IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 08"" DAY OF APRIL, 2008
PRESENT
THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE K.SREEDHAR:.R-AO: If
AND
THE HONBLE MR.JUS'FIC}3?{@IAWAD':RAHI1:M I
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.é?>52=_/z2O0I5_--v_T'.A"~ = "
BETWEEN: A I I
PEERAPPA S /0 C'PIANL}'F{AMI}:I:I?dBAR'I"
40 YRS, R/O 1NcH--EGERUg'AEEAEPIJR
GULBARGA ~ A
AAAA . A JEAPPELLANT
{By SH; AMRESTI-«.S"ROJA-,.,.ADV.)
AND: I I A
3 {THE S"1'A'"I'E_V'C)'F KARNATAKA THROUGH
_ V. AEZALPUR PGETCE STN
RESPONDENT
I A {ByI.Sr.i EIEHAVAN1 SINGH, SPP}
* " «THIS CRLA FILED U/S 374 CR.P.C BY THE
- T'AO;i>\zQcA'1'E FOR THE APPELLANT/S AGAINST THE
'-JJUDGEMNT DT. 15.9.2005 PASSED BY THE P.o..
TE.HT.c--111 GULBARGA IN S.C.NO. 339/2000,
'QCONVICTING THE APPELLANT~ACCUSED FOR THE
« OFFENCE P/U/S. 302 OF IPC AND SENTENCING HIM
TO UNDERGO IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE. THE
APPELLANTSACCUSED PRAY THAT THE ABOVE
ORDER MAY BIB) SET ASIDE.
%»a"''
3
, .,..
This Criminal Appeal coming on for FINAL
HEARING on this day, JAWAD RAHIM J, delivered the
foliowinso: --
JUDGMENT
The accused has been convicted for the
punishable under Section 302 of IPC vide
dated 15.9.2005 in S.C.No.339/2000 o1*1.V”t’f’1ie_’:v.i;i.ieV’_’ofu.
Judge. Fast Track Court, Gulbargla,
to homicidal death of Ramabai. A15;1)ara_yab,KA1ir11’bar’;:
2. The materia} preposition ontiie bas’i~s_of ‘Vvhich the
accused AV’:;grrai1gi¢e’d,AVV”‘ tire.d””‘and convicted are:
Ramabai, owns iezri’6i.e”tL) ‘”2–2.I_i”~ext’ent of 2 acres and was
cultivating mother and the mother
_.._of the accused as’-alvso mother of complainant are sisters
situate in Inchagera viiiage. She used
to visit her brother. It is alleged that
during sugjhirizirsits in the past, the accused raised the
gland disp’i§teV,”against the compiainarat Shivasharanappa
“fir.u”‘S’icid.aa.ppa”‘Kumbar and his brother were arrested and
“–Tci<::t,'c1ir1_e'd. Ramabai heiped them for ()btainii1g bail,
.,._'"ié\rhi%ch had angei*ed the accused.
? 53
:’;7\/’%’/
3. On 27.63.2000 in the evening around 3.p.m
Ramdbai after having tea in ihe house
complainam, proceeded to re1.urr1 to her places’:She’é}feh£’v—— ~
to {he bus stop in the viliage. wh;i_ch._is Jtiie» \’}’i’ii,.r;;_1g,e’e-.
gate and was waiting for t1″e1hs13’ri..7._it3he”Was in”
company of Ahnaraya KLEfI1b’e1\F._ At .__th;aVtV a
tempo passed to which _She s’ig_§nai.”‘As she was
trying to board the vehig%1c;’e-.{h;3 accjucsed came from
Harijanwada pushed her to the.
groundy” h’1″‘i1e1f(:aft,ei:’ “he”.s’tari,ed'”assaulting her with the
spear. Anh_araye1’«ifnrhzidiaieiy rushed to save her. but
he made ari4″‘att’e’n)V1:;£ i)’I1Vi’1:if1}. Annaraya tried to escape,
V.”but”vU:1€3,.é1C(?’~!iS€d c’)Ve’r”p()wered him and assaulted him
Qjanxbiyel (spear). Pw.7 Shivagorid who
runs’ a hvoiceiijhearby saw the incident, and rushed to the
‘A “~.__v’sp0t td Ramabai and then saw Anharaya also being
A Aiohg with him the complainant and Pw.9~
.. Shivasharahappa, Pw.i 1~Sha1’anayya joined in rescuing
Vthe victim. but by that time. the accused had
7. He would further contend that if the rnanner of
assault disclosed by the witnesses are applied t.o t_he
medical evidence, the injuries as noticed by the do”(:–t.or
would not have been caused on the victims as a..l.l.e”geds-
the witnesses. This in short is only e1ss_er’t.ive.f;:-oint*f
canvassed by the appellant.
8. Per contra learned Additional State Public
Prosecutor has sL1pport.«ed t.h,e impugned judgment.
However. we have_ 1’t3~E1I_)j)T?E3tlS.€d-,l,l’1L” on record.
9. We. h«ave- Vrigoticlevd_”*~ftf(3–;11 the evidence of Pw.7,
Shivagond titett t1.€.’~ is’=_arT”independent witness who had
‘”‘undv%.sp1i1’ted’iy rui’1i”1’ihg a hotel. T he incident has
front. of the hotel at the bus stop. He
has-..reache_d’..-the spot as he had been noticing arrival of
“”–._V’RAama.bs.i” in the cornpariy of Anharaya as also the
” _ teem}:-iainant.. He has noticed her not only arriving at
do Spot, but mitempting to board the vehicle. He was
crossexamiraed on that aspect… The second part of his
evidence relates to overt. acts of the accused. The
4. incised u_.>oun.d over {he back vertical
2″ X I 1/2″ margins clean simaied bezween
scapular, over 12″ thoracic uerzibra.
5. Horizorital incised wound. over the.
back. between two scapuiar”, i 5%” X 1/2″ X
6. Abdominal cauiiy isféiled LLJIII1 L.
11. T he external injuries co1’reé§po:nd”‘t.c>
injuries, which doctor i’oL:r1d’-‘r;§’i’i2E:r thewdie5ec1′,i’e:n””of”the
body. From the e:e:i’acie~;i”” –pio~rt:i’o.n oi””t.–he-dwound
certificate. it is clear t11ai,’i.he.5Ci:octoi*.ffoiL::?:d an oblique
incised woundnver the ;8!;’:..” end then vertical
abrasionéiVi’o’ia.:t’he iT1éic”t’;~i.j:es1i ai’1’Ci”‘b”1ood on the abdominal
cavity. ‘We «do not:i»findvai1-gr.i.;1consistency in the evidence
of Pym? Sh4iV*a_gVg’oa1d had ah-;o stated that first the
V’ “‘–acCi.1eed’e :as’sfau1t,ed”‘0’nthe back of the deceased Ramabai
~~..W’i’.1.–iCh ev:’cQf1’eep’o.:1ds the injury on the vertebra and
injuuies.~ihi’z4n{i on the chest. amd oi1’1er parts. “1’herefore.’
K ‘4”-Wthe eeidence of Pun? Shivagond is fully corroborated
‘ =fi’omA”ti1e medical evidence.
12. Likewise the overt acts E1t,tE’ib{.1tl€3C1 1,0 the accused
by these witnesses also shows that Annaraya suffered in
E,
14. The fact that Pw.9 Shiva-1s11ara1121ppe1 a}()11g_wit11
Shivagond and Shararlayyaa iried to (‘.h£;1S€ the a.Vc§Ci’Li’S–ed.yy
and apprellenclcd is also <:orr(:)b0ra1.ed §;"11(°T'
testimony of Sharanayya. 'I'11eref0re';"=.v¢1.d().; «:1TOi:«_find:'.«in.'–»y
any way eyewitness account _;;_§ive11'by"t_hese 'wiAtm:.sssEs"§S"
ciliscrepanl or is divergge111: btiigius»virtually=c(h"sr1'{:.boVfat.ive
to the medical evidenc7¢'(ny:1 r{;3C()_l;Ci". 1..
15. What t1?_f;1n«e§j;3’ijfed”–.;11E%r’éV21fijcfVié’ important. The
accused.Sé1id«’:f¥;O’ liave :3s'(:a~péd from (the place by
c21rryirig. spear. *f”‘~1.”1i’e._.E-;x;’i’c:}.er1(1e of Pwxll shows that
ParaIa1esh\2{f21rV’ieftv–.t,ht: p1ac:e and he boarded a jeep and
“W.reached:Afza1puf”P01ice Station. The Subdnspector of
PQ1i{:e vVi*e.C'(f;rc1ed the stz1{‘,c:111e:’1K. has; also deposed to
thiS__ and it corroborates the t;est:im()ny of Pw.9.
in tl.ie_.’:’rep()ri’, Pw.9 Shivash2:1ranappa had given 21
K.yVr1a.r.r”at.i0n and Sequence of evellts in1′.imati11g the
.-.pres<:nce of persons who 112101 seen the occurrence apart
from him.
16. Draxvirlg of panchas and inquest on the dead
bodies supported by the stat’eme1’1t of i11ciepe’r1.ti’e_1i’€;V
panch witnesses and therefore, t.he fact that .t–,’\5u’o–e ‘
were assaulted by the accusedfiis”-st1ppor_tedV:. .tji:1e”?.,
overwhelmirig evidence of Pvvf? ‘–Shivago_nd_. ..
Shivasharanappa and PW.1′-lo»'”*-tSharana3rya_, “PuE_11
Sharanayya is not at”i’~e_lative””oi:’t “eA.._vict.ini’.”* “He is a
resident of the viilage who 1<.nm«t;s as also
the victim and t§'te:e1Witr:2__ess w'11o«.\2K;'efe. Vp_rvese11t at the spot.
He hast"s'té1te.ci1i,tahaft."*he»Was sinokirtg beedi near kirana
shop. which he I'xa"c1 (;vEose§t._.and had gone to Inchegara
bus stop. W.hi1e.he w.as'~~s waiting he saw Ramabai and
“‘v.Ann.a:raya tvalk.i11g\.”r’it.h each other. ‘l’herefore. it is seen
alreaciy present at the bus stop when
th’e._ reached the spot. In the cross»
V”»examin.atioI1 he has stated that: when accused was
u”.a’ssa_:i3lt1ng to Ramabai with t\/10.11 spear. at that
.. Jfioment Shivsharana, Shivagond and Pararneshwar also
went for rescue of Ramabai. but accused after
assaulting her ran towards Armaraya to assauit. him
and all the four persons raii b<3hind the E1('('L.lS€f(.1.,V"-.H'}'aS
assertion could not be dislodged. We are s2i.1§vis'i'ie'dj~–the___
manner of assault upon the vie_t.i.m_s as"'tIi'sCtl'0s'ed"by,
Pw.1l is e01'1sist.eni witih the eyewi't'Iiejsf's A~tiicei()_L1'i~1t,'§
17. In the result the prose-91i.ti0ii~..%has “st1.bsVt3int:iated
the charge against t1’1él’;’x’C’.(‘,”[–..l_.V’S’f%;3(f’J byf_AdiI*£’:et. eyewitness
account and egskidelzig-e.’ we find is
believable 2iti(l’:_11d’th3i..;1g’~is«.__sf~:.o_\2i9:1’E0 make it doubtful.
18. A”p=a19t4., ffoiii the”ablimeVevidexicte. it is seen that the
aecuS.€_’d aft»:2i” z5i’1=*i’esiee1 had giveii a voluntary
v.”v–.St8;*{.e’:i1’1L€-Eli.*1eadiiig'”i;()’V1’eCOv€I’y of the object used in the
meisfsétult”:2gi1r1vi4€tl’1: marked during the trial MO} 1. The
F51, Repzoifigegarding the preseime of bloodstains on the
seizedvekbjectti is at Ex.Pl9. shows that l\/10.15 was
A’–..b1Q0:dst.ained. The recovery of these bloodstained
it ,_srtieles are supported from the evidence of Pw.8 who
has also states that on 4.7.2000. the accused guided to
a hut on the land and after visit,.i1’1g the he took
5
A<~c*:*c:iing._3;1y. {he-= a;:>pt?a1 is dismissed.
KVN *