Facts of the case
- Shivalingayya lodged a first information report alleging that his son Sharanaiah was murdered by four persons namely Sangappa(A-1), Sharanappa(A-2), Malappa(A-3) and Jagadavappa (A-4).
- It was alleged in the report that on the fateful day Shivalingayya and his wife – Boramma (PW-1) joined their son Sharanaiah (deceased) in the fields to remove the unwanted weeds from their land. During that time all the accused persons were passing by the side of the complainant’s land along with their bullocks and all of a sudden one bullock strayed into their fields and started grazing the crops. The deceased on finding that the bullock so entered into the fields asked the 2 appellants to ensure that no damages caused to the crops. Enraged by the demand so made by the deceased all the accused started abusing the deceased. Sharanappa (A-2) caught hold of the deceased, floored him to the ground and gagged his mouth and Sangappa (A-1) attacked the deceased with a knife and the other two accused Mallapa and Jagadevappa (A-3 & A-4) respectively hit the deceased on his back and legs with stones. Shivalingayya and his wife (PW-1) made an attempt to rescue their son but A-2 and A-3 forcefully pushed them aside.
- It was alleged that all the accused trespassed into the fields with the common intention of committing murder of the deceased as the deceased interfered in a matter concerning some illicit relationship between the sister of the accused andSiddanna.
- All the accused-appellants were charged and tried for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 504, 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) but were acquitted of all the charges by the trial court.
- On appeal preferred by the State of Karnataka, the High Court reversed the order of acquittal in relation to all the appellants and convicted them under Section 304 (Part-II) read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and imposed a fine of Rs.30,000/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three years.
Judgment
The Hon’ble Supreme Court stated that, “The trial court after an elaborate consideration of the matter refused to place any reliance on the evidence of PW-1 (Boramma) who is none other than the mother of the deceased. The trial court carefully scrutinised the evidence of PW-4 being an interested witness. There is no reason assigned by the High Court to set aside the finding of the trial court that the very presence of PW-1 at the scene of offence was highly doubtful. We must express our reservation for the manner in which the High Court disposed of the appeal under Section 378(1) and (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court did not even notice the nature of injuries on the body of the deceased. There is nothing on record suggesting as to the basis on which the High Court arrived at conclusion that the accused would be guilty of offence under Section 304 (Part-II) and not for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC.”
The Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the judgment by the high court and order and remit the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration and disposal in accordance with law
BY:ANKIT RAJPUT