Appeal against conviction under Sections 302 and 324 IPC for murdering a cousin over an ancestral property dispute and injuring the injured eyewitness with an iron pipe. The High Court upheld the conviction, finding the injured eyewitness's testimony credible and corroborated by medical and forensic evidence.
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:12965-DB CRL.A No. 1407 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1407 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
SRI RAMESH S/O. MADLAPPA AGRICULTURIST R/O UPPARA STREET, CHANNAGIRI TOWN DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 213.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI D. NAGARAJ REDDY, AMICUS CURIAE)
AND:
STATE BY CHANNAGIRI POLICE REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560 001.
…RESPONDENT
Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
(BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, S.P.P.-II)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) CR.P.C BY PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 7.7.2017 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DAVANAGERE IN S.C.NO.43/2016 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 324 AND 302 OF IPC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, VENKATESH NAIK T. J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
NC: 2024:KHC:12965-DB CRL.A No. 1407 of 2017
J U D G M E N T
Aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against him, the accused in S.C.No.43/2016 on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere, has preferred this appeal.
a. Accused- Ramesh and deceased- Hanumanthappa were cousins and they were residents of Upparabeedi, Channagiri Town. There was a property dispute between them and they would frequently quarrel on the ground that the deceased had not given the accused a proper share in the ancestral property of their grandfather- Rangappa.
b. As things stood thus, on 07.11.2015, at about 7:30 p.m., when Hanumanthappa was sleeping on a rock in front of his house, the accused with an intention to commit his murder, brought MO.2-Iron pipe from his house and assaulted Hanumanthappa on the head, due to which, he sustained a bleeding injury behind his right ear. At that time, PW 16Jayappa a neighbour of both accused and deceased, tried to rescue Hanumanthappa. The accused assaulted PW 16 also with MO.2- Iron pipe on his left leg, causing him a bleeding injury as well.
c. Soon after the incident, the neighbours PW 8- Praveena and PW 12- Dharma came to the spot and shifted both Hanumanthappa and PW 16 to Government Hospital, Channagiri. Hanumanthappa was referred to McGann Hospital, Shivamogga for further treatment, but on the way to the hospital at 8:30 p.m. near Holehonnur, he succumbed to his injuries. PW 16 during his treatment in Government Hospital, Channagiri, on 07.11.2015 between 10:30 p.m. and 11:15 p.m, gave his statement as per Ex.P.10 before Channagiri Police.
d. On the basis of Ex.P.10, PW 18- PSI, Channagiri police station, registered the case in Crime No. 437/2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324 IPC and submitted FIR- Ex.P.13 to the Court. During the course of investigation, the accused was arrested. The police conducted mahazars, recorded statements of the witnesses and after conclusion of the investigation, PW 19 the Investigating Officer, filed charge sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences.
PWs.8 and 12 and the medical evidence of Doctors-PWs.9 and 10 indicating the cause of death of Hanumanthappa as ‘hemorrhagic shock secondary to injury sustained’. The motive behind commission of murder of the deceased being the property dispute between the accused and deceased was established. The medical evidence and evidence of the eyewitnesses are supported by corroborating accounts from spot and seizure mahazar witnesses. Additionally, the FSL report Ex.P.11 and evidence of PW.17 the Scientific Officer, further validate the evidence provided by both eyewitnesses and chance witnesses. H ence, the Trial Court convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324 IPC.
is contended that, one Prakashappa and deceased Hanumanthappa used to quarrel prior to the incident, but said Prakashappa is not examined. Though PW.7-Gajendra is a chance witness, he has deposed as if he is an eyewitness to the incident and had tried to quell the quarrel between the accused and deceased. However, in his cross-examination, he admits that he did not state before the police that he tried to pacify the quarrel between the accused and deceased and denied to have given statement to police as per Ex.D2. Similar to PW 7, PW.8-Praveen positions himself as an eyewitness to the incident, but in the cross-examination he admits the suggestions and denies to have given statement as per Ex.D3. PW.9 Dr. H.C. Hanumanthappa who examined PW.16, has not examined MO.2-Iron pipe or given his opinion. PW.10 Dr. Channakeshavamurthy, who conducted autopsy on dead body of deceased Hanumanthappa has stated that the deceased sustained fracture of occipital bone measuring 5 X 3 cm extending from the base of the right occipital bone region to the right parietal region, but in the cross-examination, he admits that the directions of the injuries has not been stated in the post mortem report and that it
would be caused by MO.2-Iron pipe. Further, he has not described if the injury was a cut or lacerated wound. He also admitted that the injuries mentioned in post mortem report could be caused if anyone throws a stone on the head. PWs.11, 12 and 13 are not eyewitnesses to the incident, but they are circumstantial witnesses and their evidence is full of improvements, omissions and contradictions. It is contended that the Investigating Officer has not examined the scribe of Ex.P5- Inquest Mahazar or any neighbouring witnesses. Further, there is delay in filing the complaint, forwarding the FIR to the jurisdictional Magistrate and recording the statements of the witnesses.
Officer-PW.17 has stated that he examined item Nos.1 to 7 and it contained 'B' group blood, but item No.8 sample blood was not examined as it was disintegrated and though item No.2 iron pipe was stained, the Scientific Officer has not stated the location of blood stains on it. It is contended that the alleged weapon/iron pipe was not sent to FSL for examination and the length of MO.2-Iron pipe is 1.5 feet and the injury mentioned in Ex.P7-post mortem report could not be caused by that. Further,
MO.2-Iron pipe was not seized at the instance of accused, but PWs.5 and 16 have produced it before the Investigating Officer.
SPP-II submitted that the accused is not entitled for any relaxation and the accused be convicted under Section 302 IPC. Hence, prayed to dismiss the appeal.
Analysis
and that they were the neighbours of PW.16 is not disputed. It is evident from Trial Court records and the evidence of PW.s 4 to 8 the family members and chance witnesses, that there was a property dispute between the accused and deceased, the accused often used to quarrel with the deceased, thus culminating to the incident in this case. The fact that PW.16 had suffered the said injuries on his left leg and Hanumanthappa succumbed to his injuries on the way to Shivamogga for further treatment is also not disputed. Therefore, this Court needs to examine whether the accused is the assailant.
Reg. evidence of injured eyewitness:
he is the relative of the deceased. He admitted that soon after the assault on the deceased, the neighbours came to the spot, he tried to snatch MO.2 from the accused, but the accused assaulted the deceased on his head using the same. He deposed that PW.5 the wife of deceased, witnessed the incident from her house and that the brother and family members of deceased shifted the injured to hospital in an autorickshaw. He says their clothes were not bloodstained including his own clothes. Also, he did not observe whether MO.2-Iron pipe was stained with blood or not.
as well. It is his consistent evidence that, soon after the assault, the family members PWs.4 to 6 and the neighbours PWs.8 and 12 came to the spot, saw the injured and PWs.8 and 12 shifted them to the hospital. No doubt, PWs.4 to 6 and PWs.8 and 12 have not stated about the manner of assault by the accused, but they are chance witnesses to the incident.
considering that he himself was injured during the incident. Thus the testimony of PW.16 is clear, cogent and credible.
Reg. evidence of the chance witnesses:
NC: 2024:KHC:12965-DB CRL.A No. 1407 of 2017
to the incident, but they are res-gestae /circumstantial witnesses.
Reg. non-examination of scribe of Inquest Mahazar:
Reg. conduct of Spot Mahazar:
and 19 with regard to drawing of spot mahazar Ex.P1, the collection of piece of blood stained cement flooring, iron pipe and a plastic mat, is reliable.
Reg. recovery of MO.2 weapon/Iron pipe:
incident took place, invariably. Further, non-mention of a particular name as to who brought MOs.2 and 3 from the house of Hanumanthappa does not render the prosecution case unacceptable. Therefore, the same does not dent the prosecution version about overt act of the accused or credibility of the version of PW.16 and contents of Ex.P1-spot mahazar. Hence, there is no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the accused in that regard.
Reg. injuries and medical evidence:
at about 9.55 p.m. at Government Hospital, Channagiri, he examined PW.16, who was brought with a history of assault and he issued wound certificate as per Ex.P6. As per the
opinion of the Doctor, injury is simple in nature and could be caused by MO.2 iron pipe.
Channakeshavamurthy, who conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Hanumanthappa. PW.10 has stated that he conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of Hanumanthappa on 08.11.2015 between 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. and found the following injuries:-
1. Fracture of the right occipital bone present measuring about 5 X 3cm extensively from the base of the right occipital bone region to the right parietal region.
2. Extra dural heamatoma present over the occipital region measuring about 5 X 8 cm extending from occipital region to parietal region.
able to establish that the deceased died on account of injuries inflicted by MO.2- Iron pipe.
Reg. seizure of bloodstained clothes of deceased and
forensic evidence:
PW.17- Dr. Lingegowda N. L, Scientific Officer, RFSL, Davanagere. He stated that upon conducting chemical analysis on the 8 material objects provided to him, he found blood stains belonging to ‘B’ group on MOs.1 to 7 and accordingly issued FSL report as per Ex.P11. In his cross examination, he admits that the sample seal was not sent along with the material objects. He stated that he has not specifically marked the portion on MO.2- Iron pipe which was covered in blood. He admits that he cannot say since how long the bloodstains were on MOs.1 to 8. Therefore, a close perusal of evidence of PW.17 and contents of Ex.P11 show that, the prosecution was able to establish that MOs.1 to 3 found at the scene of offence and MOs.4 to 7 clothes of the deceased, were stained with human blood of ‘B’ group, on account of the assault.
Reg. official witnesses:
PW.19 Sri Rudragowda Patil, the Investigating Officer, who conducted the investigation and filed the charge-sheet against the accused. The evidence of PWs.4 to 8 regarding the alleged act of the accused, establishes the motive and is corroborated by the investigation conducted by PW.19. It is further evident from the records that the police visited the spot, conducted spot mahazar as per Ex.P1 and arrested the accused. The evidence of PWs.18 and 19 aligns with that of PW.16 the injured eyewitness, therefore strengthening the case of the prosecution.
Reg. delay in filing FIR and recording statements of witnesses:
and other interested witnesses to concoct a false case against the accused. On perusal of the evidence of PWs.4 to 6, 8 and 16, it is evident that they have deposed consistently regarding the incident, shifting injured Hanumanthappa and PW.16 to Government Hospital, Channagiri and Hanumanthappa succumbing to his injuries the same night at 8:30 p.m. enroute to Shivamogga for further treatment. Later that night, PSI of Channagiri police station visited Government Hospital, Channagiri and recorded the statement of PW.16 at 10:30 p.m as per Ex.P10 complaint. At 11:30 p.m., the police registered the FIR as per Ex.P13 and forwarded it to the jurisdictional Magistrate on the following day at 6:00 a.m. The same has been corroborated by the evidence of PW.18- PSI, who deposed that on 07.11.2015 soon after receipt of information from the hospital, he visited Government hospital, Channagiri and recorded statement of injured-PW.16 as per Ex.P10, returned to the police station at 11:30 p.m., registered the case in Crime No.437/2015 and sent FIR as per Ex.P13. Therefore, it is to be held that there is no delay in lodging the complaint, registration of FIR and its forwarding to the Court.
NC: 2024:KHC:12965-DB CRL.A No. 1407 of 2017
no merit in the contention of learned counsel for the accused in that regard.
investigation alone doesn't invalidate the trial, nor does it justify the acquittal of the accused.
ORDER
and sentence passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere in S.C.No.43/2016 is hereby confirmed.
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
MN
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence is sustainable in law?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of U.P. vs. SatishRelied on¶32
AIR 2005 SC 1000 · Who else cites this
Mallappa Siddappa Alakanuru and others vs. State of KarnatakaRelied on¶32
AIR 2009 SC 2959 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri Ramesh S/o Madlappa
State by Channagiri Police represented by State Public Prosecutor
K.S. Mudagal
Venkatesh Naik T
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
