Sangappa Sanganabasappa M. & Ors vs State Of Karnataka And Ors

brother Kenchappa (the other deceased) rushed to the 4

garden land of Sangappa in order to enquire as to what

transpired in the matter. That all the accused who were

armed with deadly weapons questioned the propriety on the

part of Irappa in coming to their place and making an

inquiry about the incident of assault on his son. In the

process Sangappa who was armed with jambiya inflicted

injury on the abdomen of the deceased - Irappa and

Yamanappa (A-2) inflicted injury over the head of the

deceased with axe and in the meanwhile, the other accused

Sangana Basappa (A-3), Rudrappa (A-5) and Smt.

Bhagawwa (A-6) over powered the deceased - Kenchappa

and assaulted him and at that point of time, Sangappa

inflicted injury on the abdomen of deceased - Kenchappa.

In the same process Pundalik (A-4) committed assault on

Irappa and shouted that he should be finished. It is the case

of the prosecution that even Pundalik, who was armed with

axe, assaulted the deceased Irappa over his head. Basappa

(PW-8) along with Siddappa (PW-9) and others tried to

intervene in order to rescue the two deceased persons in

vain as they were threatened by the accused with dire

consequences. Basappa and Siddappa witnessed the 5

incident as they were following the two deceased having

come to know of the fact that the two deceased persons

were proceeding to the garden land of Sangappa to inquire

about the incident of assault on Laxman (PW-15). The

incident in question had occurred at about 2.00 p.m.

afternoon on 2.6.1995 in the garden land of Sangappa. It is

at a distance of about 10 kms. from the police station. That

immediately after the incident the first information had been

lodged by Basappa (PW-8) with the SHO, Nagappa (PW-14)

at the Kolhar Police Station. FIR was registered at about

3.30 p.m. Out of the two injured persons, Irappa died on the

spot while the injured Kenchappa succumbed to the injuries

in the hospital. Ramappa (PW-13), sub-Inspector of police

took up the further investigation. Inquest proceedings over

the dead body of deceased - Irappa were held on 3.6.1995

and statements of PW-3, PW-4, PW-7, PW-9, PW-10 and

PW-11 were recorded. M.Os 1 to 4 were seized. In the

meanwhile, Investigation Officer received the intimation

from the hospital about the death of injured Kenchappa and

immediately proceeded to the hospital and held inquest over

the body of the deceased - Kenchappa. The dead bodies of 6

the two deceased were subjected to the post-mortem

examination.

6. Dr. Ramappa (PW-5) is the Medical Officer, who held

autopsy on the dead body of the deceased - Kenchappa and

issued the post-mortem report (Ex. P-9). The following

injuries on the dead body of Kenchappa were noticed:

1. Sutured wound over upper abdomen 8" in length on right side of umbilicus 1" below 1"

away from midline vertical direction

2. Transverse sutured crocoid present on left side on anterior abdominal wall just below costal margin in the anterior axillary line.

He opined that death was due to shock and

haemorrhage as a result of the injury to vital organs and

he was also of the opinion that such injuries could be

caused with the weapon like jambiya.

Dr. Yalagurdacharya (PW-12), is the Medical Officer,

who conducted the post mortem examination on the dead

body of the deceased - Irappa and found the following

external injuries on the dead body of Irappa: 7

1. Lacerated wound 4.5 cms. X 1.5 cms., on the scalp in the midline in the frontal area. Margins irregular and contused.

2. Lacerated wound on the left parietal area 2.5 cms. Long 1.5 cms., wide since surrounding the wound is ecchymosed present swelling of the surrounding tissues.

3. Elliptical stab wound (penetrating) on the left side of the chest, 7 cms, below left nipple 2.5 cms., long and 1.2 cms., wide at the cetredepth of the wound 12 cms.

The post-mortem report in respect of deceased - Irappa is

exhibit P-12. The Doctor opined that the death was due to

perforating wound on the left side of the chest, causing

perforating of the heart leading to haemorrhage, cardiac

failure and death. He was of the opinion that the injury nos.

1 and 2 found on the dead body of Irappa could be caused

by weapons like axe and club and injury no. 3 could be

caused by means of a dagger. The report of the serologist

(Ex. P-16) discloses that blood stains found on jambiya since

disintegrated, origin could not be determined but the two

axes were found to be stained with human blood. 8

7. The prosecution, in order to establish its case, had

altogether examined 15 witnesses (PW-1 to PW-15) at the

trial and placed on record Exhibits P-1 to P-17 and M.Os 1 to

16.

8. Be it noted that PWs 1, 2, 3 and 4 did not support the

case of the prosecution and hence they were declared

hostile. Chandrappa (PW-7) had been examined to speak

about the incident which took place on 29.5.1995 and also

to the occurrence, which took place on 2.6.1995 but he did

not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile.

Basappa (PW-8) is the father of PW-10 and eye witness to

the incident which took place on 2.6.1995, wherein two

deceased Kenchappa and Irappa had been assaulted. He is

also the first informant and lodged FIR. Siddappa (PW-9) is

the younger brother of PW-8 as well as the two deceased

persons Kenchappa and Irappa. He is also an eye witness to

the occurrence, which took place on 2.6.1995. The entire

prosecution story rests upon the evidence of PW-8 and PW-9

who fully supported the prosecution version of the incident 9

that took place on 2.6.1995 with which we are concerned in

the present case. The sequence of events suggests that the

origin leading to the fatal attack on the two deceased is

traceable to the incident that took place on 29.5.1995 when

Sangappa (A-1) had tried to outrage the modesty of PW-10.

Sadashiva (PW-11) who is none other than the son of PW-8

speaks about the incident that took place on 29.5.1995

relating to the outrage of the modesty of PW-10.

9. The High Court upon re-appreciation of the evidence

found that PW-8 and PW-9 have consistently spoken to with

regard to the incident that had taken place on 2.6.1995

resulting in the death of Irappa and Kenchappa and

accordingly believed and accepted their evidence in its

totality. The High Court came to the conclusion that if their

evidence read as a whole, ignoring minor contradictions and

inconsistencies, if any, inspires confidence. The High Court

found fault with the trial court for rejecting the evidence of

PW-8 and PW-9 on the sole ground that they are closely

related to the deceased. The High Court took the view that

the appellants herein are liable to be convicted for the 1

offence punishable under Section 302 with the aid of Section

34 of IPC since they had inflicted the injuries with the deadly

weapons like axe and jambiya on vital parts of the body of

the two deceased persons which itself would show that all of

them shared the intention to cause the death.

10. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants

as well as the learned counsel for the State. The learned

counsel for the appellants strenuously contended that PW-8

and PW-9 are highly interested witnesses being close

relatives of the deceased and it would be unsafe to convict

the appellants based on the evidence of such highly

interested witnesses. This aspect of the matter becomes

relevant according to the learned counsel for the appellants

in view of the fact that other eye witnesses did not support

the case of the prosecution at all. The learned counsel for

the State supported the impugned judgment and submitted

that the evidence of two eye witnesses (PW-8 & PW-9)

cannot be rejected on the simple ground of their relationship

with the deceased. It is quite natural that being the kith and

kin of the two deceased persons PW-8 and PW-9 have 1

followed the deceased when they came to know that the

deceased were proceeding to the land of Sangappa in order

to inquire about the incident of assault on PW-15. Now we

shall proceed to consider the submissions.

11. That the deceased Irappa and Kenchappa had died

homicidal death is beyond the pale of any doubt. The

evidence of two Medical Officers PW-5 and PW-12 and the

contents of the post-mortem reports have not been seriously

challenged by the defence. The deceased Irappa had died

on the spot, whereas Kenchappa had succumbed to the

injuries while undergoing treatment at the hospital on the

next day of the incident. The evidence of the Medical

Officers in clear and categorical terms establishes that both

the deceased Irappa and Kenchappa succumbed to the

injuries that were found on their bodies. Those injuries could

have been caused with the sharp weapons like axe and

jambiya. The only question that arises for our consideration

is that is there any evidence available on record as to who

caused the death of Irappa and Kenchappa? In this regard

the sequence of events as is evident from the evidence of

Basappa (PW-8), Siddappa (PW-9), Ningamma (PW-10), 1

Sadashiva (PW-11) and Laxman (PW-15) has to be properly

evaluated. The incident of assault resulting in the death of

deceased Irappa and Kenchappa took place in the garden

land of Sangappa around 2.00 p.m. on 2.6.1996. It is

important to note this incident was preceded by an assault

on Laxman (PW-15) when he was in his fields. PW-15 who

is none other than the son of the deceased Irappa. There is

nothing unnatural that Irappa and his brother Kenchappa

proceeded to the land of Sangappa to question him as to

why PW-15 was assaulted by him. There is enough material

available on record to establish that there was deep rooted

enmity between the appellants and the deceased. The origin

of the whole sequence of events lies as to what transpired

on 29.5.1995 when PW-10 who is none other than the

daughter of PW-8 was subjected to an attempt to outrage

her modesty by Sangappa. This incident is followed by the

incident of assault on Laxman (PW-15) by Sangappa. The

events took place in quick succession. There is nothing on

record to disbelieve the evidence of PW-15 as regards the

incident that had taken place on the fateful day before noon

which led to the assault on both the deceased in the 1

afternoon. Mere fact that Sangappa has been acquitted in

the case regarding the attempt to outrage the modesty of

PW-10 itself is of no consequence. The evidence of PW-10

receives a complete corroboration and support from the

evidence of PW-11. This evidence is to be read along with

the evidence of PW-8 who is not only an eye witness to the

occurrence but also the first informant who lodged the FIR.

It is in the evidence of PW-8 that after PW-15 complained of

assault on him by Sangappa, both deceased persons Irappa

and Kenchappa proceeded to the garden land of Sangappa

to question him about the incident of assault on PW-15.

There is nothing unnatural in PW-8 following both the

deceased when they were proceeding to the land of

Sangappa. PW-9 also accompanied PW-8. When both of

them were at a distance of 10 marus, from the land of

Sangappa, they witnessed the actual incident of assault on

the deceased. It is clearly and categorically stated by PW-8

that Sangappa attacked deceased Kenchappa with jambiya

and as a result of which Kenchappa had sustained injuries

on his abdomen and chest. It is also in the evidence of PW-

8 that Pundalik (A-4) was armed with axe and so also 1

Yamanappa (A-2) while Sangappa (A-1) was armed with

jambiya. The weapons were identified by him in the court.

It is specifically stated in the course of his evidence that A-2

was holding axe, A-4 was holding the other axe and A-1 was

holding the jambiya and all of them assaulted the deceased

Irappa with axe, jambiya and stick. That so far as the

deceased Kenchappa is concerned it is stated by PW-8 that

A-1 inflicted injury on the body of Kenchappa with jambiya.

It is true in cross-examination he admitted that the land

belonging to one Sangappa and Ramagond is situated

adjacent to the scene of incident and whereas his land is at

the distance of about 2 to 3 kilometers from the scene of

occurrence. It is also admitted by him that at the time of

incident, the wife of adjacent land owner Sangappa was

present in their land. It is true wife of Sangappa is not

examined but that itself is not so fatal based on which

evidence of PW-8 could be disbelieved. The evidence of

Siddappa (PW-9) who is none other than the brother of PW-

8 is more or less same as of the evidence of PW-8. It is in

his evidence that deceased Irappa received head injury and

died on the spot. When Kenchappa went to the rescue of 1

Irappa, he too had been subjected to assault by the

appellants. It is Sangappa who had assaulted Kenchappa

with jambiya and caused injury on the abdomen. He vividly

deposed as to which of the accused was holding of what

weapons which is in conformity with what has been stated

by PW-8.

12. The evidence of Doctors (PW-5 and PW-12) completely

supports the ocular evidence. The evidence of PWs- 5, 8, 9,

10, 11 and 12 has been meticulously analysed by the High

Court as is clearly evident from the judgment. On going

through the said evidence we are in complete agreement

with the conclusions drawn by the High Court and the

reasons assigned by it to believe the evidence of the said

witnesses and more particularly the evidence of PW-8 and

PW-9 who are the eye witnesses to the incident. The High

Court rightly concurred with the view of the trial court in

coming to the conclusion that it is not a case which would

attract the provisions of Sections 148 and 149 of the IPC.

On the other hand, the evidence available on record

suggests that it is only the appellants who committed 1

assault on Irrappa and Kenchappa with jambiya and axes

and caused the fatal injuries to the two deceased persons

Irappa and Kenchappa. The participation of other appellants

along with appellant no. 1 and common intention on their

part is clearly evident from the evidence available on record.

The High Court rightly convicted the appellants for the

offence punishable under Section 302 with the aid of Section

34 IPC. The High Court is absolutely right in coming to the

conclusion that the appellants participated in the assault on

the two deceased persons and inflicted fatal injuries on the

vital parts of the bodies of both the deceased. The assault

had been conjointly committed by all the appellants. The

sequence of events and total circumstances if taken together

into consideration it is clearly evident that the appellants

shared common intention to commit the offence for which

they are liable to be convicted. The High Court did not

commit any error in convicting the appellants alone for the

offence punishable under Section 302 with the aid of Section

34 IPC. The High Court is perfectly justified in reversing the

order of acquittal passed by the trial court which totally

misread the evidence of eye witnesses and disbelieved them 1

on fanciful grounds. The trial court was carried away with

the minor inconsistencies in the evidence of prosecution

witnesses for rejecting the prosecution case. The trial court

committed serious error in rejecting the evidence of PW-8

and PW-9 only on the basis that they are related to the

deceased. Their relationship with the deceased per se

would not be a ground to reject their evidence. It is true the

evidence of interested witnesses has to be properly assessed

and carefully scrutinized which the High Court did in exercise

of its appellate jurisdiction.

13. For all the aforesaid reasons we uphold the conviction

as well as sentence for the offence punishable under Section

302 read with Section 34 IPC.

14. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

................................................J. (B. SUDERSHAN REDDY)

................................................J. (SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR) NEW DELHI, SEPTEMBER 13, 2010.

1