Vithal Laxman Chalawadi & Etc vs State Of Karnataka Rep. By P. Prosecutor

allowed and Crl. Appeal No. 705/2000 allowed, the

appellants convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced

to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.5,000/-

each and in default of payment of the same to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for six months. The facts giving rise

to the filing of these appeals may be summarized as under:

Padavva one of the sisters of accused no. 1 to 4 was

engaged to get married to the deceased-Ramesh brother of

PW-1 Guralingappa. Soon after the engagement was over a

loan of Rs.30,000/- was advanced to the accused for

purchase of a commercial vehicle. Since the loan was not

repaid by the accused, the vehicle was taken over and

parked in front of the house of PW-1 Guralingappa. This led

to some bitterness between the two families which took a

turn for the worse when deceased-Ramesh refused to marry

Padavva on the ground that she was hard of hearing. To add

confusion to the situation, Survana (PW-9) younger sister of 3

Padavva and the accused, fell in love with Ramesh and

decided to marry him. The things came to a head when the

deceased took Survana away to Bijapur and got his and

Survana's marriage registered. This enraged the accused no

end as they felt that the deceased had spoiled the life of

their sister Padavva by refusing matrimony even after

getting engaged to her.

According to the prosecution on 25th December, 1995

at about 4.00 p.m. accused nos.1 to 4 went to the house of

Mahadevappa Basappa Dodamani (accused no.5) and

Yellappa Yamanappa Neelanaik (accused no. 6) for a

meeting. From there they came to the house of the

Guralingappa (PW-1) around 6.30 p.m. looking for Ramesh-

deceased. They were let into the house where they

questioned the deceased about his marriage to Survana

(PW-9) without their consent. This led to an altercation

between the two parties in the course whereof accused

Vithal Laxman Chalawadi is alleged to have assaulted the 4

deceased with a knife. When Guralingappa (PW-1) and his

mother, Smt. Putalawwa (PW-6) intervened, they too were

assaulted. PW-6 mother of the deceased is alleged to have

received a chappal blow from accused No.3 on her face. The

injured Ramesh was rushed to the hospital but declared

dead on arrival. A charge-sheet was eventually filed against

six persons for commission of offences punishable under

Sections 143, 451, 323, 324, 355, 504, 506, 302, 109 and

149 IPC. Principal Sessions Judge, Bijapur, before whom the

accused were tried, acquitted four of them while convicting

the remaining two under Section 323 and Section 324 IPC

respectively. The Court held that the prosecution had failed

to prove the charge of murder against the accused.

According to it all that was proved was that a quarrel had

taken place at the house of Guralingappa (PW-1) and his

brother deceased-Ramesh and that accused no.1 Nijappa

had caused an injury to the deceased using a dangerous

weapon constituting an offence punishable under Section

324 IPC. Accused no.3 was also convicted but only for 5

causing a simple injury with a Chappal to PW-6 mother of

the deceased and convicted under Section 323 IPC.

Two appeals were filed against this judgment and order

of the Sessions Judge. While Criminal Appeal No.705 of 2000

was filed by the convicts, Criminal Appeal No.715 of 2000

was filed by the State against the acquittal of the accused.

The High Court has, as noticed earlier, allowed Criminal

Appeal No.705 of 2000 while partly allowing Criminal Appeal

No.715 of 2000 filed by the State. The High Court has taken

the view that the prosecution had established its case

against accused 1 to 4, namely, Vithal Laxman Chalawadi,

Umesh Laxman Chalawadi, Gangappa Laxman Chalawadi

and Nijappa Laxman Chalawadi for the commission of an

offence punishable under Section 302 read with Sec. 34 IPC.

They were accordingly sentenced to undergo imprisonment

for life for the offence of murder. The acquittal of the

remaining accused persons, Mahadevappa Basappa

Dodamani and Yellappa Yamanappa Neelanaik was 6

affirmed by the High Court. The present appeals assail the

correctness of the said order of conviction and sentence.

Appearing for the appellants Ms. Rajni K. Prasad argued

that the evidence adduced by the prosecution did not

establish the charges framed against the appellants and that

the Trial Court was justified in holding so. She contended

that there were material contradictions between the

depositions of the alleged eye-witnesses to the occurrence.

She submitted that while Guralingappa (PW-1) and PW-6

were the brother and the mother respectively of the

deceased, the other two eye-witnesses, namely,

Chandrakant (PW-7) and Lakshman (PW-8) were not

present on the spot at the time of the occurrence and were

wrongly described by the prosecution as eye-witnesses. She

contended that even if the prosecution version was taken as

proved against appellant, Umesh Laxman Chalawadi, who is

alleged to have taken the knife from appellant, Vithal

Laxman Chalawadi to assault the deceased, appellant, 7

Gangappa Laxman Chalawadi was unarmed and is not

alleged to have inflicted any injury on the deceased or

anyone else except a chappal blow allegedly given to the

mother of the deceased. Conviction of appellant no.3 for the

offence of murder was in that view not justified argued the

learned counsel.

As regard appellant, Umesh Laxman Chalawadi, learned

counsel urged that there was no evidence to show that he

was armed with a knife nor was any knife recovered from

him. The allegation that accused no. 4 had assaulted

Ramesh-deceased with the very same knife as was used by

the other two accused was a clear attempt to rope in as

many members of the opposite party as possible. Given the

strained relationship between the parties an attempt to

falsely implicate persons who had not caused any hurt to the

deceased or other members of his family could not be ruled

out. The case against appellant, Umesh Laxman Chalawadi

was at any rate doubtful, contended the learned counsel. 8

Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, counsel for the respondents on

the other hand argued that the High Court had correctly

appreciated the evidence and come to the conclusion that

the accused-appellant had gone to the spot with the

common intention of committing the murder of the

deceased-Ramesh against whom the accused had animosity

on account of the insult which they perceived had been

caused to their sister Padavva by refusing to marry her and

instead marrying Survana (PW-9) without their consent.

The depositions of the eye-witnesses to the incident had

stood the test of cross-examination and were rightly

believed by the High Court, argued Mr. Hegde.

That the relationship between the two families was

strained on account of the refusal of the deceased to marry

Padavva and in preference tying the knot with the younger

sister of the accused without their consent has been

sufficiently established by the material on record. It was also

not disputed either before the High Court or even before us 9

that the deceased-Ramesh had died a homicidal death

having suffered as many as 17 injuries which Dr. Goudappa

Shankareppa Baragi (PW-16) noticed in the course of post-

mortem examination. Out of the said injuries injury nos. 16

and 17 were fatal injuries resulting in shock and hemorrhage

and eventual death of the victim. In support of its case the

prosecution had relied upon the depositions of four eye-

witnesses to the incident. While PW-1 Guralingappa and PW-

6 Smt. Putalawwa are the brother and mother respectively

of the deceased who were themselves injured in the

incident, PW-7 Chandrakanta and PW-8 Lakshman reached

the spot when they heard noise coming out of the house of

the deceased only to find accused 1 to 4 assaulting the

deceased with a knife. A careful analysis of the depositions

of the eye-witnesses leaves no manner of doubt in our mind

that Nijappa who has since died was the first to assault the

deceased with his knife. We are also satisfied that the

version given by the injured eye-witnesses PW-1

Guralingappa and PW-6 Smt. Putalawwa that appellant, 10

Vithal Laxman Chalawadi had then taken the knife from

Nijappa to inflict injuries on the body of the deceased is

credible and has been rightly relied upon by the High Court.

We, therefore, have no hesitation in holding that Vithal

Laxman Chalawadi was responsible for inflicting injuries

attributed to him by the eye-witnesses that resulted in the

death of the deceased-Ramesh. We accordingly uphold the

conviction and sentence imposed upon appellant, Vithal

Laxman Chalawadi.

As regards the role of appellant, Gangappa the

evidence on record suggests that he gave a chappal blow to

PW-6 the mother of the deceased-Ramesh. There is no other

overt act attributed to accused-appellant No.3 who appears

to have joined the melee when tempers ran high. The

allegation that he exhorted accused 1 and 2 to kill the

deceased has not in our opinion been satisfactorily proved to

justify his conviction for murder with the help of Section 34

IPC. The nature of the evidence on record and the role that

appellant, Gangappa is alleged to have played, does not, in 11

our opinion, establish that the appellant no. 3 shared the

common intention with Nijappa and Vithal to commit the

murder of deceased-Ramesh. The conviction of accused-

appellant No.3 for the offence of murder punishable under

Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC is, therefore, not

sustainable. The evidence, however, proves beyond a

reasonable doubt that appellant, Gangappa assaulted PW-6

Putalavva with a chappal. His conviction under Section 323

IPC by the Trial Court and the High Court deserves to be

affirmed.

That leaves us with the case of appellant, Umesh

Laxman Chalawadi about whom the depositions of the

prosecution witnesses has not made out a clear case to

justify his conviction for the offence of murder. Appellant,

Umesh Laxman Chalawadi has, according to the prosecution,

used the same knife which the accused no.1 had used for

inflicting injuries on the deceased and which was then taken

by Vithal Laxman Chalawadi to assault the deceased. While 12

we have accepted the prosecution version to the extent it

suggests that Vithal Laxman Chalawadi had taken the knife

from Nijappa, we consider it wholly unsafe to attribute any

injury to the deceased by the use of the same knife having

regard to the nature of the evidence on record. Suffice it to

say that the prosecution case against Umesh Laxman

Chalawadi is not free from doubt, the benefit whereof must

go to said appellant.

In the result, conviction and sentence of appellant,

Vithal Laxman Chalawadi for the offence under Section

302/34 IPC recorded by the High Court is affirmed.

Conviction and sentence of appellant, Gangappa Laxman

Chalawadi is set aside and he is acquitted of all the charges

framed against him except the charge under Section 323

IPC. His conviction under Section 323 IPC is maintained but

the sentence reduced to the period already undergone. The

conviction and sentence of appellant, Umesh Laxman

Chalawadi is set aside and he is acquitted of the charges

framed against him giving him the benefit of doubt. 13

Appellants, Umesh Laxman Chalawadi and Gangappa

Laxman Chalawadi, if in jail, shall be released forthwith if

not required in any other case. The appeals are accordingly

disposed of.

.................................J. (MARKANDEY KATJU)

.................................J. (T.S. THAKUR) New Delhi October 19, 2010