IN THE HIGH COUPE'? or? KARNATAKA, CIRCW? %fB%é:§:C;«:
AT DHARWAD '
DATED THES THE 10TH DAY"'o;:*«.
9:2EsEm%'~ :f] zj % %
THE HONBLE MR.
THE HONBLE ME'-2. Ji}Sa"I'VI«i§E.f".?'&;'5"i\'}'V v$§:i:¢;c;pALA GOWDA
IE3:-i_:;__'1_'§A"V:',:A_1V é1
Between: V " V '
State by
v = V' ' ...Appe11a1"1t
{Ey Smt. 'I1 NI."'V(3'flya.t1."lf"I} ':3];?.*>}
_: ' V:V";'¥_.sif1€)A};{'~?\f£z;i,I:}21g3pa Matikoppa
V 2.
W__/ 0 v__}'vfI211£:3ppa Matikoppa
'3; .. Suérfia
._ V W'/Ao Irappa Mattikoppa
_ A1} are residents of
§HOflRidibb3
A .----Ta1u1r;Bai}ho:1ga}
{By Sri Dim'-::sh Kuikami, Amicus (curiae for R 1.)
H . Respondents
2
This Crimina} Appeai is filed under Section 378(1) :35
{3} 0f the Code of Crimina} Procedure to grant iaaive to
appea} against the judwxent and order of acq11itt2flf”‘c1éiied
25.01.2002 passed by the Iearnsd Sessi€51’1s ‘~J:ud.g6;,%
Belgaum in S.C. No.51] 1999 and to sat” aaiiéi-::”” –?*_1 ;e7
aforesaid judgrneni: and oréer and to c0nViz:–*:..a:1d”s¢:r3_t<::ne:::<;:w. '
the acCus<:d-resparzdents for tl"16 C(§ff(iIZC€ ;wit;}1 T Wi_1ich1'.thefy'
had been charged in accordance u%ifl1%-'law :=:.'r,g:.._ * A
BANNURMATHJ, deiivered ti*:¢::'"i7:;11owi12gi
This appeai coming féd:'.,_ I"1:E:a1'i:*1§,A.,;
gum-»%E
aggrieved by the j§ag:ne§:: o£_A?Aa5gg:::a: dazed 225:1:
January, 28G§'3";;§e3se{§, 'Sesssi<m.s Judge,
Beigaufil A' _- $6.51] 1999, 1116 present
appeal is *:";_1ec1_ by.%:he s§s;:ie;%%
facts iéééizig t0 the present appeai as per the
pr€rs_éC:¥..ti«3§1" are as ibliows:
Acfizséd N(}.2 Smt. Savakka was the wifs cf jzmiayr
0!' PW 4. Accusad N02 is mother of accused
" '…_ E\§$§1(s@r1) and accused No.3 is the daughter. PW 1
4 ."Jayasi'1re€, WV 3 Anusuya am} the decaaseé Balappa
Katabagi are the children. of PW 2 Basaiingappa Eieiabagi.
It is the case of the preseczzztien 2:213: the family 0f 8.CCLi$E:d
%7*"'"
‘ma
8.§}£§. fiié’ /E» avers siajging in diiffsrezai parts of mg Sarge
p§°€:§1§§;<=':s at Hafifiidébbi viflage in 8a§i3;%3<}r1ga'§..f'§.§a'§;1}§.
Accardizig E0 the pmsecuibn PW 2 was bragtghii
from hi$ zrrhfldhood by PW 4'
faméiy mambers inciugiing PW
Baiappa were giving plaéé tléé: 4%."?
According to the prass3¢::ti@:1""t1i§:ré "-~gpp€a5:':~;*~ is be some
dispute b€{W€€§1 the acéigfieii-..é{::d ..{§%;-sgeased aver thfi
bafikjvard £%flfi ?;}1"i3%.:$'$19.3:§;'€S;£.§§.§{§§€d.§§";f§Z;.1f":$.Efgfiffififi' sf Baiappa.
4. C@}:’a;2_§:é{g Ea? ?i}::7c::.’é;”::%ia:§__’é:”3;’:i E.”§3.E1g 51:3 {he §r9$$c:;.fi;i§:’z
52:: :i§;;~<%.._19E§S }::é::% @116 to 336 hause 93° the a€@::?;, 8 pm
;§;:’;{§«.’§.g2§3:Ie::?f;;3:f§:é,:*%i;t1g 5391316 aiésh SE36 $%7€i”i% bag}: is} tbs: Ezcéuse
_ af a.§i{:§’:,:.%éd. when she ‘i?s2″E§fl{ fiack :0 $316 hozzgez 3352.8
%ia?§fi_$d ‘fie dacaasecé Balappa baiztag assauéteci
-_%;’::f§é’S:::?*%::’;.i:23.i€€i§: by acczggad No.2 with sickie an 3}} p€i.§””:S
“Q36 iiody. Ezéagrigig the crizas it fig aiiegeé that PW 2, 4
ané é magi Gthsrs 031116 ta the 3530? and on seeéfig fiififii,
ihe acczisad ran away fizmwigig that sigkiéz ii”: the baatikyar E.
fiaceréifig $6: ‘$123 §ra3::czif;éG:2, wiiiis ac:s:z2$§:d E.’~§<}.E aw.-[:3
;- Q
5
€I”}£fi3£’€ imiestigation was directed agairist tbs: aécrussd,
i1G’£iCi1″3;g the presenca of accuseci 3303.2 a1″1C’i}~~f3j a1:’e
mane 6}-Se than maiher and sister <31" 3.<:§<:,2;__:t$t:-r;f§L i:}':<éy "=__
were aéso in1p}é<:a%.eé 21$ camaccusad 2_ a33z;{«3 '%:§:3V..;t1*:$'vg:* 6;;;12:'c} '
of £1516 aééegad abeémfiflt ta tI;":i::_§:rini€.._
5. G12 fsiissgg cf z the _.CE1a%_fge” “-sfiaefit A ie1i;:c%VAv”C0E:’;:21i~:.ta§
praceeéings, the ieazntatij Sessiéfis Jizsziggé -fcghascges accused
330.1 fer the pfiéfitffi 2 IVEPCE anti ascus-ed
N03,? .-?: .’i*:;*”,£??i_}:::’t’:»Qiféfi-::§3–z:nder Sectitm 382 read with
Sectian §5ié’;A’1i1?锑–.3§{C%’:uSeé denied the charges and
c1a:::§:¢éLte be they are mm in SC 950.51/1999. In
aids: :9′ s$£.a{bE§;sh the guiit of the accused, the prosecuijan
-1:7aa1i e{i”_”jL!,p£;+i3;s the eviéenca cf 14 sviinessas, got: marked
–V Ex, ami 56.5.83 1 K} 6. Total denial a§p&ars 3:0 be
‘V V’ “..f§’f1e ziefeiica as is apparent from the answers gvezz. by the
‘ éigcfifiefi when quesézéozaeé under Sectian 3 I3 CIXPC.
“”” . Sim1lar’ – was the statement
the counsel, the trial Court, as already
V , V _ ‘ VT by the impugled judgment, gave benefit of doubt
6. It is to be noted that accused No.1 in
Cr.P.C. statement has stated that at the A’
incident, he Wm along with his friends and
mutual fight between the fi’icnds,~~he: «
injuries, % an had consumed ”
him, while even his father was W14
were often picking up qtmfrel £iI}d §it is
aneged that his elder
mm’dered . “”” No.15 of the
313 was not in the village
_’
.. z the conclusion of the trial and after
9%
-3-
who oonsistmztly speak about the of 3 1 V
Court committed an A
to him. Takm’ g us through , ;it is
submitted that the of witnesses
being cogent 31$!
overt acts of not have
_ are based on
surmiscs ‘it’is also contended that so
far who are none ebe ttml the
mcused No.1 are concerned,
time of assault is again cogently
and spoken to by the witnco exammed
‘ H Ibo giving benefit of doubt to them is
and hence, the impugned juzlon: of
‘T . . _ is liable to be set aside.
5*
finom&’ing of the incident and the
_No.1A,”‘~..cle_ar1fi«:”” AT shows that the accused No.1 was
% through out and this aspect 11%
t considered by the trial Court in its pmper
%eefper§spcc:;ive. Coming to amused N032 and 3, K is
x “contended that absolutely no foundation er basis is
.. 9 –
9. As the accused did not
arrangema1t to defend themselves before 1
we requested Sri. Dine-sh
assist the Court: as Amicus ‘V
in support of the findings of
contending that the wa
mentally mother –
accused No.2" time. It is conte;rndec1%ma"AT of the pmsccutm n.
cspec1ally’ ex’ awsuresh PW-8 who speak
about the of the accused on the very
examination reports of aecum
-19-
laid down by the prosecution to show that
abetted accused No.1 in eommissioggof the dd
learned Amicus Curiae
at the scene of oflbnce by __.WOl.2lix’vX’xI’x!Jt .-,.y,;__ #3) %
abetmatut as explained tmdcr ‘E37. ‘of
Amicus to show
that accused No.1 nor
that rm doing the
act or tllezdwas on their part in the
” “said act of accused No.1. It
T. then: is no mat:-:n’al, except the
pmsecution witnesses that the
— sgférc standing near the dead body would not
A 5 to intentionally aiding the accused. Hence, it
that the change slw filed winst
Nos.2 and 3 itselfwas ille@l and as such, me
fl”
Vuti0I1, Pw.4 Rudrappa has set
%inro:?:1.aaubn.b:é1e is the immediabe neighbour of the
% also speaks about the incident as if he is
_V witness or atleast partial eye witness to the
PW–2 Basalingappa who was raised right
“from his child hood by the father of PW-4, elm
_ 11 –
trial Court has rightly given benefit of doubt e
accused. Ultimately, it is contended T 1
investigation is not honest
learned Sessions Judge
benefit of doubt to the
appeal filed by mc.smmibdba;roia_
11. We ootmsel and
pe;’used the-‘rjf ~ ‘ ”
152.» X A; out of 14 Witnesses
in motion by filing the first
fi”””
the spot. » _
‘A the Doctor who has performed
the report as per Ex.P-2. P’W~8
been examined by the prosecution to
V « the very next day of the incident i.e., on
[ ‘ Q98 at about 7.30 a.m., aeeused No.1 was
‘V V by his mother – accused No.2 to the hospital
V’ with injuries and he was treated for font’ days as in-
-133-
about the motive aspect. PWs-1 and 3
daughters and the deceased Balafipa’
PW-1 is the sole eye witness ’49
and 5 go to the spot
of PW-1, they
over tact of the when
they went ma 3
standing at Baiaprpa
when and they saw
accused rumnng away fi’om
evidence of PW.’/’, the
the autopsy, clemiy shew that
when autopsised had as memy
. fiirijuries on fatal parts and aocm*dmg’ to
V. K the cause of death was come as a result of
injuries to the brain and atria’ vital pans like
In View of ties evidence, there cannet be any
doubt as to deceased Baiappa meeting with homicidal
-13..
patient PWs.9 as 10 are the mahazar witnesses for the
spot mahazar Ex.P-5, inquest panchaxwa
the seizure of clothes of the deceased
PWs.11 and 12 are the
and 14 are the Police Constables i:_:A
seized arficles to the FSL V
14. At the outseigttie
meeting with iiomm al death no
the ‘m dispute. All
the spoken to it. Even
5/”
vegx —- ‘Q; the “$3: 5), Hence, we find
C:_’3urt i§’jusif. proper and needs no interference.
4′ This takes us to the next point i.e., mac of
V . No.1 in the cum’ e in question. Though, on
fiist hand reading of the evidence of 1=w–1
S accompanied by the corroborative evidence of PWs.3, 4
_ ;7 _
women folk engaged in preparing articles fike shyavigc,
sandige and savati bija which wouid be pmserved
used for preparation of sweet dishes dm-ingf A’
festivals days and for this purpose, many
of the neighbourhood assemble 1 &x
same. It is the V633′ of A’
gone to the house of the
Nos.2 and 3 being woman.
at the me articlw. Except
their pmsenzge, _ aiisélumly no Inatmial to
i11dicate :fl:a.Lt way, abetted or aided
that: accused Nos.2 and 3 W the tr1al’
-13..
and 5, it may PI’ima~»facie indicate that
seen assaulting the dmsed wit11″i1″‘eie}L}’1:e. V’
backg-ouna of the pmsecutinn L . 3
Cr.P.C statement of aocuse(ie«b:.:iVlos.V}.L ma
subsequent desrelop1nenf:I’:~.=*;.«_ ” – b V is
every room to was not
mentally IPC, if an
offence is at the time of
doing it, of mind me is
incapable of, of the act, is
exempted “as ‘:4 of the Act Rom being
Hawevm; as this defence can
case, the law in this regard is
Court in catena of decisions has
dawn if a person wants to get benefit of any
_exeiebfiee under Chapter 4 of IPC, the burden is on
‘ “to prove the same. No doubt in the present case,
the accused No.1, has, by himself not taken the
5″‘
name: of Dr. Suresh (PW-8) a
at abbut £1.93 by accused No.2 – mother and on
d ” he noted that there were abmsion on the
1 of the fomhead and both upper and ma lips
dd swonen am reddish in colour. Accondmg’ he the
fie-videncc of this doctor, the accused No.1 was talking
-19..
defence of insanity, however, we have to
right from the next day of V’
arrested and even during
trial Court have at length
suffering from d at
the earlidst point Vof he was
not in a sta1;e”:§¢§”V and thk
condition Added to this,
the in the form of
clwrly shows that
Withmgdfmv. inc1d’ ent, accused No.1
Community Health Centre at Kittw
r’a”””
-20-
inooherently and was unabk: to answer the
By looking at the demeanor of the
though not fully qualified m a’
his medical knowledge 1′
appeared to be
this is the evideooe laid it crmrly
indicates that itself in
doubt as to No. 1. Apalt
from condition or the
conditions crime can also lead
_ to ‘h§?; Sfli€l wove analyze the eviéence at’
‘ A ‘depth.
– the first informa in this case has
there was ill-will between hmlself md
No.2 over possession of backyard. As such,
is no proof or even: mtabfishcd, enmity or ill-
* Vwin either with the deceased or his roomy members
(PWs.1, 2 and 3) who are infacttotal strangers to the
5″”
-21-
family of PW-4 and the accused’s family, would
some doubt in the mind as to the mo’::’tve.«
Further, this motive has been u
Witnesses while they were if
that there was gobar gas _
portion of it was desuvyed
it is argued that there eti1e_aec11sed to
assault the a newly
iI1tI’Od11OE:d ” ba.sis, fiwom the
evidence ot;A’t1}e’ iihe pmsecution – PW- 1,
We find 5 between the accused’s
of “” aocu ” sed No.1, his mother –
sister — accused No.3 was vexy
femily of the deceased. In fact, PW-2
.. that “we and tin aecusw are on
and vice versa, we exchanged mticles
VT Similar is the evidence of other witnesses
n Ifthat: is so, there was absolutely no 3% forfix
fi1/
strangr; Balappa who was the
fined me the house ofaocused only in a
and peepzeeseeve in underwear in mm levels, there is
H W as to the wwring apparels of the deceased
_ evidence of PW.l and PW.4. PW-1 says that
‘T iei dmsod was wearing only underwear and no
% other clothes, PW-4 has tried to improvise the same by
-22-
coming for the accused to assault the
this I’6@I’d, we have to note at V
even though such A.
imbalanced- mind of eecueee fo;o%;ee. 1
investiyting agency, the
investigating agency to 4′ truth or
otherwise on flaws to note
that the and truncated
one, is convicted. Even
otherwise’,” we once of P’W.1, it is
it is taken thot it is suan@* time
flfix
1=w.4 as if he is by himself
no scientific or much lam!
stay at the spot till otha people
_’ fiévay from the spot. But after seeing accused
assautmg and thereaflzer 1=w~4 coming to the
Lause and all of them going back agam and PW-4
– 23 –
stating that he was wearing undexwear, _
lung-a Though for the outward lmkf this _,..-… – ” {V ~
may not assume much 3
understand why such
ifin fact, mr-4 had to
the incident. In fact, as to the
veracity of the evsagimoe of Ex.P–1
FIR. the hlcidmt,
she ran fib file people inchmmg’
PW-4, mime,’ house of the accused,
that if a perso. :1 commits me
imbalance on the part of the
invesfigating agmcy has mt taken
A’ and klvestiwiae in this Fwrd. As we
laid down, seamen far truth is the object of
. jastiee system. Every $011 must be made by
the partnas in the same, namely, imrestmatlng
-24..
saying thm even when they went back, he saw accused
No.1 sitting on the chest hof deceased
cutting him with a sickle, in our view, the iaa§t
highly mm~ano° 11 but also unbengvabxe %
common pavalanoe. As such, ‘V7-1;
reason to interfere with the V
about the veracity or_ the
prosecuticm wimcsses, to lave
seen the incident wen”, me evidence 0!
PWs.3 and 5; is material for us is
te the of accused No.1 and
fife’ in detail, even though there was
54/’
-25..
@1331, the prosecuting agency and the ~
proper, istnmcatcd and one sidcd.
20. Keeping in
regardinghe intez’f’erenoeiJVy-. with
the judgment or the
acased No.1 the trial
efiect of memtal condition of
the “of crime, mmaiatcty afier
zine trial and has given benefit of
dOl_l’§_t__, our view, needs no interference.
H VV _Hen<$'e, 17.51" reasons given by the Trial Court and
K -fli…I:jd£tp§:ndei1fly by us as above, we find there is no merit
The appeal stands rejected.
5/”