Allowed

Sri Govindappa S/O Late Marappa v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Apr 2022CRL.A/616/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal against conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The court found the prosecution evidence doubtful due to inconsistencies in hospital admission history, medical reports suggesting aneurysm, and witness credibility issues, resulting in the accused's acquittal.

What did the court decide?

Appellant acquitted of offences punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC; conviction and sentence set aside; bail bonds cancelled; fine deposited returned.

Sri Govindappa S/O Late Marappa Vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.616 OF 2011

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. GOVINDAPPA, SON OF LATE MARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.38, KOTTANURU, VODDARAPALYA, JAMBUSAVARI DINNE, BANGALORE SOUTH.

¶9

… APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. VENKATESHA C. SHARMA, ADVOCATE) (PH)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SUBRAMANYAPURA POLICE STATION, BANGALORE REPRESENTED BY P.P.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. R.D. RENUKARADHYA, HCGP) (PH)

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DT:7.5.2011 PASSED BY THE P.O., FTC-IX, BANGALORE IN S.C.NO.672/09-CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S/ 304 PART II OF THE IPC; AND ETC.,

¶16

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE/PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING;

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

This appeal is preferred by the accused against his conviction and sentence passed in S.C.No.672/2009 dated 28.02.2011, by the Fast Track Court –IX at Bangalore, for offence punishable under Section 304-II of IPC.

¶20

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned High Court Government Pleader for

¶21

respondent/State and perused the material on record.

¶22

The brief factual matrix of the prosecution case

¶23

are that the deceased Smt. Papamma is the mother-in-law of the first informant (PW-1) and accused is the sister’s son of the deceased. He was residing in a portion of the land belonging to the deceased by constructing a house. He

¶24

used to pick up quarrel with the deceased demanding share in the property. On 04.12.2007, at about 12.00 noon, the deceased was taking photographs of her property for the purpose of inclusion of the property in the B.B.M.P.

¶25

¶26

from City Municipal Council. The accused came and picked up quarrel with her questioning as to why she was taking photographs and by holding her neck, pushed her to the wall and went away threatening with dire consequences. She was admitted to NIMHANS Hospital on 08.12.2007 and from there she was shifted to Victoria Hospital. However, she succumbed to the head injuries sustained by her at about 3.30 p.m. on 11.12.2007.

¶27

In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution got examined PWs-1 to 16 and got marked Ex.P1 to P10. The trial Court after appreciating the evidence and material on record convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304-II of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

¶28

The trial Court has come to the conclusion that the evidence of PWs- 1 to 3, 5 to 7 and 15 is corroborated by the medical evidence of PWs-12 and 13 and further that

¶29

¶30

when the injured Smt. Papamma was shifted to NIMHANS Hospital on 08.12.2007, it was noticed from CTC scan that there was temporal emotoma and intra ventricular bleeding. The trial Court has observed that PWs-1 to 3, 5 to 7 and 15, who are the eye witnesses have clearly stated before the Court that the accused dragged the deceased by holding her neck and dashed against the wall. So as a result of the force used by the accused and in collision with the wall, the deceased suffered hemorrhage in her parietal region.

¶31

The incident is alleged to have taken place on 04.12.2007 at about 12.00 noon. PW-1 is the first informant. She is the daughter-in-law of the deceased. Compliant is marked as Ex-P1. The compliant was lodged on 10.12.2007 at about 9.40 p.m., after the deceased was admitted at NIMHANS Hospital on 08.12.2007. In Ex-P1 it

¶32

is alleged that when the deceased was taking the photographs of the house, on 04.12.2007, at about 12.00 noon, the accused came and abused her and questioned her as to why she is taking photographs and then held her

¶33

¶34

neck and pushed her to the wall. On 08.12.2007, since there was a blood clot in the brain, she was admitted to NIMHANS Hospital, wherein, the clot was removed and for higher treatment she was admitted to Victoria Hospital.

¶35

In her evidence, PW-1 has reiterated the complaint averments. She has stated that the accused forcibly pushed the deceased and at that time deceased hit her head to the wall and sustained injuries. She has stated that one Smt. Yashodamma i.e. PW-2, took her mother-in-law to the hospital and since there was no doctor, they took some tablets.

¶36

The prosecution has mainly relied on the

¶37

evidence of PWs-1 to 3, 5 to 7 and 15 to establish the incident which took place on 04.12.2007. PWs-1, 3 and 7 are the daughters-in-law, PW-5 is the grand son and PW15 is the son of the deceased. PW-2 is the neighbour. The said witnesses have stated that on the date of incident, the accused held the deceased and pushed her to the wall, on account of which she sustained injuries on her head. In the cross-examination, PW-5 has admitted that when the

¶38

¶39

incident took place, he was not at the spot and he was informed about the incident by his brother over phone. Hence, as admitted by PW-5 himself, he has not witnessed the incident and therefore, he cannot be said to be an eye witness.

¶40

It is contended by the learned counsel for the

¶41

appellant that all the witnesses are highly interested as they are closely related to the deceased. The presence of those witnesses is highly doubtful since none of them took the deceased to the hospital, soon after the incident. On the other hand, it was PW-2, who is a neighbour, who took the injured to the hospital. He has contended that the deceased is an old woman, wherein, even in the past she was taken to the hospital for the hemorrhage in her brain.

¶42

He points out from the evidence of PW-13 that the hemorrhage may be due to aneurysm and in old age aneurysm is common. He further contends that while the deceased was admitted to the hospital, there was no history furnished that she sustained injuries on account of the accused pushing her head and coming into the contact

¶43

¶44

with the wall. He further contends that there is an inordinate delay in lodging the complaint and due to the dispute between the accused and the family of the deceased, he has been falsely implicated.

¶45

It is relevant to see that according to the prosecution, immediately after the incident, the victim was taken to the hospital. However, there was no doctor present in the hospital. Hence, they took some tablets. PW-1 has stated that Smt. Yashodamma (PW-2) took her mother-in-law to the hospital. PW-2 has stated that injured was bleeding from her nose and she took her to Gottigere Government Hospital in an auto rickshaw. Since, there was no doctor present in the said hospital, she bought some tablets and brought the victim back. PW-3 has also stated that Smt. Yashodamma took her motherin-law to the hospital.

¶46

Though the witnesses have stated that

¶47

immediately after the incident, victim was taken to Gottigere Government Hospital, however, except the oral evidence, there is no document to show that the victim was

¶48

¶49

taken to Gottigere Government Hospital for treatment on 04.12.2007 or that she was bleeding from her nose. Admittedly, even according to PWs-1 to 3, no treatment was given to the victim on 04.12.2007. Though the witnesses namely PWs-1, 3, 5 to 7 and 15 are closely related to the deceased, wherein, PW-5 is the grand son and PW-15 is the son of the deceased, according to whom they were present at the time of incident, it is not forthcoming as to why PW-2, a neighbour took the injured to the hospital. Naturally, when the close relatives namely the daughters-in-law, son and grand son were present and if they have really witnessed the accused pushing the deceased to the wall, on account of which she has sustained bleeding injuries to her nose then one of them would have accompanied the injured to the hospital. It has not come in the evidence that either of these witnesses have taken her to the hospital, which is very unnatural. Though PWs-1 to 3 have stated that immediately after the incident, the injured was shifted to the hospital, however, none of the other witnesses have stated so. They speak about the victim being admitted to NIMHANS Hospital i.e.

¶50

¶51

on 08.12.2007. PW-15 has stated that after taking treatment for two days in NIMHANS Hospital, the injured was shifted to Victoria Hospital, wherein, she took treatment for a day and on the next day she died.

¶52

The post mortem examination has been conducted by PW-11. The post mortem report is marked as Ex-P8. PW-11 has noticed the following:-

¶53

“1. Surgically sutured wound measuring 3 cm in length was present over right parietal region.

¶54

2. On dissection on the body noticed the following features:

¶55

1. A burr hole measuring 0.5 c.m. X 0.5 c.m. present over mid parietal region 1 c.m. lateral to midline. On the scull membrane was in tact. Brain was covered with subarachnoid and hemorrhage all over cerebral cortex. Intraventricular hemorrhages were present. Necrosis was present over base of right parietal lobe, over cerebellum both frontal lobes. Massive intraceribaral bleeding were present over right cerebral hemisphere. Both the lungs were consolidated. Cut section of the lungs exuded pus mixed with blood. Stomach contained 100 ml of yellowish fluid. Mucosa was normal with no peculiar smell. All the other organs were in tact”.

¶56

¶57

He has opined that the ‘death was due to coma and as a result of intra cerebral hemorrhage consequent upon the rupture of aneurysm.’

¶58

The learned High Court Government Pleader has contended that PW-13, who is a Neurosurgeon at NIMHANS Hospital has opined that injuries mentioned in the discharge summary might be possible if a person is hit to the wall. He therefore, contends that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is supported by the medical evidence. It is his contention that there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of eye witnesses merely because they are relatives. He has contended that the trial Court having appreciated the entire evidence and material on record has rightly convicted the accused.

¶59

It is not in dispute that the injured was shifted to NIMHANS Hospital on 08.12.2007 and from there she was shifted to Victoria hospital on 10.12.2007. PW-13 has issued the discharge certificate of the victim, wherein he has mentioned that injured came to the casualty on 08.12.2007 with the history of loss of consciousness and

¶60

¶61

3 days prior to that day history of assault. Patient was deeply unconscious. He has stated that CTC scan shows right side temporal emotoma, intra ventricular bleeding with pan ventricular meagerly and basal cistern subarachnoid hemorrhage. The prosecution has not got marked the discharge summary and even the CTC scan report. In the cross-examination, it is elicited from PW-13 that he is not able to give the details of the treatment provided to the patient. He has stated that hemorrhage may be due to aneurysm and in old age aneurysm is very common. In this regard it is very relevant to refer to the evidence of PW-12, who was working as a casualty medical officer at NIMHANS. PW-12 has deposed that on 08.12.2007 at 9.30 a.m., injured Papamma was brought to the hospital with the history of giddiness and fall. He has stated that there was no external injuries. Considering the previous history of the patient he referred the patient to Neurology and he has issued Emergency Case Record which is marked as Ex.P-10.

¶62

¶63

From the evidence of PW-12 it can be clearly gathered that the said casualty medical officer saw the patient at the first instance when she was brought to the hospital on 08.12.2007 at about 9.30 a.m. He has specifically stated that the injured was brought by PW-4 – Kiran Kumar, with a history of giddiness and fall. He has not stated that the history furnished was that the victim sustained injuries on account of push by the accused to the wall. On the other hand, the inured was brought with a history of giddiness and fall. The said history is very much reflected in Ex.P-10 wherein the history furnished is ‘giddiness and fall and one episode today morning at 6.30 a.m’. From the above evidence of PW-12 and the history furnished when the victim was admitted to NIMHANS on 08.12.2007, a reasonable doubt arises in the mind of the Court as to the actual cause of injury sustained by the victim. The prosecution has not placed any material evidence to show that on 04.12.2007 the injured took any treatment in the hospital except the oral evidence. As per Ex.P-10, the injured was taken to NIMHANS on 08.12.2007 with the history of giddiness and fall on the

¶64

¶65

morning at 6.30 a.m. It is also very relevant to refer to the statements of the witnesses which are marked by the defence as Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-5. It was confronted to PWs-1, 4, 5 and 6 that they have given statements before the Investigation Officer that even about 8 months prior, victim was admitted to NIMHANS and taken treatment on account of giddiness and fall. Though the said witnesses have denied it, the evidence of the Investigation Officer namely PW-16 shows that the said witnesses have given such statements before him. The trial Court has not appreciated these aspects in the right prospective. On the other hand, on the basis of the evidence adduced by PWs-1 to 3, 5 to 7 and 15, convicted the accused. Admittedly, there was a dispute between the accused and deceased and her family members. The witnesses are closely related to the deceased. PW-1 in her evidence has stated that the accused was residing in the house belonging to her mother-in-law and her mother-in-law was insisting him to vacate the said house and therefore there was frequent quarrels. Even PW-4 has sated that the deceased had divided her property and constructed about 14 houses and

¶66

¶67

to her share she had received 4 houses and one of the house was given to the accused. In this background and taking into consideration the evidence of the doctor – PW13 and the history furnished when the deceased was admitted to NIMHANS, which is mentioned in Ex.P-10, the case of the prosecution appears to be doubtful. The accused is entitled to benefit of doubt.

¶68

In the light of the above discussion and for the

¶69

foregoing reasons, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is liable to be set aside. Hence the following:

¶70

ORDER

¶71

i. The appeal is allowed.

¶72

ii. The judgment and order dated 28.02.2011 passed in S.C.No.672/2009 on the file of the Fast Track Court-IX, Bengaluru is hereby set aside.

¶73

iii. The appellant is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of IPC.

¶74

iv. His bail bonds stands cancelled.

¶75

¶76

v. The fine amount deposited, if any, shall be returned to the accused.

¶77

Sd/JUDGE

¶78

JY/GRD

Sri Govindappa S/O Late Marappa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Govindappa S/O Late Marappa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aruna @ Arun Vs the State by S H O

Sri M Nagaraju Vs State of Karnataka

Yogesh Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

M. Shankar S/O Nageshrao Munga, Vs the State of Karnataka

Bhadregowda @ Eregowda Vs State by Arakalgud

Naga @ Nagarajau @ Giddanaga Vs the State of Karnataka by