Karnataka High Court
Vinayak S/O Prakash Maniyarkar vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 June, 2022
Bench: K.S.Mudagal, M.G.S. Kamal
-1-
CRL.A No. 100048 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100048 OF 2021 (C)
BETWEEN:
1. VINAYAK S/O PRAKASH MANIYARKAR
AGE. 25 YEARS,
OCC. SECURITY GUARD,
R/O. HOSAYALLAPUR,
KOLIKERI, DHARWAD 580001
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. R H ANGADI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
TOWN POLICE STATION,
DHARWAD,
R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH,
DHARWAD 580011.
2. SMT. YALLAVVA W/O RAMAPPA TALAWAR
AGE 53 YEARS,
-2-
CRL.A No. 100048 of 2021
OCC.BUSINESS,
R/O KOLIKERI, VALMIKI ONI,
DHARWAD.580001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.V.M.BANAKAR, ADDL.SPP FOR R1-STATE;
NOTICE TO R2/COMPLAINANT IS SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 374(2) OF CR.P.C.,
SEEKING TO KINDLY ALLOW THE APPEAL AND KINDLY CALL
FOR RECORDS AND KINDLY SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT PASSED IN SPL. SC/ST NO.13/2018, DATED
21/01/2021, BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS AND
SPL. JUDGE, DHARWAD AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED
01/02/2021 AND CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE APPELLANT FOR
THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302 OF IPC AND
SECTION 3(2)(v) OF SC/ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES)
ACT, 1989.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS
DAY, M.G.S.KAMAL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
CRL.A No. 100048 of 2021
JUDGMENT
Present appeal by the appellant - accused aggrieved by
the judgment and order dated 21.01.2021 passed in Special
SC/ST No.13/2018 on the file of the II Additional District
Sessions and Special Judge, Dharwad (hereinafter referred to
as 'the trial Court') by which the accused has been convicted
and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence
punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-
and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
It is further directed that there shall be no separate sentence
for the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes
and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
(hereinafter referred to as 'SC/ST (PA) Act') since the offence
under this Section would merge with the offence under Section
302 of IPC which is a great punishment.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief:
One Smt.Yallavva wife of Ramappa Talawar belonging to
Valmiki caste - a scheduled tribe community, is the
complainant. That her son namely Prakash was married to one
Smt.Laxmi @ Padma. That about six months ago said
CRL.A No. 100048 of 2021
Smt.Laxmi @ Padma was moving around with the accused who
belonged to Maratha community. Despite the opposition and
objection by the family members of the complainant, the
accused continued to move around with the said Smt.Laxmi @
Padma. The younger son of the complainant namely Irappa -
the deceased in the instant case, had on several occasion
warned and threatened the accused in connection with the said
matter. Eventually on 13.02.2018 at about 08:20 p.m. in an
open area near Kolikeri, Kerekatti of Dharwad, the accused
assaulted deceased Irappa with a Talwar on his head and all
over the body causing bleeding injuries thereby committed his
murder.
3. After the investigation, the Police filed charge sheet
against the accused for the offences punishable under Section
302 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (PA) Act. Charges
were framed. On accused pleading not guilty, trial was
conducted.
4. The prosecution examined 23 witnesses as PWs.1 to
PW23 and got marked 40 documents as Exs.P1 to P40 and
produced 21 material objects, marked as MOs.1 to MO24. The
accused except denial did not lead any evidence in support of
CRL.A No. 100048 of 2021
his defence. The trial Court by the impugned judgment and
order convicted the accused and sentenced him to undergo
imprisonment as stated above. Hence, the accused is before
this Court in this appeal.
5. Sri.R.H.Angadi, learned counsel for the appellant
reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal
submitted that the prosecution has not proved the factum of
motive and preparation for commission of offence; though the
story of accused having relationship with the daughter-in-law of
the complainant has been made up, same is not proved by
leading cogent evidence; that the conviction is based only on
the sole eyewitness PW2/CW11 namely Sri.Manjunath Mane @
Tikali Manjya whose name is not mentioned in the complaint at
Ex.P1 and whose presence at the place of occurrence is not
proved; though there is reference in the complaint with regard
to Rahul Lokur - PW14/CW19 a relative of the complainant who
claimed to have informed the complainant about accused
assaulting the deceased, there is no specific reference by him
of the accused committing the offence; PW1/CW1 who partly
supported the case of the prosecution has turned hostile; that
there is inconsistency in the versions of the witnesses with
CRL.A No. 100048 of 2021
regard to the nature of the weapon used; that it was highly
improbable that the accused could have carried such a weapon
in his pants and caused 54 injuries on the body of the
deceased; the evidence of the other witnesses does not support
the case of the prosecution, therefore, the trial Court ought to
have given the benefit of doubt to the accused and acquitted
him of the offences. Hence, seeks for allowing the appeal.
6. On the other hand, Sri.V.M.Banakar, the learned
Additional State Public Prosecutor justified the order passed by
the trial Court and submitted that the deposition of eye
witnesses and the witnesses who had last seen the accused
with the deceased has remained unimpeached; that the
postmortem report read with the opinion regarding the nature
of injuries caused and the FSL report regarding the blood group
of the deceased and the one found on the material objects has
further established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt. The appeal is devoid of merits warranting no
interference. Hence, sought for dismissal of the appeal.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The point
that arise for consideration is:
CRL.A No. 100048 of 2021
"Whether the trial Court is justified in convicting the
accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of
IPC read with Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (PA) Act?"
8. From the perusal of the complaint at Ex.P1,
PW1/CW1 - the mother of the deceased has stated that about
six months ago the accused was moving around with her
daughter-in-law Smt.Laxmi Talawar wife of her elder son
Prakash. That her family members had advised her daughter-
in-law and sent her to her matrimonial home. That on
13.02.2018 while she was returning from her work at about
06:35 p.m., she met her relative Sri.Ambaresh who informed
her that her son - Irappa and the accused - Vinayaka were
talking near Kerekatti in which the deceased Irappa had
assaulted accused - Vinayaka on the issue of his illicit
relationship with Laxmi. On hearing the same, the complainant
had asked said Ambaresh to tell Irappa to come home. That
about 06:40 p.m. her son - Irappa had called her over mobile
phone and informed her that he and accused - Vinayaka were
talking near Kerekatti and he gave the phone to the accused -
Vinayaka who had told the complainant that though he had not
gone with her daughter-in-law, Irappa was fighting with him.
On that the complainant had asked Irappa to come home.
Thereafter at about 08:15 a.m., when the complainant was at
CRL.A No. 100048 of 2021
home, her relative one Rahul Lokur had come running to her
home and informed that Irappa has been killed in the open
space near the Kolikeri Kerekattie. Immediately the
complainant went to the spot and found her son had fallen on
the ground with injuries on his head, left hand and face. The
said incident had taken place at about 08:20 p.m. The body of
her son was identified by her and Manjunath Mundinamani and
Yallappa Kanakur who were present at the time on the spot.
9. PW1/CW1- the complainant in her deposition has
reiterated the aforesaid contents of the complaint and has
identified the photographs, the spot panchanama, footwear,
mobile phone, clothes, another material object seized during
investigation. Nothing has been elicited in the cross-
examination of the said witness to discredit the said witness.
10. The motive behind the offence as per the
prosecution is that the accused was moving around with
PW23/CW18 - Smt.Lakshmi @ Padma, wife of PW13/CW17 -
Prakash Talawar and daughter-in-law of the complainant -
PW1/CW1. It is relevant to refer to the deposition of
PW13/CW17 and PW23/CW18, in this regard. PW13/CW17 in
his deposition has stated that the accused was openly moving
CRL.A No. 100048 of 2021
with his wife and he has personally seen them being together
about six months ago. He further states that he had fought
with her on the said issue and had sent her to her matrimonial
home by informing her parents. That despite the advice of the
elders of the family the accused and his wife had not mend
their ways. In this regard, his brother deceased Irappa was
quarrelling with the accused.
11. PW23/CW18 - Smt.Laxmi @ Padma wife of
PW13/CW17 has also been examined. In the cross examination,
she has admitted to have been staying with her parents.
Though she has denied having any relationship with the
accused, she has voluntarily stated that her husband had
fought with her alleging she was with the accused and because
of the fight with her husband she had gone to her matrimonial
home.
12. PW2/CW11 - Sri.Manjunath Mane is the eyewitness
to the incident. He has stated that he was present with the
deceased Irappa at the time of the incident. He has spoken
about the illicit relationship between the accused and
Smt.Laxmi being the cause of the dispute and quarrel between
deceased Irappa and the accused in that regard. He stated that
- 10 -
CRL.A No. 100048 of 2021
since the date on which the incident took place was Shivaratri
and it was a holiday, he was at home. At about 12.30 to 12.45
p.m. while he was sitting near Kariyamma Temple, deceased
Irappa had come over there and while they were talking to
each other, accused also came over there. Deceased - Irappa
started to scold the accused in connection with his relationship
with Smt.Laxmi and during the altercation, deceased - Irappa
slapped accused. That on the very same day, at about 7.00
p.m. while he was at home, deceased Irappa had come over
and called him saying that the accused had called him to his
house as the mother of the accused had wanted to settle the
dispute. Therefore, at about 7.45 p.m., he along with deceased
Irappa, proceeded towards the house of the accused. On the
way, they met the accused near the temple. From there, all
three of them proceeded towards the house of the accused. At
that time, PW3/CW8 and PW4/CW9 along with another person
who were sitting over the bridge had seen all three of them
proceeding towards the house of the accused. When they came
near the place of incident, deceased Irappa started scolding the
accused and in the process, Irappa attempted to pick up a
stone to hit the accused. At that time, the accused pulled out
talwar from the right side of his pants and assaulted the
- 11 -
CRL.A No. 100048 of 2021
deceased on his head. When deceased - Irappa fell down, the
accused continued to assault the deceased with the said talwar
all over his body. Being frightened PW2/CW11 started to
scream and called PW3/CW8 and PW4/CW9 who were sitting
over the bridge. The accused had in the meanwhile ran away.
Irappa died due to the injuries. Thus PW2/CW11 has vividly
given the description of the incident and also he being present
at the scene of offence. The said witness has withstood the
lengthy and elaborate test of cross-examination and nothing
has been elicited to discredit either his presence at the spot or
he witnessing the incident. Several suggestions have been
made to the said witness concerning his employment in the
petrol bunk and he obtaining the leave etc., to discredit his
presence. It is also suggested that the deceased was a
supporter of a congress party and was close to some persons
who were accused of being involved in a case of murder of one
Yogesh Gouda and that the murder of deceased - Irappa was
the result of ill-will arising out of deceased - Irappa moving
around with the assailant of said Yogesh Gouda which
suggestions have been denied.
- 12 -
CRL.A No. 100048 of 2021
13. PW14/CW19 - Rahul Lokur, another eyewitness to
the incident in his deposition has stated that there was illicit
relationship between the accused and PW23/CW18 and for the
said reason, deceased Irappa was threatening and assaulting
the accused. That on 13.02.2018, he had gone to a grocery
shop near the Kariyamma Gudi temple at about 8.00 p.m.
While he was returning from the shop, he saw accused,
deceased-Irappa and PW2/CW11 standing near the Kerekatti
and the deceased quarreling with the accused on the said issue.
At that time, accused assaulted the deceased with the talwar.
Deceased fell on to the ground and the accused again assaulted
him. Immediately, he rushed to the house of PW1/CW1 and
took her to the place of the incident, by that time, deceased
Irappa had died and accuse was not there. After seeing the
dead body, being scared of the scene, he went to his house. In
the cross examination, the said witness has stated that he has
not personally seen the illicit relationship between the accused
and PW23/CW18 but has heard from others. In the cross
examination, it is suggested that PW13/CW17 was suspecting
CW18 and deceased Irappa and was quarrelling in that regard.
It is further suggested that one year prior to the incident,
PW23/CW18 had been sent to her matrimonial home. The
- 13 -
CRL.A No. 100048 of 2021
witness has volunteered that she was sent home on the issue
of the accused.
14. PW3/CW8 to PW4/CW9 and PW5/CW10 are the
witnesses examined by the prosecution to prove that they had
seen PW2/CW11, deceased-Irappa and the accused near the
bridge. PW3/CW8 in his deposition has stated that he and
PW5/CW10 were near the Kolikere bridge between 7.00 to 7.30
p.m. on the date of the incident. At that time, PW4/CW9 had
also joined them and they saw accused, deceased-Irappa and
PW2/CW11 passing through the bridge and within 5 minutes
thereof they heard the noise from the direction in which they
had gone. At that time mother of PW5/CW10 had asked them
to come home as there was fight in the area. The said witness
was partially considered hostile. However, in the cross
examination by the defence counsel, nothing has been elicited
to discredit his evidence regarding he having seen the accused,
deceased Irappa and PW2/CW11.
15. Similarly, PW4/CW9 in his deposition has stated
that on the date of incident at 7.30 p.m. PW3/CW8 and
PW5/CW10 had called him near Kolikere bridge and they were
standing there. At that time, there was commotion near the
- 14 -
CRL.A No. 100048 of 2021
tank. Mother of PW5/CW10 had asked them to come home. The
said witness was partially considered hostile. However, in the
cross examination by the defence counsel, nothing has been
elicited to discredit his evidence regarding the said witness
being present along with PW3/CW8 and PW5/CW10.
16. PW5/CW10 had in his deposition stated that on the
date of incident, he was talking to PW3 near the Kolikere
bridge situated in front of his house and PW4/CW9 came there
and they were having conversation about buying a car. At that
time, the accused, deceased Irappa and PW2/CW11 crossed
them and went towards the tank and after some time, they
heard the noise of fighting from the direction which they went.
On hearing the same, his mother asked them to come home
accordingly they went to his house. The said witness has also
been partially considered hostile. However, in the cross
examination by the defence counsel, nothing has been elicited
to discredit his evidence regarding he along with PW3/CW8 and
PW4/CW9 having seen the accused, deceased Irappa and
PW2/CW11.
17. Thus, a cumulative reading of the depositions of
PWs.2, 3 to 5 and 13 to 15 would reveal that from the
- 15 -
CRL.A No. 100048 of 2021
aforesaid witnesses, namely, PW13/CW17, PW23/CW18 and
PW2/CW11, the prosecution has been able to establish the
motive being the enmity between the accused and the family of
the deceased on the ground that the accused was intimate with
PW23/CW18. It further reveals that the accused, deceased-
Irappa and PW2/CW11 were proceeding towards the place of
incident, Which probabalises the presence of PW2/CW11 at the
place of incident. The defence has not been able to impeach the
credibility of the said witnesses in any manner whatsoever.
18. As regards the presence of PW14/CW19-Rahul
Lokur, on the spot, PW1/CW1-complainant has mentioned his
name in the complaint itself as the person who informed her
about the killing of Irappa. As noted above, nothing has been
established by the defence to impeach the statement of the
said witness.
19. From the aforesaid material evidence produced by
the prosecution, no grounds are made out by the accused to
disbelieve the motive circumstances, the last seen
circumstances and the presence of eyewitnesses at the scene of
the offence or his evidence.
- 16 -
CRL.A No. 100048 of 2021
20. The weapon used to commit the offence and the
blood stained clothes were recovered from the house of the
accused at his instance and were seized as per the mahazar at
Ex.P22 and 23. PW10/CW5 has been examined as panch
witness. One blood stained chappal of the accused was also
seized as per seizure panchanama at Ex.P23. The said witness
has withstood the cross examination and supported the case of
the prosecution.
21. PW11/CW28 is the Assistant Director of RFSL,
Belgaum who has spoken about the blood group found on the
articles Nos.1, 2, 4 to 21 sent for verification. PW11 has
deposed that the blood found on the said articles are that of the
human blood belonging to 'O' group. The certificate of
examination in that regard has been marked at Ex.P26. PW21
has deposed that on 14.02.2018 blood sample of the deceased
was taken at the time of post mortem examination. On
examination of the said blood sample it was found that the
same belongs to 'O' positive group. A report in this regard has
been produced as per Ex.P38.
22. From the evidence of PW11/CW28 and PW21, it is
clear that the blood stains found on the articles referred to in
- 17 -
CRL.A No. 100048 of 2021
Ex.P26 sent for examination and that of the deceased was 'O'
positive as per Ex.P38 which establishes the fact that the items
seized from the scene of offence and the items seized from the
house of the accused have direct connection to the offence
committed by the accused.
23. PW6/CW24, the Doctor who has conducted the post
mortem has given the description of 53 injuries found on the
dead body as detailed in the post mortem report dated
14.02.2018 at Ex.P15. The cause of the death has been shown
as hemorrhagic shock secondary to injuries (penetrating)
caused in the chambers of heart. Time since the death is shown
as 24 hours. The said witness has also opined as per Ex.P17
that the injuries found on the dead body of the deceased could
be caused by the weapon marked and produced as MO18.
Thus, from the evidence of the doctor and the PME it is clear
that the death of the deceased is homicidal.
24. PW19/CW30 is the investigating officer who has
spoken about having taken the file from PW15/CW29 and
continued with the investigation. He has spoken about visiting
the place of incident, transporting the dead body to the
hospital, conducting inquest mahazar on dead body, taking the
- 18 -
CRL.A No. 100048 of 2021
photographs and subjecting the dead body to the post mortem
examination and thereafter handing over the dead body to the
relatives of the deceased, recording the statements of CWs.12
to 14, 18 and 20, visiting the place of incident and seizing
blood stained, dry grass, red colour left foot boot, soil, mobile
phone and left foot chappal from the place of incident in the
presence of CW1, CW2 and CW3. He has spoken about the
other details of the investigation including recording the
voluntary statement of the accused and recovery of the weapon
and the blood stained clothes of the accused in the presence of
CW4 and CW5. He has also spoken about obtaining the caste
certificates of the accused as well as of the deceased and his
mother. He has also spoken about sending the items seized to
the office of RFSL to Chemical examination and also obtaining
the opinion with regard to the nature of injuries and also with
regard to obtaining report from HESCOM regarding supply of
electricity on the date of the incident and the FSL report. In the
cross examination, though several suggestions have been made
disputing the investigation process adopted by him, nothing has
been brought out to discredit his investigation. It is pertinent to
note that in the cross examination, a suggestion has been
made to this witness regarding registration of criminal cases in
- 19 -
CRL.A No. 100048 of 2021
No.232/2013, 113/2013 in Dharwad city police station and case
in crime No.177/2013 in Dharwad Rural police station against
the deceased to which, the witness has pleaded ignorance. It is
further suggested that a false charge sheet has been filed
against the accused under political pressure, which has been
denied.
25. As regard the official witnesses and the panch
witnesses, all of them have supported the case of the
prosecution and none have turned hostile.
26. In the light of the aforesaid evidence produced by
the prosecution, which has been taken note of by the Trial
Court while passing the impugned judgment and order, the
grounds urged in the appeal memorandum and the submissions
made by the learned counsel for the appellant during the
hearing of this appeal with regard to the purported failure of
the prosecution to establish the motive circumstances, last
seen theory and the presence of the eyewitness cannot be
countenanced. It is necessary to point out that the accused had
apparently had deliberate intention and had accordingly
prepared to commit the offence as could be inferred from the
narration of the witnesses in that the accused and the deceased
- 20 -
CRL.A No. 100048 of 2021
had altercation earlier in a day and apparently accused had
asked the deceased to come over to his house as his mother
intended to settle the dispute between them. It is for this
reason, deceased went to the house of PW2 and took him along
to go to the house of the accused. While they were on the way
accused joined them. PWs.3 to 5 have in unison deposed to
have seen three of them going towards the place of the
incident. It is also evident that there was a quarrel and before
the deceased could pick up the stone and attack the accused,
he had assaulted the deceased with the weapon which he had
already carried with. This circumstance would indicate that
accused had predetermined to commit the offence.
27. That apart, the appellant/accused has neither
stated anything whatsoever during recording of 313 statement
nor has led any defence evidence. As seen in the line of cross
examination of witnesses, the accused has set up different
defence theories namely, deceased having been involved in
certain criminal cases, deceased borrowing huge loans and not
being able to repay to his debtors, deceased moving around
with certain persons accused of being involved in the case of
murder of Yogesh Gouda. The deceased having illicit
- 21 -
CRL.A No. 100048 of 2021
relationship with PW23/CW18, none of these theories have
been even probabalised by the accused in his defence. Nothing
prevented the accused from producing the material with regard
to the pendency of the criminal case against the deceased as
suggested to the investigating officer.
28. It is extremely relevant to notice that incident had
taken place at 20:20 hours of 13.02.2018. Complaint at Ex.P1
is lodged at 21:30 hours on the same day. The FIR at Ex.P29 is
forwarded to the jurisdictional Court at Dharwad on 14.02.2018
at 01:00 a.m. The entire case of the prosecution is in line with
the averments made by PW1 in her complaint. There has been
no deviation thereof. It is however also pertinent to note that
the complainant on 16.02.2018 had given her further
statement that in which she had clarified that in her earlier
complaint dated 13.02.2018, she had referred to one Ambaresh
her relative having informed her about the quarrel between
Vinayaka and Irappa and that said matter was in fact told to
her by her relative Rahul and she had inadvertently named
Ambaresh instead in a hurry and under shock of the incident.
29. The timing with which the law has been set in
motion as noted above rules out any doubt of alleged false
- 22 -
CRL.A No. 100048 of 2021
implication of the accused in the case. Further, from the
contents of the complaint, deposition of witnesses, material
evidence and exhibits produced by the prosecution, it emanates
that the accused was allegedly moving around with the
daughter-in-law of the complainant, which was the main cause
for the dispute between the accused and the deceased. The
deceased had objected and warned the accused, which
eventually led to the incident of accused assaulting the
deceased with the weapon causing injuries resulting in his
death. Thus there is a common thread running through the
entire case connecting the chain of events duly supported by
the eye witnesses establishing the truth in the version of the
prosecution resulting in the impugned judgment and order by
the trial Court.
30. In the circumstances, no infirmity can be found with
the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the Trial court
while passing the impugned judgment and order warranting
any interference. In the circumstances, we are of the
considered opinion that appeal lacks merits and is liable to be
dismissed. The point raised above is answered accordingly.
Consequently, the following order:
- 23 -
CRL.A No. 100048 of 2021
ORDER
Appeal is dismissed.
The impugned judgment and order dated 21.01.2021
passed in Special SC/ST No.13/2018 on the file of the II
Additional District and Sessions and Special Judge, Dharwad, is
confirmed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
RSH/KGK
