Huchappa @ Hucharayappa and Ors. versus State of Karnataka

Penal Code, 1860 - s. 326 - Conviction under - Appeal by accused- Dismissal of, by High Court - Challenge c^to-^{Held: Approach of High Court was casual-}^{It did not apply} its mind to various contentions raised on behalf of accusedappellant - Hence, matter remitted to High Court - Practice and Procedure - Criminal appeal - Manner of disposal.

¶12

According to the prosecution, the 14 accused D persons formed themselves into members of an unlawful assembly and assaulted a person with deadly weapons causing grievous injuries to him and his consequent death. The Trial Court acquitted 11 accused but convicted the other three accused i.e. Appellants under s.326 IPC. E^{Theconvictionof Appellants was upheld by the High} Court. Hence the present appeal.

¶13

Remitting the matter to High Court for fresh disposal, the Court

¶14

F HELD: The High Court's judgment is a bundle of confusion. Since the High Court has not applied its mind to various contentions raised on behalf of the appellant and has in a casual manner disposed of the appeal, the matter is remitted to High Court for fresh disposal in G^{accordance with law. [Paras7,9)[990-F,G;991-B,CJ}

¶15

·-

¶16

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 577 of 2008.

¶17

From the Judgment dated 27.7.2006 of the High Court of

¶18

H

¶19

988

¶20

HUCHAPPA@ HUCHARAYAPPA AND ORS. v. STATE 989 OF KARNATAKA [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

¶21

-,

¶22

Karnataka at Bangalore in Crl. A. No. 346/2001 (SJ)

¶23

A

¶24

N.D.B. Raju, Bharathi Raju and N. Ganpathy for the Appellants.

¶25

Anitha Shenoy for the Respondent.

¶26

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

¶27

B

¶28

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.

¶29

Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned single judge of the High Court upholding the judgment c of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Shimoga in SC No.37 of 1995 convicting the three appellants for offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and sentence each one of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each with default stipulation. There were originally 14 accused D persons. The trial court found the present appellants.guilty and others were found not to be guilty under Section 235(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Cr.P.C.'). Originally all the accused persons were charged for having committed offence under Sections 143,144, 147, 148, 109, 504, E 324, 323 and 506 read with Section 149 IPC. In view of death of Mahadevappa (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') on 28.11.1994, Section 302 IPC was added.

¶30

The prosecution version as unfolded during trial was as follows:

¶31

F

¶32

-,

¶33

The accused persons 1 to 14 forming themselves into members of unlawful assembly, with deadly weapons assaulted CW-1 and caused fracture of his left leg. CW-1 consequent to the injuries and septicemia died after five days while under G treatment. The F.l.R. is lodged by the deceased. The contents of the F.l.R. implicated all the accused persons. PWs. 2 and 5 are the eye witnesses to the incident. They also implicate A 1 to A-14 as assailants who caused grievous injuries on CW-1, ultimately resulting in his death.

¶34

H

¶35

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶36

990

¶37

[2008] 5 S.C.R.

¶38

A 4. As noted above, after the death of the deceased, another complaint was filed and the case was registered as one in relation to the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The trial court as noted above found accused 4 to 14 to be not guilty. An appeal was preferred by the appellants which, as noted B above was dismissed. The High Court disposed of the appeal observing as follows:

¶39

A

¶40

c

¶41

"The trial court has grossly erred in acquitting A4 to A 14. Since Section 149 is invoked and acquitted accused would be equally and vicariously liable for the acts of A 1 to A3 as they have shared common object and they had also participated in the assault. The State has not filed an appeal against illegal acquittal.

¶42

D

¶43

E

¶44

The trial court convicted A 1 to A3 for committing offence under Section 326 l.P.C. The injury was caused on the non-vital part, no intention to cause the injury which is likely to cause death and no knowledge of causing death could be inferred from the overt acts. Therefore conviction u/s 326 IPC is sound and proper. Looking into the consequence and ghastly act, the sentence imposed is also sound and proper and do not call for interference. The appeal is dismissed."

¶45

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the High Court's judgment is clearly unsustainable being F unreasoned.

¶46

Learned counsel for the respondent-State supported the judgment.

¶47

To say the least the High Court's judgment is a bundle G of confusion. The High Court held that the trial court has erred in acquitting A4 to A 14, sihce Section 149 was invoked and acquitted accused persons should be equally and vicariously liable as they shared common object of A 1 to A3 and also participated in the assault.

¶48

H

¶49

The High Court noted that the State has not filed an

¶50

HUCHAPPA@ HUCHARAYAPPA AND ORS. v. STATE 991 OF KARNATAKA [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

¶51

B

¶52

appeal against the "illegal acquittal". The High Court upheld the conviction holding that injury was caused on the non-vital part which was likely to cause the injury which is likely to cause death and no knowledge of causing death could be inferred from the overt acts. Therefore the conviction was maintained and the appeal was dismissed.

¶53

A

¶54

Since the High Court has not applied its mind to various contentions raised on behalf of the appellant and has in a casual manner disposed of the appeal, we have no hesitation in setting aside the impugned Judgment. We remit the matter to the High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. Since the C Criminal Appeal is to the year 2001, we request the High Court to dispose of the appeal as early as practicable preferably by the end of October, 2008.

¶55

It is stated that an application for suspension of the sentence of the accused persons and grant of bail is shall be moved in the High Court. If the same is filed, it shall be dealt with in accordance with law.

¶56

0

¶57

B.B.B.

¶58

Matter remitted to High Court.

Huchappa @ Hucharayappa and Ors. v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Huchappa @ Hucharayappa and Ors. v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Collector & Dist. Magistrate and Ors. versus S. Sultan

B.S.N.L. Ltd. & Anr. versus Bhupender Minhas & Ors.

Director, Horticulture Punjab & Ors. versus Jagjivan Parshad

State of Arunachal Pradesh versus Nezone Law House, Assam

Godfrey Phillips India Ltd. versus Ajay Kumar

Union of India & Anr. versus V.N. Saxena