Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 402 (KAR)

STATE OF KARNATAKA v. HANUMANTHARAYA

2016-05-30

ANAND BYRAREDDY, L.NARAYANA SWAMY

body2016
JUDGMENT : ANAND BYRAREDDY, J. 1. Heard Shri. P. S. Patil the learned Government Pleader appearing for the State and the learned counsel appearing for the accused-respondents. 2. The facts of the case are as follows: According to the complainant, one Siddaramappa Kanalli, a resident of Vajjal village, Shorapur Taluk within the jurisdiction of Hunasagi Police Station, it is stated that his father Thimmanna Kanalli had three wives viz. Sahadevamma, Eeramma and Basamma. Through Sahadevamma, complainant's father had begotten a daughter-Bharamawa; the second wife had borne three daughters and she had no male issues; and third wife Basamma had begotten five sons. The complainant and his brothers were said to be residing together and eking out their livelihood by agriculture. The complainant's sister Shanthamma was said to have been given in marriage to Devappa, who is accused No.1. It was stated that Devappa was not on cordial terms with his wife and he had turned her out after frequent quarrels, and Shanthamma was staying with the complainant and his family. It was alleged that Devappa was insisting with the complainant and his brothers to send Shanthamma back to her matrimonial home. But, the complainant and his brothers had questioned the manner of treatment meted out to Shanthamma and refused to send her. It was further alleged that accused No.1 Devappa had advanced a hand loan of Rs. 10,000/- to one Gurappa Naik of Vajjal Thanda at the instance of the complainant's brother/Hanamantaraya. It transpires that Gurappa Naik was paying interest on the loan which was directly collected by Devappa from time to time. But, after sometime, Gurappa Naik is said to have left the village without discharging the loan. Devappa had called upon Shanthamma to demand that her brother refund the money, since Gurappa Naik was no longer available; But, Hanumantharaya is said to have refused to repay the balance amount as it was direct transaction between Gurappa Naik and accused No. 1. This had led to much acrimony and worsened the matrimonial relationship of Devappa and Shanthamma. On 12th July, 2005 at about 7.00 p.m. the complainant's brother Hanamantaraya is said to have visited the house of accused No.1-Devappa in order to enquire about a reconciliation between Devappa and Shanthamma. It transpires further that hot words were exchanged by Hanamantaraya and Devappa which led to Hanamantaraya being assaulted. On 12th July, 2005 at about 7.00 p.m. the complainant's brother Hanamantaraya is said to have visited the house of accused No.1-Devappa in order to enquire about a reconciliation between Devappa and Shanthamma. It transpires further that hot words were exchanged by Hanamantaraya and Devappa which led to Hanamantaraya being assaulted. Hanamantaraya then said to have come back home and reported the incident to his brothers about the ill-treatment meted out to him, t which, Hanamantaraya and all his broth together decided to visit the house of Dev and confront him as to the manner of the' conduct. When they were proceeding tow-house of the accused, it transpires that the accused had all gathered on the roof of their, house and on noticing that the complainant and his brothers were approaching their house, they had abused them in foul language and started pelting stones at them. At which Hanamantaraya is said to have proceeded towards the rear of the house of the accused and had climbed a staircase to reach the terrace at which point he is said to have been assaulted with deadly weapons by the accused as a result he succumbed to the injuries. Though he was rushed to hospital, he had been declared 'brought dead'. It is in this background that the complaint came to be lodged. After further investigation the accused had been taken into custody. After registering the complaint for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 504, 336 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code 1860, a charge-sheet was presented. After completion of the investigation the case has been registered before the Committal Court and after furnishing of the charge-sheet the matter had been committed to the Sessions Court for Trial. The accused persons had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. After examination of the accused as required under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and recording the denial of guilt by the accused, the Court below had framed the following points for consideration: 1. Whether the prosecution proves that the death of the deceased Hanamantaraya is homicidal one as alleged: 2. After examination of the accused as required under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and recording the denial of guilt by the accused, the Court below had framed the following points for consideration: 1. Whether the prosecution proves that the death of the deceased Hanamantaraya is homicidal one as alleged: 2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on 12.7.2005 in the night at about 8.30 p.m. accused Nos.1 to 6 on the roof of house of accused No. 1 Devappa situated at Vajjal village, being members of an unlawful assembly and armed with deadly weapons like axe, clubs, stones and chillies powder etc. and committed the offence of rioting and in prosecution of their common object abused the complainant and his brothers in filthy language and insulted them and assaulted C.W section 9 to 11 by pelting stones and caused injuries to them so rashly and negligently and thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148 and also under Sections 504 and 338 Read With 149, Indian Penal Code as alleged? 3. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place accused Nos. 1 to 6 being members of an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of it, all of them on the roof of house of accused No. 1 Devappa did commit murder by intentionally causing the death of Hanamantaraya by throwing chilly powder into his eyes by accused No.6 Kantamma and then accused No.1 Devappa assaulted with axe on his head and on the neck by abusing him in filthy language and committed his murder, the offence punishable under Sections 302 Read With 149 Indian Penal Code as alleged? The Court having answered point No. 1 in the affirmative; point No.2 in the negative; and point No.3 partly in the affirmative and negative, has proceeded to convict the accused No.1 - Devappa for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- apart from giving the benefit to period under which he was under detention as set-off against the sentence. The court had acquitted accused Nos.2 to 6 of all the charges levelled against them. 10,000/- apart from giving the benefit to period under which he was under detention as set-off against the sentence. The court had acquitted accused Nos.2 to 6 of all the charges levelled against them. Accused No.1 had preferred an appeal against the said judgment, however, had felt to withdraw the case as not pressed. 3. The present appeal is by the State questioning the acquittal of accused Nos.2 to 6. It is seen from the judgment of the Trial Court that after narrating the facts and after extensively stating the contents of the evidence of the several witnesses and while finding that the charges against accused No. 1 were established beyond all reasonable doubt, has further opined that insofar as accused Nos.2 to 6 are concerned the Court below has discussed the particular evidence of witnesses, viz. PW section 6, 7, 8 and 11 who have spoken about the alleged involvement of accused No.2 to 6 and has noticed that the accused were all residing separately and the very presence of all the accused at the spot was inexplicable and that there was no cogent evidence produced by the prosecution through the evidence of above-mentioned material witnesses, as to their presence at the spot. Further, the Court has also found that there was no specific overt acts alleged against accused Nos.2 to 6 in the evidence of complainant and other witnesses; and further the fact of accused No.6 - Kanthamma, throwing chilly-powder into the eyes of the deceased Hanamantharaya was found by the Court below to be false, on the face of it, because neither on the dead body at the time of inquest nor at the time of postmortem was there any trace of chilly-powder found on the deceased and there was no such recitals in the inquest conducted by the investigating officer with regard to traces of chilly-powder either on the face or on the clothes of the deceased Hanamantaraya, and therefore, the Court has concluded that this accusation is an afterthought and it was the theory of the complainant in his evidence and was certainly an improved version to suit his purpose. Therefore, accused No.1-Devappa alone was found to have the motivation of committing the offence and the axe used in the assault of the deceased was found coated with the blood of the deceased which matched with the blood group of the deceased and in this regard has referred to the medical evidence to conclude that it was Devappa alone who had caused the death of the deceased and the involvement and overt acts alleged against the other accused were never found established and accordingly has acquitted them. 4. Though the learned Government Pleader seeks to contend in support of the grounds urged in the appeal that there was material evidence which the Court below has overlooked in arriving at its conclusion as to the involvement or otherwise or accused Nos.2 to 6. The evidence of several witnesses, through whose statements the learned Government Pleader has taken us do not indicate that the Court below was wrong in its conclusions. The time of incident was late evening and there was admittedly not much light to enable all the witnesses to have a clear picture as to what had transpired. The assault on the deceased had taken place on the terrace of the house of accused No. 1, and admittedly, the deceased had proceeded to the rear of the house and climbed a staircase to access the terrace at which point, he must have been assaulted with an axe and as found by the court below, obviously, by accused No. 1. The involvement or the overt acts attributed to the other accused and sought to be stated as if it was witnessed by the several witnesses has not evoked the confidence of the Trial Court and, certainly, does not evoke the confidence of this Bench. Having regard to the time at which the incident has taken place and having regard to the admitted circumstance that the complainant and others were prevented from accessing the terrace or going towards the staircase to reach the terrace, they could not have been privy to the alleged overt acts alleged against the accused Nos.2 to 6. Having regard to the time at which the incident has taken place and having regard to the admitted circumstance that the complainant and others were prevented from accessing the terrace or going towards the staircase to reach the terrace, they could not have been privy to the alleged overt acts alleged against the accused Nos.2 to 6. The Court below has rightly held that the accused Nos.2 to 6 would have the benefit of doubt, as the prosecution has failed to place cogent evidence in support of the allegations which again were found to be inconsistent and contradictory as pointed out by the Trial Court in its detailed and reasoned judgment. Hence, we find no ground for interference. The appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.