Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1576 (KAR)

ASHOK NINGANAGOUDA PATIL v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

2017-12-01

K.SOMASHEKAR, RAVI MALIMATH

body2017
JUDGMENT : K. Somshekhar, J. This appeal is by the convicted accused No. 1 against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Sessions Judge, Bagalkot, in S.C. No. 02/2011. 2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution is as under: That PW 1-Mahantesh is the complainant. Ex.P1 is the complaint. In Ex.P1, the complainant has stated that he is the resident of Chikkashellikeri village and the son of deceased Basappa and their family is having agricultural lands at the abutting village Kalasakoppa. About three years back the deceased Basappa had purchased a pair of bullocks for Rs. 14,000/- from one Ashok Vasanad of Khajjidoni village, and that he had paid Rs. 10,000/- at the time of purchase of bullocks, and had told to pay the remaining amount later. After six months, accused No. 1-the relative of Ashok Vasanad started quarrelling with the deceased Basappa asking him to pay the balance amount. The deceased, therefore, sold the bullocks and paid Rs. 4,000/- in the hands of Ramachandrappa Patil. The accused No. 1 became angry since the deceased had paid the amount to Ramachandrappa Patil and therefore, he quarrelled with the deceased joining with accused No. 2. It is further alleged that once accused No. 1 had assaulted the deceased with stone and clubs and threatened with dire consequences. The deceased Basappa had filed a complaint against the accused. Since then, accused Nos. 1 to 5 developed enmity with the deceased and were telling that they will not spare him. Due to which, the deceased never visiting alone to his lands. On 7.10.2010, at about 6.00 p.m. when the complainant and his father were going to their lands on bicycle in Kalasakoppa village from Chikkashellikeri and they were proceeding near water tank near irrigation office, all the accused (1 to 5) forming unlawful assembly with an intention to kill the deceased, chased him till the wall of the house of one Appasappagoudar and in spite of request of the complainant to leave his father, accused-2 and 3 held the hands of the deceased and told accused No. 1 to kill him and accordingly, accused No. 1 assaulted with an axe-MO12 on the head of the deceased and accused Nos. 4 and 5 held the legs of the deceased and threw him on the ground and accused No. 1 again gave two to three blows on the head of Basappa with the means of an axe-MO12, due to which the deceased died on the spot. In pursuance of the act of the accused, a complaint was filed by the complainant. A case was registered in Bagalkot Rural Police Station in Crime No. 84/2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 504, 506, 302 and 109 read with Section 149 of the IPC. Subsequent to that, Investigating Officer took up the case for investigation and laid the charge sheet against the accused consisting the statement of witnesses and mahazars conducted by him. The charges were framed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty. 3. In order to prove the case against the accused No. 1, the prosecution in all examined PWs 1 to 19 and got marked Exs.P1 to P30(b) and M.Os.1 to 15. 4. On behalf of the defence, no evidence has been adduced. However, Exs.P12 and P14 were exhibited. 5. The learned Sessions Judge, after analysing the evidence on record, has held that the appellant/accused No. 1 is guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 506 and 302 of IPC and has sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Further, he has sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC. Aggrieved by that, the appellant/accused No. 1 has filed this appeal. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant during the course of arguments contended that the learned Sessions Judge without appreciating the case of the prosecution in proper perspective has held the conviction against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 506 and 302 of IPC. Further, he contended that the complaint was filed by one Mahantesh, who is none other than the son of the deceased. PWs.4 to 9 are the eye witnesses to the incident. But PWs.8 and 9 have not supported the case of the prosecution. Further, he contended that the complaint was filed by one Mahantesh, who is none other than the son of the deceased. PWs.4 to 9 are the eye witnesses to the incident. But PWs.8 and 9 have not supported the case of the prosecution. As there is shadow of doubt in the case of the prosecution in put forthing the evidence, this evidence is required to be considered by allowing the appeal by setting aside the judgment of conviction and sentence held against accused No. 1. It is further contended that PW 1 being the author of the complaint at Ex.P1, he has not stated anything about accused Nos. 2 to 5 but he has only stated accused Nos. 2 to 5 were present at the time of the incident which is alleged to be committed by accused No. 1. PWs.4 and 5 have stated accused Nos. 2 to 5 were present on the spot at the time of the incident when accused No. 1 assaulted the deceased with the means of MO-12-Axe. PWs. 1, 4 to 7 have turned hostile and have not supported the case of the prosecution. Even some of the eye witnesses have stated that PWs.2 to 5 were present on the scene of offence. There seems to be contradictory evidence. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against accused Nos. 2 to 5 meaning thereby accused No. 1 who assaulted the deceased with the means of MO 12-Axe appears to be clouds of doubt. MO 12-Axe was seized at the instance of the accused No. 1 as per his voluntary statement Ex.P29. Therefore, learned counsel for the appellant prays to consider the grounds urged in this appeal keeping in view that there are discrepancies and contradictions to each other in respect of the evidence of PWs.4 to 9 coupled with the evidence on PW1, who is the author of the complaint and also an eye witness to the incident so also the evidence of PWs. 11 and 12 who have not supported the case of the prosecution by setting aside the impugned judgment and conviction and to held acquittal. 7. 11 and 12 who have not supported the case of the prosecution by setting aside the impugned judgment and conviction and to held acquittal. 7. On controvertible to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused No. 1, learned Additional SPP appearing for the State has taken up the contention that PW 1 being the author of the complaint at Ex.P1, who is none other than the son of the deceased Basappa and also being an eye witness to the incident knows how accused No. 1 assaulted deceased Basappa on the vital parts of the head with the means of MO-12 Axe and accused Nos. 2 to 5 were present by holding the deceased firmly. Merely because PWs. 11 and 12 did not support the case of the prosecution, it cannot be said that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against the accused No. 1/appellant who assaulted the deceased Basappa with the means of MO-12 Axe on the vital parts of the head as indicated in Ex.30 of the post mortem report. It is further contended that to maintain the impugned judgment and defend the same. 8. Heard the arguments and examined the material evidence on record. 9. As already stated, PW 1 is the author of the complaint, who is none other than the son of the deceased Basappa, who was very much present on the date of incident, being an eyewitness. He has stated in his evidence that accused No. 1 had earlier also quarrelled with his father and he had vengeance against his father since he had paid the balance amount of Rs. 4,000/- in the hands of Ramachandragouda and he had assaulted his father with a stone and his father had filed complaint against accused No. 1. He has further stated that accused No. 1 had threatened his father to kill him. On the date of incident, accused Nos. 2 to 5 who formed unlawful assembly with an intention to kill the deceased Basappa, accused No. 1 assaulted the deceased with the means of MO-12 Axe on the vital parts of the head. 10. PWs.2 and 3 are the panch witnesses to Ex.P7-inquest panchanama. PWs.4 to 9 are the eye-witnesses to the incident and out of them PWs.4 to 7 supported the case of prosecution and PWs.8 and 9 have not supported the case of the prosecution. 10. PWs.2 and 3 are the panch witnesses to Ex.P7-inquest panchanama. PWs.4 to 9 are the eye-witnesses to the incident and out of them PWs.4 to 7 supported the case of prosecution and PWs.8 and 9 have not supported the case of the prosecution. PWs.6 and 7 are the brothers of the deceased. 11. Ex.P8 is the spot panchanama. Ex.P9 is the seizure of clothes of the deceased panchanama. Ex.P10 is the seizure of clothes of accused No. 1. Ex.P11 is the seizure of axe at the instance of accused No. 1 on his voluntary statement, PW 10-wife of the deceased who came to the spot on hearing of his husband's death. PW 11 being Ashok Vasanad with whom the deceased had purchased a pair of bullocks. PW 12 being Ramachandragouda, in the hands of whom the deceased had paid balance of Rs. 4,000/-. PWs. 11 and 12 have not supported the case of the prosecution. PWs. 13 and 18 being the CPIs have investigated the case. PW14 being the PSI has received the complaint and recorded the FIR as per Ex.P24. PW15 being the Police Constable had carried the FIR. PW16 being die Police Constable had carried the seized articles to FSL, Belgaum. PW17 being the Police Constable had taken the dead body of the deceased to Hospital for post-mortem examination. PW19 being the doctor conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased as per Ex.P30 by indicating injuries inflicting over the person of the deceased. 12. PW4 is an independent witness for the prosecution. He has specifically stated that he knew that there was a dispute between accused No. 1 and the deceased in respect of payment of balance amount of purchase of bullocks from one Ashok Vasanad. He has further stated that on the date of incident he and Shrishail-PW6 were proceeding from Chikkashellikeri to the land of Shrishail situated on Khajjidoni road and when they reached near Irrigation office in Kalaskoppa, they saw the dead body of Basappa, who was murdered. He has further stated that he has not seen accused No. 1 assaulting Basappa with axe on his head. That the son of the deceased was present on the spot at the time of incident. He has further stated that due to fear they did not got to rescue the deceased from the clutches of the accused. He has further stated that he has not seen accused No. 1 assaulting Basappa with axe on his head. That the son of the deceased was present on the spot at the time of incident. He has further stated that due to fear they did not got to rescue the deceased from the clutches of the accused. The deceased had died on the scene of crime by inflicted injuries over the vital part of the head as indicated in Ex.P30 post-mortem report. The evidence of PW4 corroborates with the evidence of PW1 the author of the complaint-Ex.P1. Therefore, PWs.1 and 4 being the prime witness to the prosecution have stated in their evidence that accused No. 1 assaulted the deceased Basappa mercilessly with the means of MO12-Axe and though the deceased started running from his clutches, in spite of that, accused No. 1 chased the deceased and again assaulted the deceased with the axe on the vital parts of the head. PW6 being the brother of the deceased has also specifically stated in his evidence that accused No. 1 assaulted the deceased with the means of MO 12-Axe. Similarly, PW7 who is also another brother of the deceased has also stated in his evidence that accused No. 1 assaulted the deceased with the means of MO12-Axe. 13. The learned Sessions Judge, keeping in view that the prosecution has examined PWs.11 to 19, got marked Exs. 1 to 30(b) and MO-12 Axe used by the accused in committing the murder of the deceased Basappa as indicated at Ex.P30-post-mortem report, the complaint-Ex.P1 filed by the complainant, who is none other than the son of the deceased and prime witness to the incident and his evidence corroborated with the evidence of PWs.4 to 7, has rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the guilt against the accused No. 1 beyond reasonable doubt by placing cogent, corroborative, positive and acceptable evidence to probablise that accused No. 1 has caused the death of the deceased with the means of MO-12 Axe on account of enemity between accused No. 1 and the deceased, convicted him for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 506 of IPC. 14. 14. Therefore, we are of the opinion that there is no perversity found in the impugned judgment and no justifiable grounds to be urged by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused No. 1 in this appeal to call for interference the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence held against the accused for the charges levelled against him. 15. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons and findings, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER 1. The appeal filed by the appellant/accused No. 1 under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is hereby dismissed. 2. Consequently, the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bagalkot in S.C. No. 02/2011 dated 03.04.2012 is hereby confirmed.