Karnataka High Court
Nagappa S/O Dulappa Tigadi vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 April, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6870-DB
CRL.A No. 100250 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100250 OF 2023 (C)
BETWEEN:
NAGAPPA S/O. DULAPPA TOGADI,
AGED 35 YEARS, OCCU: DIRVER,
R/O: SANGANKERI VILLAGE,
MUDALAGI TALUK,
BELAGAVI DISTRICT-590001.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S. P. KANDAGAL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH GHATAPRABHA P S
BELAGAVI DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY
THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
Digitally signed HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
by SAMREEN DHARWAD BENCH-580011.
AYUB
DESHNUR ...RESPONDENT
Location: HIGH (BY SRI. M. B. GUNDAWADE, ADDITIONAL SPP)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 29-11-2022 PASSED BY THE XII ADDL.
SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI SITTING AT GOKAK IN SESSIONS CASE
NO. 8028/2021 CONVICTING THE APPEALLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302 IPC, AND THE ORDER
DATED 30-11-2022 SENTENCING THE APPELLANT TO UNDERGO
RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE AND PAY THE FINE OF
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6870-DB
CRL.A No. 100250 of 2023
RS.1,00,000/- AND IN DEFAULT, TO UNDERGO FURTHER SIMPLE
IMPRISONMENT FOR THREE YEARS.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
23.04.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS
DAY, RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. The appellant-accused has preferred this appeal under
Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for
short "Cr.P.C.,") challenging the judgment of his
conviction dated 29.11.2022 and order of sentence dated
30.11.2022 passed by the XII-Additional Sessions Judge,
Belagavi, sitting at Gokak (for short "Trial Court") in
S.C.No.8028/2021.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to
as per their rank before the Trial Court.
3. The brief and relevant facts leading to the case of the
prosecution are as under:
3.1. That, the accused was charge sheeted by the Police
Inspector, Ghataprabha Police Station for the offence
under Section 302 of IPC.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6870-DB
3.2. It is the case of the prosecution that, one Smt.Renuka
Laxman Tigadi, r/o. Sanganakeri village in Gokak Taluk
lodged complaint at 6.00 a.m. on 10.04.2021 by
appearing before the Police Inspector of Ghataprabha
police station, stating, that her husband Laxman
Mallappa Tigadi, aged about 42 years was killed by his
brother-Nagappa Mallappa Tigadi i.e. accused, who is a
vagabond. The accused frequently used to consume
alcohol and quarrel with his brother deceased-Laxman
stating that why he did not perform his marriage.
3.3. About one month prior to filing of the complaint,
accused told his relative Dasharath Chunannavar that if
his brother-Laxman fails to perform his marriage, he will
kill him. Since then, the accused did not visit the house
of the complainant. It is stated by the complainant that,
on 09.04.2021 she had been to Gokak Government
Hospital for the purpose of delivery of her daughter. At
about 9.30 p.m. her sister-Savakka Rangappa Patil
telephoned her and informed that, near the house of the
complainant, by the side of the road, accused assaulted
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6870-DB
the husband of the complainant in order to commit his
murder. Due to the assault, her husband-Laxman
sustained grievous injuries on his head and face and
blood was oozing. It was told to the complainant that her
husband is lying by the side of the road and other
residents of Sanganakeri village are there at the spot.
On hearing this news, the complainant along with her
son-in-law by name Manjunath Venkappa Arabhavi went
to the scene of offence on a motorcycle. There, they
noticed injured-Laxman lying by the side of the road with
injuries on his head and face, but still he was alive and
was not able to speak.
3.4. On enquiry, it was revealed that, at about 9.15 p.m.
on that day, when Laxman was standing at the place of
incident, the accused came there, picked up quarrel with
him, and with an intention to kill him, he took a stone
and assaulted on his head and face due to which Laxman
sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, the said
Manjunath and other residents of the village by name
Dasharath Chunannavar, Ramappa Melavanki, Bhimappa
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6870-DB
Chigari, Manikant Maradi and Dastagir Mujawar, shifted
the injured in a Cruiser vehicle owned by Mayappa
Makali to Nimra Hospital, Gokak. There, the doctor
advised them to take the injured to Ganga Hospital. In
Ganga Hospital, it was advised by the doctor to take him
to Gokak Government Hospital as he had sustained
grievous injuries on his person. Accordingly, they shifted
the injured to Gokak Government Hospital. There, the
doctors gave first-aid treatment and advised them to
take the injured to Belagavi Hospital. Accordingly, when
they were shifting the injured to Belagavi Hospital, near
RTO Circle, he succumbed to the injuries at 11.45 p.m.
Thereafter, they shifted his dead body to their village
and on 10.04.2021, the complainant filed complaint
against the accused as per Ex.P1. Thus, the criminal law
was set into motion.
3.5. On 10.04.2021, PW18-Shrishail Byakud, the then PSI
of Ghataprabha Police Station, on information about
murder of Laxman Tigadi rushed to the police station, by
which time, CW22 had registered the crime in Crime
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6870-DB
No.82/2021 on the basis of compliant filed by the
complainant and PW18 sent the FIR to the jurisdictional
Magistrate, which is marked as per Ex.P19. This PW18
went to the scene of offence at 8.00 a.m., called the
complainant and panchas and in their presence,
prepared panchanama of the scene of occurrence as per
Ex.P7, recovered M.O.1, 3, 4 and 5, prepared inquest
panchanama in between 8.00 am and 9.00 a.m., as per
Ex.P6, took photographs as per Ex.P2 to Ex.P4 and
recorded the statement of the complainant and other
witnesses.
3.6. He deputed his staff for apprehending the accused and
on the said day itself, the accused was apprehended at
1.00 p.m. near Arabhavi Mutt and was produced before
him. On interrogation, accused disclosed that, as his
brother -Laxman did not perform his marriage and
because of inability of his brother in performing the
marriage of the accused, he killed Laxman. Thereafter,
the accused was produced before the jurisdictional
Court. After following procedures and completion of
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6870-DB
investigation by collecting necessary documents, PW18
filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence
punishable under section 302 of IPC.
3.7. Before the Trial Court, to substantiate its case, the
prosecution examined in all 18 witnesses as PW1 to
PW18 and got marked documents as per Ex.P1 to Ex.P28
with respective signatures thereon and also got marked
M.O.1 to M.O.5. No documents were marked on behalf of
the defence.
3.8. The Trial Court, after closure of evidence having heard
the arguments of both sides, on evaluation of oral and
documentary evidence placed on record, answered Point
No.1 and 2 in affirmative and found the accused guilty of
committing offence under Section 302 of IPC, sentenced
him "to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also
imposed fine of Rs.1,00,000/- for the said offence with
default sentence". The Trial Court also ordered to pay
Rs.90,000/- out of fine total fine of Rs.1,00,000/- to the
complainant as compensation as required under Section
357 of Cr.P.C., and remaining fine amount of
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6870-DB
Rs.10,000/- was ordered to be deposited to the
Exchequer of the Government. Even it was observed by
the Trial Court that the period of custody already
undergone by the accused be given set off under Section
428 of Cr.P.C.
4. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and
order of sentence passed by the Trial Court, the accused-
appellant has preferred this appeal.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant-accused
Sri.S.P.Kandagal, with all force submits that, the so
called incident has taken place in the night hours. The
very identification of the accused as a person who has
committed the offence is not duly proved by the
prosecution in accordance with law.
5.1. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits
that, though PWs.4 to 10 are planted as eyewitnesses,
infact the evidence of these witnesses cannot be
believed. When prosecution relies upon the evidence of
the eyewitnesses, such evidence must be above board
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6870-DB
and such evidence must be acceptable evidence.
Evidence of PW6 cannot be accepted as she has given a
clear goby with regard to she witnessing the alleged
incident. Likewise, learned counsel for the appellant by
relying upon the evidence of other witnesses submits
that, all these witnesses are tutored witnesses. Even the
doctor evidence is not conjunct. The Trial Court has not
considered the evidence in proper perspective and it is
without any proper appreciation of evidence. He submits
that thereby, the defense of the accused that, deceased
himself fell down and sustained injuries is more
probable. The evidence of eyewitnesses is quite contrary
to the case of the prosecution. Therefore, he submits
that it is not safe to convict the accused.
5.2. According to his submission, the Trial Court has
committed a grave error in not considering the material
discrepancies in the evidence spoken to by the
witnesses, which goes to the root of the prosecution's
case. Whatever evidence led by the prosecution is not
sufficient to hold the accused guilty of commission of
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6870-DB
murder. It is his submission that, without any
corroborative evidence and without appreciating the
evidence in proper perspective, the Trial Court has
wrongly passed the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence against the accused. There is a delay in filing
the complaint, which has not been properly explained by
the complainant. In support of his submission, he relies
upon various evidence spoken to by the witnesses and
pointed out certain contradictions, according to him,
which would basically shake the case of the prosecution.
5.3. It is his submission that, because of discrepant
evidence adduced by the prosecution, the Trial Court is
not right in convicting the accused. It is prayed by
Sri.S.P.Kandagal, learned counsel for the appellant-
accused to allow this appeal and acquit the accused by
setting aside the impugned judgment.
6. As against this submission, Sri. M.B.Gundawade, learned
Additional SPP for the State, countering the arguments of
the learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the
eyewitnesses have spoken about the assault on the
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6870-DB
person of the deceased by the accused. The accused was
grinding axe against the deceased on the ground that the
deceased has not performed his marriage. Even prior to
one month of the incident, the accused had told the
resident of Sanganakeri that in case his brother Laxman
fails to perform his marriage, then he is going to kill him.
It is his further submission that the evidence spoken to
by the witnesses duly establish the homicidal death of
the deceased and also there are connecting links to
establish that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime
and his culpability in commission of offence is duly
proved in accordance with law. It is his submission that,
the Trial Court has evaluated the evidence spoken to by
the witnesses, properly assessed the same and has
rightly held that the accused is the perpetrator of the
crime of murder of his own brother. Therefore, according
to him, no interference is required into the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial
Court.
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6870-DB
7. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor submits
that, so far as homicidal death of deceased is concerned,
it is not in dispute. The defense so setup by the accused
that, deceased himself fell down and sustained injuries
cannot be accepted. It is his submission that, the trend of
cross-examination directed to the witnesses proves that,
defense admits the incident but denies the involvement
of the accused in the commission of the crime. PW1 has
spoken before the Court whatever she has heard about
the incident. From the demeanor of PW1 shows that, she
has given a natural evidence. Throughout the cross-
examination no animosity or ill-will is established
between the witnesses and accused.
7.1 He submits that, the postmortem report shows the
deceased had not consumed any alcohol. Thereby he
submits that, deceased by consuming alcohol fell down
and sustained injuries is ruled out. It is his submission
that, on reading the evidence led by the prosecution it is
proved that the defence has not disputed the presence of
the accused at the scene of occurrence at the relevant
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6870-DB
time, injuries on the person of the deceased, the opinion
of the doctor with regard to the injuries being
corroborated by the evidence of the eye-witnesses and
assault made by the accused. The witnesses so
examined in this case are all the natural witnesses. That
means, none of the witness is a chance witness. So also
conduct of the accused before the incident and after the
incident also plays an important role in understanding the
prosecution's case. He submits that, the doctor has not
noticed the presence of alcohol being consumed by the
deceased. Therefore, he submits that, the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial
Court is reasonable and cannot be interfered. Thus, it is
prayed by the learned Additional SPP to dismiss the
appeal.
8. We have given our anxious consideration to the
arguments of both the sides and meticulously perused
the records in depth.
9. In view of rival submissions of both the sides, the
following points would arise for our consideration.
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6870-DB
i) Whether the impugned judgment passed by the
Trial Court in finding the accused guilty is
without properly assessing and evaluating the
evidence and same suffers from infirmity?
ii) If so, whether the impugned judgment passed
by the Trial Court requires interference by this
Court?
iii) What order?
POINT NO. 1 AND 2 ARE DISCUSSED TOGETHER.
10. In a case of present nature, before discussing other
aspects of the case, it is the bounden duty of the
prosecution to prove homicidal death of Laxman Tigadi.
Once homicidal death of the deceased is proved, then
only question arises that whether is it the accused, who
is perpetrator of the crime and is responsible for the
death of deceased-Laxman.
11. To prove homicidal death of the deceased, the
prosecution relies upon the contents of Ex.P1-complaint.
On reading the complaint averments, evidently the
complainant, who is the wife of the deceased, is not an
eyewitness to the incident. She rushed to the spot on
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6870-DB
getting information through telephone by her sister-
Savakka stating that her husband-Laxman was assaulted
by the accused with a stone on his head and face due to
which he sustained grievous injuries. According to the
averments of the complaint, on hearing the said news,
the complainant along with her son-in-law by name
Manjunath came to the spot and noticed that her
husband-Laxman had sustained injuries on his head and
face. He was still alive but was not able to speak.
Initially, they shifted the injured-Laxman to Gokak
hospital and after getting first-aid, as per the advice of
the doctors, the injured was being taken to Belagavi
Hospital, but on the way to hospital he died. This fact of
death of the deceased due to injuries being sustained by
him is not denied by the defence. So also the
investigating officer has prepared inquest panchanama as
per Ex.P6, which shows the injuries that were sustained
by the deceased. Coupled with this, the prosecution
relied upon Ex.P10-Postmortem Report, which shows the
number of injuries sustained by the deceased. It was
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6870-DB
opined by the doctor that because of the said injuries, he
died. The panchas to the inquest panchanama coupled
with other evidence placed on record by the prosecution,
do establish that it was homicidal death and it is not
disputed by the defence. Therefore, it can very well be
stated that the deceased died homicidal death. The
documents placed on record by the prosecution also
prove the same.
12. To prove the culpability of committing crime by the
accused, the prosecution has relied upon various
evidences placed on record. Amongst the evidence placed
on record, evidently PW1-Renuka Tigadi, the wife of the
deceased, came to the scene of offence only after getting
information from her sister-Savakka through telephone
stating that her husband-Laxman was assaulted by the
accused by using a stone. When she came to the spot of
the incident at 9.30 p.m., she noticed injuries on the
head of her husband, who was in semi-conscious and was
unable to speak. The witnesses, who were present there,
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6870-DB
told her that accused assaulted the deceased by throwing
a stone on his head.
12.1. With regard to the said incident of causing murder of
the deceased by the accused, she lodged complaint as
per Ex.P1. According to complaint averments, the motive
of the accused to commit murder of the deceased was
that the deceased being brother of the accused has not
performed his marriage. Therefore, the accused was
grinding axe against his brother. Even the accused had
stated before one Dasharath Chunannavar that if the
deceased do not perform his marriage, he is going to kill
him.
12.2. This PW1 has identified the stone as well as clothes
worn by the deceased at the time of the incident as per
M.O.1 to 3. Even she identifies the photographs snapped
as per Ex.P2 to 5. PW1 is consistent in her evidence
about the motive of the accused for committing the
crime and also she noticing injuries on the person of her
husband. She also speaks about the death of the
deceased on the way to hospital because of the injuries
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6870-DB
being sustained by him on account of assault made by
the accused.
12.3. PW1 was cross-examined by the defence at length. It
is the defence of the accused that for the last two years
prior to the said incident the accused has not visited
Sanganakeri village and used to stay somewhere. It is
brought on record that at Sanganakeri village, at that
point of time, a new concrete road was constructed by
the authorities concerned and there were streetlights
burning. She admits that the said streetlights are
situated at a distance and stones cannot be seen in the
street lights. She states that on the date of the incident,
it was not difficult for her to go to police station to lodge
a complaint. For the question of the defence, that why
she did not lodge complaint on the date of the incident?
She answered that as they were scared of the said
incident, she did not go to the police station to lodge
complaint on the date of the incident.
12.4. It is her evidence that in between Sanganakeri village
and Ghataprabha, there is a distance of 3-4 km. She
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6870-DB
states that herself, Suresh and other witnesses had gone
to the police station to lodge the complaint and there
one Muslim boy wrote the complaint. It was suggested to
her that whether she knew the contents of the
complaint? For this question, she has given positive
answer. According to her, she herself had given
information to write the complaint. Though she has been
cross-examined by the defence at length, but nothing
worth is elicited so as to disbelieve her evidence given in
her examination-in-chief.
13. PW2-Basavaraj Hanumasagar is a pancha to inquest
panchanama and scene of offence panchanama.
According to him, he was very much present when Ex.P6-
inquest panchanama and Ex.P7-scene of occurrence
panchanama were prepared by the investigating officer.
He states that Ex.P8-sketch was also prepared by the
police and M.O.1 was also seized in his presence. He has
identified Ex.P5-photograph. He has been treated as
partly hostile to some extent but throughout his
evidence, this witness is consistent that he was very
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6870-DB
much present when inquest panchanama, scene of
offence panchanama and sketch were prepared by the
investigating officer.
14. PW3, being another inquest pancha also speaks in line
with the evidence of PW2. To disbelieve the version of
evidence spoken to by PW2 and PW3, though extensive
cross-examination is directed to them, but they have
withstood the test of cross-examination. The
panchanamas are duly proved from the evidence of these
two witnesses and also PW1.
15. PW4-Dasharath Chunannavar, PW5-Hanamanth Kandari,
PW6-Savakka Rangappa Patil, PW7-Ramappa Nagappa
Melavanki, PW8-Dastagir Mujawar, PW9-Manikant Mardi,
PW10-Yallavva Chunannavar are branded as
eyewitnesses to the incident by the prosecution. It is the
evidence of PW4 that, on 09.04.2021 at 9.00 p.m., when
deceased-Laxman was standing near his house, near a
borewell, the accused came there and asked him that
why he has not performed his marriage. By saying so, he
took a stone and assaulted on the head of the deceased.
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6870-DB
This PW4 tried to rescue Laxman from the hands of the
accused, but even then the accused assaulted the
deceased. This PW4, Savakka, Ramappa Melavanki and
other witnesses rescued Laxman, but due to the assault
on him made by the accused, he sustained grievous
injuries on his head and lost consciousness.
15.1. This witness also speaks that, the complainant had
been to Sattigeri for the purpose of delivery of her
daughter and she was informed about the incident
through telephone. He also states that after the incident,
injured-Laxman was shifted to Nimra hospital Gokak and
thereafter to Civil Hospital where he was given first-aid
treatment and there, he was advised to be taken to
Belagavi hospital. But on the way to Belagavi Hospital,
he died. This PW4 has been thoroughly cross-examined
by the defence, but nothing worth is elicited so as
disbelieve his version given in his examination-in-chief.
Except denial in the cross-examination, nothing worth is
elicited.
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6870-DB
15.2. The trend of cross-examination is worth reading and
supports the case of the prosecution. With regard to said
galata it was suggested to this witness that, the galata
had started in between 6.00 p.m. and 6.30 p.m. on the
date of the incident. This witness was unable to say the
time of the said galata. According to him, the said galata
started at 9.00 p.m. That means the presence of the
accused at Sanganakeri on that particular day of the
incident is admitted by the defence. Though it is
suggested to PW1 that for the last two years prior to the
date of incident, the accused did not visit Sanganakeri
village, the suggestion of galata taking place at 6.00
p.m., directed by the defence to PW4 falsifies the
defence of the accused. It is consistent evidence of PW4
that, by using stone the accused assaulted the deceased
on his head.
15.3. One more defence has been set up by the defence,
that on the date of the incident, at Sanganakeri village
there was non-veg party and deceased-Laxman by
consuming alcohol and having non-veg dinner was
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6870-DB
unable to control himself and fell down on a concrete
road, suffered grievous injuries on his head and died.
But this suggestion directed to PW4 is denied by him.
16. Likewise, PW5 also speaks in material particulars as that
of the evidence of PW4. This PW5 admits that, at
Sanganakeri village, a new concrete road was
constructed by the authorities. According to his evidence,
he noticed injuries on the waist of deceased-Laxman. He
admits that, in their village such stones are lying by the
side of the road etc., So this suggestion directed to PW5
goes against the defence of the accused.
17. PW6-Savakka Patil, being an eyewitness was the person,
who informed her sister-PW1 about the said incident.
According to her evidence, at 9.00 p.m. on the date of
the incident, she noticed quarrel between deceased and
the accused. The accused took a stone and assaulted
deceased-Laxman on his head due to which he sustained
injuries. She states that, on the said day, the
complainant had been to Sattigeri for the purpose of
delivery of her daughter. After ten minutes of she calling
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6870-DB
the complainant on telephone, the complainant came to
the spot. According to this witness, on the next day at
12.00 in the noon, the dead body of the deceased was
brought to the village. Though PW6 is cross-examined
extensively by the defence, she has withstood the test of
cross-examination.
18. PW7-Ramappa Melavanki speaks in similar words with
that of the evidence of PW4 and PW6. He is also an
eyewitness to the incident. He is consistent that there
was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased,
the accused was abusing the deceased stating that he
has not performed his marriage. The accused by taking a
stone assaulted Laxman on his head causing grievous
injuries.
19. PW8-Dastagir Mujawar is also an eyewitness. He too
speaks in line with the evidence of PW4 to PW7. This
witness states that he has not seen the quarrel with his
own eyes. When he saw the deceased, the deceased had
already lying on the ground with injuries. So the evidence
of PW8 can be accepted to the extent he noticing the
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6870-DB
deceased lying on the ground because of injuries
sustained by him. He admits that the deceased and
accused both used to consume alcohol.
20. PW9-Manikant Maradi being another eyewitness speaks
about he noticing the quarrel between accused and the
deceased and states that the accused assaulted the
deceased on his head by using a stone. According to his
evidence, when the said incident took place, he was
sitting by the side of borewell. According to him, quarrel
between the accused and the deceased was common. He
states that he noticed the incident in the streetlight.
21. PW10-Yallavva Chunannavar also speaks in similar lines
with that of evidence of PW9. According to this witness,
she has not tried to rescue the deceased and on hearing
the sound of galata, she came out of the house and
noticed injuries on the person of the deceased. It is
suggested to this witness that, when she came out of her
house, the accused was already ran away from the place
of incident. This suggestion directed to this witness goes
- 26 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6870-DB
against the defence that, the accused was not in the
village on the date of the incident.
22. On reading the evidence of all the eyewitnesses i.e. PW4
to PW10 examined by the prosecution, their evidence do
establish the fact that, they were very much present at
the spot of the incident, when the incident took place and
deceased had sustained grievous injuries on his vital part
of the body i.e. head and face. To disbelieve the evidence
of these witnesses, except denial in the cross-
examination, nothing worth is elicited from their mouth.
These witnesses have withstood the test of cross-
examination.
23. PW11-Liyakat Avate, being contractor has written the
Ex.P1-complaint as per the instructions given by the
complainant. The scribing of Ex.P1-complaint is not
denied by the defence.
24. PW12-Dr.Jagadeesh Jingi was working as a Senior
Specialist at Government Hospital Gokak, at the relevant
time. He deposed that on 10.04.2021, on requisition of
- 27 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6870-DB
Ghataprabha Police, he conducted post-mortem
examination on the dead body of the deceased between
11.00 a.m. and 12.00 p.m. in Mortuary of Government
Hospital at Gokak. He noticed following injuries on the
person of the deceased:
The following external injuries were noted:
1. Contusion wound of size 6X6 C.Ms on right
frontal above right eyebrow.
2. Cut lacerated wound of size 4X4X2 C.Ms on the
left temporoparietal region.
3. Cut lacerated wound of size 6X4X4 C.Ms on
upper half of occipital area.
On dissection of the body, I have observed the
following injuries:-
1) External haemorrhage on the left tempo
occipital region.
2) Fracture of skull left temporoparietal bone
(Depressed fracture)
3) Brain was congested and there was intra
cerebral bleeding present in left part of the
brain.
4) Membrane ruptured.
- 28 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6870-DB
25. According to PW12, the aforesaid injuries were the cause
of death of the deceased. Accordingly, he issued post-
mortem report. He has been thoroughly cross-examined
by the defence, but he is firm in his evidence about the
injuries sustained by the deceased. He states that he
has given opinion regarding cause of death in Ex.P11. He
identifies M.O.1 and opined that the injuries noted in the
post-mortem report can be caused by the use of M.O.1-
stone.
26. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant-
accused Shri. S.P.Kandagal that, deceased was drunker
and by consuming alcohol he must have fallen down and
because of that, had sustained injuries and died. As per
the case of the prosecution, the said incident of assault
on the person of the deceased has taken place on
09.04.2021 in between 9.00 p.m. and 9.30 p.m. On
10.04.2021 at 6.00 a.m. complaint was lodged. The
Investigating Officer after conducting the inquest
panchanama sent the dead body for conducting post-
mortem which was received by the hospital authorities at
- 29 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6870-DB
10.56 a.m. on 10.04.2021 itself. The post-mortem was
conducted in between 11.00 a.m. and 12.00 noon on
10.04.2021. The Post-mortem Report shows that, in
some of the contents of the said report it is noticed by
the doctor about digested food. It has come in the
evidence of doctor that he has not examined the dead
body with regard to the consumption of alcohol.
However, if really the deceased had consumed alcohol
before his dinner on the previous day, the food so
consumed by the deceased would have contained the
smell of alcohol. That must have been mentioned by the
doctor, who conducted the post-mortem. But, Ex.P.10
the P.M. Report is very much silent about the same. Even
the doctor has stated about the cause of death as a final
opinion because of the injuries sustained by the
deceased.
26.1 Further, it is written in the P.M. Report as to cause of
death as "after completion of both external and internal
postmortem examination of the whole body, I am of the
opinion that the cause of death is hemorrhage shock
- 30 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6870-DB
following bleeding from major organ brain and lungs
following assault by blunt object."
26.2 Even doctor has weighed the said M.O. No.1-
bloodstained stone which was weighing 4 k.gs. alleged to
have been used by the accused in committing the crime.
Where exactly the scene of offence is situated is proved,
as per the contents of sketch Ex.P.4. So, these factors
prove the case of the prosecution and believe the defense
of the accused. Except denial nothing worth is brought on
record by the defence in his cross-examination to
disbelieve his evidence.
27. PW13-Maruti Uppar, the Assistant Engineer, was the
person who prepared sketch of the place of incident as
per Ex.P12 at the request of the police. The contents of
Ex.P12-sketch are not denied by the defence.
28. PW14-Shrishail Kadam is the assistant Engineer, who has
issued certificate as per Ex.P13 to show that in between
9.00 p.m. and 10.00 p.m. on 09.04.2021, there was
electricity supply at the place of incident. It is the case of
- 31 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6870-DB
the prosecution that, the incident has taken place in a
street, where streetlights were burning and the
eyewitnesses i.e. PW4 to PW10, who are the residents of
Sanganakeri village, were present have witnessed the
incident. It has come in the evidence of all the witnesses
that, the accused frequently used to quarrel with his
brother deceased-Laxman to perform his marriage and
even prior to one month of the incident, he had told the
resident of Sanganakeri that in case his brother-Laxman
do not perform his marriage, then he is going to kill him.
This has come in the evidence of the witnesses.
29. All the eyewitnesses had knowledge of frequent quarrels
in between accused and the deceased. If that is so, when
the said incident has taken place during night hours in
the light of streetlights, PW4 to PW10 were able to see
the said quarrel between the accused and deceased and
they have witnessed quarrel and deposed regarding the
same in their evidence that it was the accused, who
assaulted the deceased by using M.O.1-stone, on the
date of the incident.
- 32 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6870-DB
30. On going through the photographs of M.O.1-stone, they
show that the said stone can be lifted by one hand and
even the weight of the stone is mentioned in the
panchanama. So if all these factual features are put
together with the evidence of PW14 shows that there was
power supply on the date of the incident in between 9.00
p.m. and 10.00 p.m. and these eyewitnesses have seen
the incident with their own eyes. They have consistently
spoken before the Court what they saw on the date of
the incident. They have spoken in their evidence with
regard to assault made by the accused on the person of
deceased by use of M.O.1-Stone. Throughout their
evidence, they are consistent. The evidence of PW14 is
also corroborative with the evidence of other witnesses
that there was no power cut at the time of the alleged
incident and streetlights were burning.
31. PW15-Raju Padatari was police constable at Ghataprabha
Police Station at the relevant time. He took the dead
body of the deceased to hospital for the purpose of post-
mortem and after post-mortem he handed over the same
- 33 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6870-DB
to the legal heirs of the deceased and submitted report
as per Ex.P14. He also produced M.O.1, 3, 4 and 5 before
the investigating officer. No effective cross-examination
is directed to this witness.
32. PW16-Basavaraj Hubballi is a photographer, who snapped
Ex.P2 to 5 photographs in his mobile. He has identified
them in his evidence. In the cross-examination, these
photographs were not denied by the defence.
33. PW17-Raju Holakar was head-constable at the relevant
time. As per directions of his superior officer, he visited
the scene of offence, conducted inquest panchanama as
per Ex.P6, took photographs as per Ex.P2 to 5, conducted
scene of offence panchanama as per Ex.P7 and prepared
sketch as per Ex.P8. Though he has been extensively
cross-examined, but nothing worth is elicited from his
mouth.
34. PW18-Shrishail Byakud was the Police Inspector at the
relevant time. He conducted investigation and filed
charge sheet against the accused. Though he has been
- 34 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6870-DB
extensively cross-examined but nothing worth is elicited
from his mouth and he has stated about the official role
being played by him with regard to investigation.
35. Thus, on scrupulous reading of entire evidence placed on
record by the prosecution, the evidence of PW4 to PW10,
who are eyewitnesses, clinchingly establish that it was
the accused who has committed the murder of his own
brother-Laxman. PW1, PW6 and PW9 have spoken about
the ill-will between accused and the deceased. The
accused repeatedly used to pick up quarrel with his
brother-Laxman stating that why he is not performing his
marriage. Keeping in mind the said grudge, the accused
committed murder of his brother-Laxman. The testimony
of all the witnesses i.e. PW4, PW6, PW9 and PW10 is
corroborative with each other. They are the neighbours,
who knew the activities of the accused as well as
deceased.
36. In addition to that, the other neighbours i.e. PW5, PW7
and PW8 have also spoken before the Court against the
accused. M.O.1 is identified as a weapon used by the
- 35 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6870-DB
accused in the commission of the crime. Though
extensive cross-examination is directed to all the above
witnesses, no material contradictions or discrepancies are
found in their evidence. It is quite natural in villages that,
after having dinner, some villagers come and sit out of
their house. At the time of the incident, these witnesses
have noticed the quarrel between the deceased and the
accused. They are all neighbors who tried to rescue the
deceased from the clutches of the accused, but the
accused assaulted the deceased with M.O.1 and thereby
caused grievous injuries on vital part of his body. The
attempt of rescuing the deceased by the witnesses is not
denied by the defence. The presence of the accused at
the place of incident at that point of time is duly proved
from the evidence of these witnesses.
37. The trend of cross-examination directed to these
witnesses show that the defence itself has perfected the
case of the prosecution. If that is so, the Trial Court is
right in coming to the conclusion that the eyewitnesses
stated supra have seen the said incident and though
- 36 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6870-DB
there are some minor contradictions in the evidence of
these witnesses, it is not the case of the defence that,
there was no sufficient light and the eyewitnesses could
not see the incident etc., All the eyewitnesses have
consistently stated about they witnessing the said
incident. It is a rural area where the incident has taken
place and the eyewitnesses have spoken in line with
whatever they saw when the incident has taken place.
Therefore, on appreciating the evidence of eyewitnesses
stated supra and other circumstances evidence brought
on record by the prosecution, as rightly observed by the
Trial Court, the accused is the perpetrator of the crime
and his culpability in committing the crime is duly proved
in accordance with law.
38. If all these factual features are put together, it can be
said that the deceased suffered homicidal death and the
accused has assaulted him with an intention to commit
murder by using M.O.1-stone. Even the testimony of
eyewitnesses and other witnesses brought on record
show the culpability of the accused in the commission of
- 37 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6870-DB
the crime. Therefore, we do not find any factual or legal
error in the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
imposed by the Trial Court as prescribed under the
provisions of Section 302 of IPC. The appellant-accused
has utterly failed to prove that there is no proper
appreciation of evidence by the Trial Court in finding him
guilty of committing the offence of murder.
39. Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act says how the Courts
have to appreciate the evidence on record. The Trial
Court has appreciated the evidence on record in
accordance with law and as per the provisions of Section
3 of the Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, the points raised
are required to be answered against the appellant-
accused and in favour of the prosecution and they are
answered accordingly.
40. In view of our discussions made above, the appeal filed
by the appellant fails and is liable to be dismissed.
Resultantly we pass the following:
- 38 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6870-DB
ORDER
i. The appeal filed by the appellant-accused
under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., is hereby
dismissed.
ii. The judgment of conviction and order of
sentence passed by the XII Additional
Sessions Judge, Belagavi, sitting at Gokak, in
S.C.No.8028/2021 is hereby confirmed.
iii. Send back the Trial Court Records along with
copy of this judgment for compliance.
iv. Intimate operative portion of the order to the
Trial Court through email forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
YAN
