The supporting

¶105

CRL.A.No.100328/2018

¶106

¶107

evidence of the doctors and the investigators would also indicate and establish the accused having assaulted the deceased inasmuch as the doctor who was examined as PW-13 and the Post Mortem report at Ex.P.6 indicate that the death of the deceased occurred on account of neurogenic shock caused by assault using M.O.1. The doctor had denied the suggestion that the injury could be caused on account of a person accidentally falling on a boulder stone. Thus, from the above it is clear that the incident took place as alleged, the accused assaulted the deceased, the deceased fell down unconscious and later expired.

¶108

The only question is ‘whether the offence as alleged against the accused comes within the ambit of Section 300 punishable under Section 302 of IPC or whether it would, as contended by Shri Ganapathi M.Bhat, come under the Exception (4)

¶109

CRL.A.No.100328/2018

¶110

¶111

to Section 300 of IPC, thus coming under the purview of Section 304 of IPC?

¶112

Exception (4) to Section 300 reads as under:

¶113

“Exception 4 - Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.”

¶114

From the evidence it is clear that the quarrel commenced between the accused and CW-12/PW7. At that point of time, it could not have been in the knowledge of the accused that the deceased would intercede and try to pacify the fight. Though there is evidence on record that the deceased had earlier pacified various fights that could not have been a reason for the accused to have imagined and/or expected the deceased to again intercede in the matter.

¶115

CRL.A.No.100328/2018

¶116

¶117

For an offence under Section 300 of IPC to be committed, there has to be a prior intention of causing bodily injury, with an intention to cause death. Under Exception (4) to Section 300 of IPC, a culpable homicidal does not amount to murder if the same is committed without premeditation in a heat of passion, from a sudden quarrel, without having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.

¶118

In the present case, when the fight between the accused and CW-12/PW-7 was going on, the deceased interceded in the matter and it is at that time that the accused assaulted the deceased getting angry with the deceased for having intervened in the matter. It cannot therefore be said that there was a premeditated intention on the part of the accused to have involved himself in

¶119

CRL.A.No.100328/2018

¶120

¶121

a fight so as to cause the death of the deceased by assaulting him.

¶122

Unfortunately, the deceased was in the wrong place at the wrong time and interceded in the fight between the accused and CW-12/PW-7. Thus, it is clear that a fight was already going on. It is at this stage that the accused without any premeditation in the heat of passion assaulted the deceased which unfortunately resulted in the death. We are therefore of the considered opinion that there was no premeditation on the part of the accused to cause the death of the deceased and as such, the act of the accused would come under Exception (4) to Section 300 of the IPC. Thus, the act would amount to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, punishable under Section 304 of IPC. Section 304 of IPC reads as under:

¶123

CRL.A.No.100328/2018

¶124

¶125

“304. Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder:- Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with imprisonment for life], or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death,

¶126

or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.”

¶127

As can be seen from the above, Section 304 has two parts. The first part is where the act by which the death is caused is done with an intention of causing death or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death and the second part is where the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death but without any intention to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.

¶128

CRL.A.No.100328/2018

¶129

¶130

As referred to above, in the evidence of all the witnesses, it is clear that the accused per se did not have any enmity with the deceased. Therefore, there was no motive on the part of the accused to cause the death of the deceased. Thus, the act of assaulting the deceased in our considered opinion would not amount to an assault with an intention to cause the death of the deceased. But, however, is an act done with the knowledge that is likely to cause the death of a person since the stone measuring 22 cms X 13 cms as per M.O.1 has been used to assault the deceased.

¶131

The dimensions of M.O.1 indicate that it is not a small stone but a large enough one, which even according to the accused in the case put forward to the doctor PW-13, is difficult to lift and use for the purpose of assault. Such being the case, the accused ought to have known that the use of

¶132

CRL.A.No.100328/2018

¶133

¶134

M.O.1 for the assault on the deceased that too on

¶135

the face of the deceased is likely to cause the death. Despite such knowledge, the accused having assaulted the deceased with M.O.1, we are of the considered opinion that such an act would come under Part (2) of Section 304 of IPC.

¶136

In the above circumstances, we pass the following:

¶137

ORDER

¶138

37.1. The appeal is partly allowed,

¶139

37.2. The order of conviction of the accused

¶140

for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 302 of IPC is reduced to conviction under Section 304 (2) of IPC.

To hear on sentence.

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

Jm/-

CRL.A.No.100328/2018

Crl.A. No.100328/2018

SGRJ & JMKJ:

20.12.2021

ORDER ON SENTENCE

For the reasons enumerated in the judgment

¶152

and taking into consideration various factors, the accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence punishable under Section 304 part 2 of IPC ( in the place of Section 302 of IPC).

¶153

The fine imposed by the trial Court and

¶154

default sentence for nonpayment of fine remains unaltered.

¶155

The compensation ordered by the trial Court in a sum of Rs.3 lakhs is enhanced to Rs.5 lakhs payable by the accused to the child of the deceased-Hanumaiah by name Mallikarjuna.

¶156

CRL.A.No.100328/2018

¶157

¶158

In default of payment of compensation of Rs.5 lakhs, the accused shall under go simple imprisonment for a period of 2 years. The default sentence for nonpayment of compensation shall commence after completion of the substantive sentence of imprisonment.

¶159

Mallikarjuna, the son of the deceased is permitted to approach the District Legal Services Authority seeking for necessary compensation in terms of the Victim compensation scheme formulated under Section 357(A) of Cr.P.C (if already not approached).

¶160

The District Legal Services Authority is directed to make payment of compensation to Mallikarjuna the son of deceased as per the Victim Compensation Scheme (if not paid already).

¶161

In the event of accused making payment of

¶162

compensation of Rs.5 lakhs or any portion of it, and if

¶163

CRL.A.No.100328/2018

¶164

¶165

the compensation paid under the Victim Compensation Scheme and the amount paid by the accused together exceeds Rs.5 lakhs, the amount in excess of Rs.5 lakhs shall go to the Karnataka Legal Services Authority.

¶166

In other words Mallikarjuna is entitled for total compensation not exceeding Rs.5 lakhs.

¶167

The accused is entitled to set off for the period during which he was in judicial custody.

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sri. Harijan Renukaiah @ H Renukappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Harijan Renukaiah @ H Renukappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

H Govinda Naik Vs the State of Karnataka

State of Karnataka Vs Anjini S/O Vaddara Ramesh

State of Karnataka Vs Dastgeer Gous Pheersab

State of Karnataka Vs Chandrashekhar C.

Shri. Bhaukanna S/O Omanna Myageri Vs the State of Karnataka

State of Karnataka Vs Manju S/O Sannaningappa Shiggavi