Criminal appeal against conviction for murder and hurt under Sections 302/34 IPC. Eyewitness accounts were contradictory, motive unproved, injured witness gave history of assault by unknown persons, and co-accused was already acquitted. Appeal allowed; conviction set aside.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:28304-DB CRL.A No.1226/2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1226/2024 (C)
BETWEEN:
SRI. CHANDRA S/O LATE VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT MANJANNA’S BUILDING BEHIND MUNIBACCHAMMA ASHRAMA 2ND CROSS, MUNESHWARA NAGAR LAGGERE BENGALURU 560058 …APPELLANT
(BY SRI. BALAKRISHNA M R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by K S RENUKAMBA Location: High Court of Karnataka
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY RAJAGOPALANAGARA POLICE STATION BENGALURU CITY REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU 560001 …RESPONDENT
(BY SMT RASHMI RADHAV., ADDL.SPP)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 13.04.2012 AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 19.04.2012 PASSED IN S.C.NO.676/2010 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE AND PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT12, BENGALURU - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE
NC: 2024:KHC:28304-DB CRL.A No.1226/2024
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 324 AND 302 R/W 34 OF IPC
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, K.S.MUDAGAL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against him, accused No.2 in S.C.No.676/2010 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-12, Bengaluru City, has preferred this appeal.
PW-4 was the leader of a Garments Employees Association. He was acquainted with many garment employees including the deceased. PW-8 Manjunath had money
transaction with accused No.1. Accused No.1 had invested his money in chit fund run by PW-8. Accused No.1 wanted his money back since the money was required for school fees of his son. However PW-8 had not returned the money to accused No.1. In that regard, there was dispute between accused No.1 and PW-8. On 07.02.2010 at about 9.00 p.m., when deceased Ravi, PWs.8 and 9 were consuming alcohol in Maruthi bar and restaurant situated on the main road of Laggere, accused Nos.1 and 2 came there, quarreled with PW-8 and the deceased. PW-8 was assaulted by accused No.2 with a stone, consequent upon which, PW-8 sustained head injury. Panicked PWs-8 and 9 fled away leaving the deceased alone. Accused Nos.1 and 2 chased him from Laggere main road to 14th cross, accused No.2 felled Ravi while Ravi was crossing the drain, accused No.2 dropped seven stones one after an other on his face leading to fatal injuries and both the accused fled away from the spot. The jurisdictional police after seeing the dead-body during the intervening night between 07.02.2010 and 08.02.2010 called the complainant/PW-4 and informed about the dead-body of the deceased. PW-4-complainant went to the scene, saw the dead-body and lodged the first information as per Ex-P3 before the PSI of Rajagopalanagar police station, Bangalore at about
NC: 2024:KHC:28304-DB CRL.A No.1226/2024
2.45 a.m. on 08.02.2010. Based on that, PW.13 the Sub Inspector of Police registered first information in Crime No.50/2010 against unknown persons. The Inspector of Police(PW-14) completed the investigation and laid the chargesheet.
in Crl.A.No.649/2012 submits that the evidence of PWs.8 and 9
the alleged eyewitnesses was not trustworthy, PW.3 another eyewitness totally turned hostile, even the motive circumstance was not consistent. He submits that this Court on evaluating the evidence has already acquitted accused No.1. Accused No.2 is also entitled for acquittal on the ground of parity.
NC: 2024:KHC:28304-DB CRL.A No.1226/2024
Analysis :
panchanama Ex-P1 under which M.Os.1- 9 were seized from the spot. PW-2 is the wife of the deceased, PWs-5 & 7 are the brothers and PW-6 is the sister of the deceased. All these witnesses have seen the dead-body subsequent to the incident. Their statements are recorded during the course of inquest panchanama Ex- P13. Their evidence being hearsay is not of much use. PW-3 was supposed to depose about the last seen circumstance. He is cashier of Maruthi bar, where deceased and accused allegedly consumed alcohol and where preliminary incident took place. He has turned hostile.
NC: 2024:KHC:28304-DB CRL.A No.1226/2024
No.1. PW-9 though has turned hostile, has deposed in the cross-examination by Public Prosecutor about assault by accused No.1.
factory and had left the job and was doing the laundry work.
According to PW-8, there was no financial transaction between himself and accused No.1. On the date of the incident i.e., on 7.2.2010 at about 10:30 p.m., while PW-8 and 9 and deceased were returning to their respective houses after work, accused No.1 phoned PW-8 and told that he is in school function of his son, PW-8 asked him for a treat, accused No.1 asked PWs-8, 9 and deceased to come to Maruthi bar situated at Laggere. Accordingly, PW-8, PW-9 and deceased went to Maruthi bar. However, accused No.1 was not found at Maruthi bar. He deposed that when PW-8 again called accused No.1, he told PW-8 that himself, PW-9 and deceased may come to the school, accordingly PW-8 went along with PW-9 and deceased to the school, accused No.1 was in the school witnessing the school function. Thereafter, all of them went to Maruthi bar and consumed liquor. Accused No.2 came to the spot and started staring at deceased Ravi, on being questioned by Ravi, accused No.2 started quarrelling with Ravi, PW-8 intervened in the quarrel, accused No.2 assaulted PW-8 with the stone and started once again quarrelling with the deceased. Accused No.2 dragged deceased out of the bar and took him away. When PW8 questioned about the conduct of accused No.2, he was
threatened with dire consequences by accused No.2. PW-8 was treated as hostile witness by the prosecutor and he was crossexamined by him. Even in the cross-examination, PW-8 reiterated that it was accused No.2 who assaulted him as well as deceased, he completely exonerated accused No.1 from the crime. According to PW-8, accused No.1 has not at all committed any offence.
NC: 2024:KHC:28304-DB CRL.A No.1226/2024
deceased upto 14th cross. He further deposed that he has not seen the subsequent incident.
NC: 2024:KHC:28304-DB CRL.A No.1226/2024
seized by the police during the course of investigation. The evidence relating to the overt-acts of accused No.1 is shaky and doubtful. On reconsideration of the entire material on record, this Court in Crl.A.No.649/2012 concluded that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt as against accused No.1.
NC: 2024:KHC:28304-DB CRL.A No.1226/2024
assailants and it was within the knowledge of PWs.8 and 9, they would not have omitted the names of assailants. Ex.P10 shows that when PW.8 had gone to the hospital he was under the influence of alcohol. According to PWs.8 and 9, on accused No.2 assaulting them, they ran away and escaped. Therefore they are not the eyewitnesses to the alleged assault on deceased Ravi with stones and causing his death. PWs.8 and 9 did not go to the police station and file any complaint and there was no explanation for the same.
eyewitness and his evidence is corroborated by the evidence of PW.9.
the Bar first, then accused No.1 came and he started staring at deceased Ravi, that is how the dispute started. But that had no nexus between accused No.1 and PW.8 and the alleged overt act of accused No.2 in the matter. Moreover, it is not the case of the prosecution that accused No.1 had informed accused No.2 to come to Bar or accused No.2 had any knowledge of PWs.8 and 9 coming to the said Bar. Even that motive circumstance fails.
NC: 2024:KHC:28304-DB CRL.A No.1226/2024
consistent to hold that the charges against accused No.2 was proved beyond reasonable doubt. So far as charge under Section 324 IPC, both accused Nos.1 and 2 were charged for the said offence imputing common intention. Accused No.1 was acquitted on that charge also. On that count accused No.2 is entitled for acquittal. Hence the following:
ORDER
The appeal is allowed.
The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence in S.C.No.676/2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-12, Bengaluru City is hereby set aside.
Appellant/accused No.2 is acquitted of the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324 read with Section 34 IPC.
Appellant/accused No.2 shall be set at liberty forthwith, if his detention is not required in any other cases.
The order of trial Court with regard to disposal of the properties is maintained.
NC: 2024:KHC:28304-DB CRL.A No.1226/2024
Communicate copy of this order to the trial Court and concerned prison forthwith.
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
PKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11
2 issues framed by the court
Is the conviction of accused No.2 under Sections 302 and 324 r/w 34 IPC sustainable on the evidence of PWs 8 and 9?
Is the appellant entitled to acquittal on parity with the acquittal of accused No.1 in Crl.A.No.649/2012?
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Chandra
State of Karnataka by Rajagopalanagara Police Station, Bengaluru City, represented by State Public Prosecutor
K.S.Mudagal
Vijaykumar A. Patil
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
