Karnataka High Court
Daithappa Ls/O Laxmappa Dodamani vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 July, 2025
-1-
CRL.A NO.100002 OF 2021 C/W
CRL.A.NO.100260 OF 2020
CRL.A.NO.100261 OF 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100002 OF 2021
C/W
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100260 OF 2020,
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100261 OF 2020
IN CRL.A.NO.100002/2021:
BETWEEN:
ARJUN S/O. LAKKAPPA HURAKANNAVAR,
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
Digitally signed
by
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR
RESIDENT OF MUDENUR VILLAGE-583278,
TQ. RAMADURG, DIST. BELAGAVI.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
YASHAVANT KARNATAKA
NARAYANKAR DHARWAD
BENCH
DHARWAD
Date:
2025.07.17
10:45:11
...APPELLANT
+0530
(BY SRI. K.S. PATIL AND SRI. GIRISH M. PATIL, ADVOCATES)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY CPI,
MUDHOL-587313, TQ. MUDHOL,
DIST. BAGALKOTE,
REPRESENTED BY S.P.P, AG OFFICE,
HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD-580011.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. A.M. GUNDAWADE, ADDITIONAL S.P.P)
-2-
CRL.A NO.100002 OF 2021 C/W
CRL.A.NO.100260 OF 2020
CRL.A.NO.100261 OF 2020
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
374(2) OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN
S.C.NO.50/2018 AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
SENTENCE DATED 17.08.2020 PASSED BY THE I-ADDL. DIST.
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOTE TO SIT AT JAMAKHANDI,
FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147,
148, 504, 324, 326 AND 302 R/W. SECTION 149 OF IPC AND
ACQUIT THE APPELLANT BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL.
IN CRL.A.NO.100260/2020:
BETWEEN
1. LAKKAPPA S/O. LAXMAPPA DODAMANI,
AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ALAGUNDI B.K. VILLAGE,
TQ. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOTE.
2. NEELAWWA W/O. DAITHAPPA DODAMANI,
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE/HOUSE WIFE,
R/O. ALAGUNDI B.K. VILLAGE,
TQ. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOTE.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. K.S. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY CPI, MUDHOL P.S.,
TQ. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOTE,
REPRESENTED BY S.P.P., AG OFFICE,
HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD-580003.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. A.M. GUNDAWADE, ADDITIONAL S.P.P)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374
(2) OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN SC
NO.50/2018 AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE
DT 17/08/2020 PASSED BY I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, BAGALKOTE TO SIT AT JAMAKHANDI, JAMAKHANDI
FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 143 OF IPC
-3-
CRL.A NO.100002 OF 2021 C/W
CRL.A.NO.100260 OF 2020
CRL.A.NO.100261 OF 2020
AND ACQUIT THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NO.4 AND 5 BY
ALLOWING THIS APPEAL.
IN CRL.A.NO.100261/2020:
BETWEEN
1 . DAITHAPPA S/O. LAXMAPPA DODAMANI,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ALAGUNDI B.K. VILLAGE,
TQ. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOTE.
2. SURESH S/O. LAKKAPPA DODAMANI,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ALAGUNDI B.K. VILLAGE,
TQ. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOTE.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. K.S. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY CPI, MUDHOL P.S.,
TQ. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOTE,
REPRESENTED BY S.P.P., AG OFFICE,
HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD-580003
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. A.M. GUNDAWADE, ADDITIONAL S.P.P)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374
(2) OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN SC
NO.50/2018 AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE
DATED 17/08/2020 PASSED BY I ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, BAGALKOTE TO SIT AT JAMAKHANDI, JAMAKHANDI
FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147,
148, 504, 324, 326 AND 302 R/W. SECTION 149 OF IPC AND
ACQUIT THE APPELLANT BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL, IN SO
FAR AS PETITIONERS CONCERNED.
THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT
COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUSTICE
RAJESH RAI K, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
CRL.A NO.100002 OF 2021 C/W
CRL.A.NO.100260 OF 2020
CRL.A.NO.100261 OF 2020
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K)
These appeals are directed against the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 17.08.2020 passed in
S.C.No.50/2018 by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Bagalkot, sitting at Jamakhandi (hereinafter referred to as
'learned Sessions Judge') whereby the learned Sessions Judge
convicted accused No.1 i.e., appellant in Crl.A.No.100002/2021
and accused Nos.2 and 3 i.e., appellants in
Crl.A.No.100261/2020 for the offences punishable under
sections 143, 147, 148, 504, 324, 326 and 302 r/w Section 149
of IPC. The learned Sessions Judge convicted accused Nos.4
and 5 i.e., appellants in Crl.A.No.100260/2020 for the offence
under Section 143 of IPC and acquitted them of the offences
punishable under Sections 147, 148, 504, 324, 326 and 302
r/w Section 149 of IPC. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted
all the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323,
307 and 506 of IPC.
CRL.A NO.100002 OF 2021 C/W
CRL.A.NO.100260 OF 2020
CRL.A.NO.100261 OF 2020
2. The learned Sessions Judge sentenced accused Nos.1
to 3 to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months
and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each for the offence punishable
under Section 143 of IPC; sentenced them to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay a fine of
Rs.3,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 147
of IPC; sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.4,000/- each for the
offence punishable under Section 148 of IPC; sentenced them
to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 months and
to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each for the offence under Section
504 of IPC; sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment
for a period of 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.4,000/- each for
the offence punishable under section 324 of IPC; sentenced
them to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 years and to pay a
fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence punishable under
Section 326 of IPC; sentenced them to undergo imprisonment
for life and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- each for the offence
punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 149 of IPC. The
learned Sessions Judge ordered, all the accused shall pay a fine
of Rs.43,500/- each in default of payment of fine, they shall
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months.
CRL.A NO.100002 OF 2021 C/W
CRL.A.NO.100260 OF 2020
CRL.A.NO.100261 OF 2020
3. The learned Sessions Judge sentenced accused Nos.4
to 6 to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 months
and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default of payment of
fine, they sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of 15 days for the offence punishable under Section 143
of IPC. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The
Accused are entitled for set off for the period they undergone in
judicial custody.
4. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution was as
follows:
The deceased-Yallappa is the son of PW.8-Rukmavva and
PW.10-Kariyappa (both are injured in this case). Their
daughter, Shoba i.e., PW.13 was given in marriage to accused
No.1-Arjuna 15 years prior to the date of incident i.e.,
30.03.2018. Three months prior to the date of incident,
accused No.1 developed illicit relationship with accused No.6
viz., Sunita, who had come with a group of labourers to the
field of accused No.4 to cut sugarcane. As there was a land
dispute between accused No.4 and his brother i.e., PW10-
Kariyappa, they were not on talking terms. The accused No.1
started residing with accused No.6 in a shed situated in the
CRL.A NO.100002 OF 2021 C/W
CRL.A.NO.100260 OF 2020
CRL.A.NO.100261 OF 2020
land of accused No.4 at Alagundi, B.K. village. The same was
opposed by the parents of PW13-Shobha i.e., PWs.8, 10 and
her brothers i.e., deceased-Yallappa and complainant-PW1. On
30.03.2018, PW.13 and deceased-Yallappa went to the house
of accused No.4 at about 12:00 noon and advised him not to
encourage the illicit relationship between accused No.1 and
accused No.6. The accused No.4 shooed away PW13 and
deceased. On the same day, PWs.8 and 10-the parents of
PW.13 along with deceased Yallappa, once again visited the
shed of accused No.1 and called him near the GLBC canal road
and questioned him about his illicit relationship with accused
No.6. At that time, accused Nos.2 to 6 came to the spot and
supported accused No.1 and accused No.2 declared that he
would ensure that accused No.1 marries accused No.6. PWs.8
and 10 pleaded with them not to indulge in such acts. Thus,
enraged by the same, accused Nos.1 to 5 with an intention to
commit the murder of deceased, PWs.8 and 10 quarrelled with
them by holding deadly weapons and declared that they would
perform the marriage of accused No.1 with accused No.6.
Thereafter, accused Nos.1 and 2 assaulted PW.10-Kariyappa
with axe and chopper on his head, accused Nos.1, 5 and 6
assaulted PW.8-Rukmavva. At that time, deceased-Yallappa
CRL.A NO.100002 OF 2021 C/W
CRL.A.NO.100260 OF 2020
CRL.A.NO.100261 OF 2020
attempted to pacify the quarrel between his parents and
accused. At that time, accused Nos.1 to 4 assaulted him with
axe, chopper, wooden club and stones. Due to the assault,
PWs.8 and 10 sustained grievous injuries and deceased-
Yallappa succumbed to the injuries on the spot. Immediately,
PW.1 shifted PWs.8 and 10 to Government Hospital, Mudhol
and later to Kumareshwara Hospital, Bagalkote for higher
treatment. Subsequently, PW.1 lodged a complaint before the
Mudhol Police against accused Nos.1 to 6 as per Ex.P1. On the
strength of Ex.P1, PW21-the then PSI of the respondent-Police
registered FIR against accused for the offences punishable
under Sections 143, 147, 148, 504, 506, 323, 324, 326, 307
and 302 r/w Section 149 of IPC in Crime No.139/2018 dated
30.03.2018 as per Ex.P51. Subsequently, PW.20 conducted the
investigation by drawing inquest panchanama on the dead body
of the deceased as per Ex.P4, drawn the spot mahazar as per
Ex.P5 and later, arrested the accused. Based on their voluntary
statement, recovered the weapons used for the commission of
crime and the clothes worn by them at the time of incident.
Thereafter, he recorded the statement of eyewitnesses i.e.,
PWs.7, 8 and 10 and other witnesses and after obtaining
relevant documents from the concerned authorities, laid charge
CRL.A NO.100002 OF 2021 C/W
CRL.A.NO.100260 OF 2020
CRL.A.NO.100261 OF 2020
sheet against the accused/appellants for the offences
punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 504, 506, 323, 324,
326, 307 and 302 r/w Section 149 of IPC before the committal
Court.
5. Post committal of the case before the Sessions Court,
the learned Sessions Judge framed the charges against the
accused for the aforementioned offences and read over the
same to the accused. The accused denied the charges and
claim to be tried.
6. In order to prove the charges levelled against the
accused, the prosecution examined 21 witnesses as PW.1 to
PW.21; marked 51 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P51 and identified
25 material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.25.
7. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the
learned Sessions Judge read over the incriminating evidence of
material witnesses to the accused as contemplated under
Section 313 of Cr.P.C. However, the accused denied the same.
The accused examined one witness on their behalf as DW.1 and
marked 5 documents as Ex.D1 to Ex.D5.
- 10 -
CRL.A NO.100002 OF 2021 C/W
CRL.A.NO.100260 OF 2020
CRL.A.NO.100261 OF 2020
8. On assessment of oral and documentary evidence,
the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused and
sentenced them as stated supra. The said judgment is
challenged by accused No.1 in Crl.A.No.100002/2021, accused
Nos.2 and 3 in Crl.A.No.100261/2020 and accused Nos.4 and 5
in Crl.A.No.100260/2020.
9. We have heard the learned counsel Sri.K.S.Patil for
the appellants/accused and the learned Addl. SPP
Sri. A.M. Gundawade, for the respondent-State in all the
appeals.
10. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the
appellants in all the appeals is that the judgment challenged
under these appeals suffers from perversity and illegality since
the learned Sessions Judge failed to appreciate the evidence on
record in the right perspective. They contended that there are
serious discrepancies, contradictions, omissions and
embellishments in the evidence of injured eyewitnesses-PWs.8
and 10 and the evidence of PW.7-the independent eyewitness
to the incident. According to them, there was a civil dispute
pending between accused No.4 and the family of deceased and
as accused No.4 was related to accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5, a
- 11 -
CRL.A NO.100002 OF 2021 C/W
CRL.A.NO.100260 OF 2020
CRL.A.NO.100261 OF 2020
false case was foisted against them by the Police at the
instance of PWs.1, 8 and 10. He further contended that, there
is an inordinate delay in recording the statement of PWs.7, 8
and 10 as it was recorded after a day of the incident. Further,
PW.1-the complainant is not an eyewitness to the incident and
according to him, PWs.7, 8 and 10 informed him that the
accused assaulted his parents-PWs.8, 10 and his brother
deceased Yallappa. There is no explanation whatsoever
forthcoming from the record, as to why the Police have not
recorded the statement of PWs.7, 8 and 10-the alleged
eyewitnesses and injured on the date of incident. According to
the counsel, this aspect creates a doubt about the genuineness
of the prosecution case. Additionally he contended that, the
prosecution has largely relied on the evidence of close relatives
of the deceased, who are most interested witnesses and no
credence can be attached to their testimony. They also
contended that the material witnesses-PWs.7, 8 and 10 have
not stated the individual overt act of accused Nos.1 to 4 while
assaulting the deceased, but made an omnibus statement that
accused Nos.1 to 4 assaulted the deceased. They contended
that despite the above, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted
accused No.4 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of
- 12 -
CRL.A NO.100002 OF 2021 C/W
CRL.A.NO.100260 OF 2020
CRL.A.NO.100261 OF 2020
IPC by holding that his role in the homicidal death of deceased
is not proved. In such circumstance, the learned Sessions
Judge ought to have acquitted other accused Nos.1 to 3 for the
offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. They also
contended that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the
recovery of the weapons i.e., M.Os.7 and 21 to 23 used for the
commission of offence. Though PW.6 supported the case of
prosecution, the said recovery has not been effected as
provided under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. With
these submissions, he prays to set aside the impugned
judgment by allowing the appeals.
11. Alternatively, the learned counsel contended that
the evidence available on record, even if accepted on its face
value for the sake of argument, then the act of the accused at
the most may fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC
which is punishable under Section 304 part I or II of IPC. They
contended that the evidence discloses that deceased-Yallappa
arrived at the scene of incident to pacify the quarrel between
accused and PWs.8 and 10 and at that time, he might have
received accidental blows by accused Nos.1 to 3. Hence, there
was no such premeditative motive or intention on the part of
- 13 -
CRL.A NO.100002 OF 2021 C/W
CRL.A.NO.100260 OF 2020
CRL.A.NO.100261 OF 2020
accused Nos.1 to 3 to commit the murder of deceased-
Yallappa. With these submissions, he prays to modify the
sentence from Section 302 to Section 304 Part I or II of IPC.
12. Per contra, the learned Addl. SPP contended that
the judgment under these appeals do not suffer from any
perversity or illegality since the learned Sessions Judge after
meticulously examining the evidence on record, passed a well
reasoned judgment which does not call for any interference at
the hands of this Court. He further contended that the
homicidal death of deceased-Yallappa and the injuries
sustained by PWs.8 and 10 in the incident are not seriously
disputed by the accused. Further, the evidence of PWs.7, 8 and
10, clearly established that accused Nos.1 to 3 are responsible
for the homicidal death of deceased and accused Nos.1, 2, 5
and 6 are also responsible for the injuries sustained by PWs.8
and 10. Immediately after the incident, PW.7-the eyewitness
informed the same to PW.1 the brother of deceased and son of
PWs.8 and 10 and in-turn PW.1 visited the spot and lodged a
complaint against accused. In the evidence of PW.7, he clearly
deposed that he had witnessed the incident and informed the
same to PW.1. Further, the evidence of PW.7 corroborates the
- 14 -
CRL.A NO.100002 OF 2021 C/W
CRL.A.NO.100260 OF 2020
CRL.A.NO.100261 OF 2020
testimonies of PWs.8 and 10-injured eyewitnesses and they
have clearly stated that accused Nos.1 and 2 assaulted with
axe and chopper on the head of PW.10 and accused Nos.1, 5
and 6 assaulted PW.8 and accused Nos.1 to 4 assaulted the
deceased-Yallappa. The evidence of PWs.8 and 10 are
consistent without any contradictions, omissions or
embellishments. Further, they also identified the weapons i.e.,
M.Os.7, 21 to 23. Additionally, the respondent-Police also
recorded the statement of PWs.7, 8 and 10 on 20.04.2018
under Section 164 of Cr.P.C as per Exs.P14, 15 and 18. The
recovery of weapons-M.Os.7, 21 to 23 under Exs.P5 and P12
was also proved by the prosecution in the evidence of PWs.6
and 20. Hence, the prosecution proved the guilt of accused
beyond all reasonable doubt and the learned Sessions Judge
rightly convicted the accused for the charges leveled against
them. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeals.
13. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective
parties and on perusal of the impugned judgment and the
evidence available on record, the following points arise for our
consideration:
- 15 -
CRL.A NO.100002 OF 2021 C/W
CRL.A.NO.100260 OF 2020
CRL.A.NO.100261 OF 2020
i. Whether the judgment under these appeals
suffers from any perversity or any illegality?
ii. Whether the learned Sessions Judge justified in
convicting accused Nos. 1 to 3 for the offences
punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 504,
324, 326, 302 r/w 34 of IPC and accused
Nos.4 to 6 for the offence punishable under
Section 143 of IPC?
14. We have given our anxious thought to the
submission made by the learned counsel for the respective
parties and also perused the evidence on record.
15. As could be seen from the records, to prove the
homicidal death of deceased-Yallappa, the prosecution
predominantly relied on the evidence of PW.9-the Medical
Officer and the postmortem report issued by him as per Ex.P16.
On careful perusal of Ex.P16, PW.9 opined that the cause of
death is due to "hypovolumic and neurogenic shock secondary
to severe head injuries, caused by (i) sharp (ii) hard and blunt
(iii) hapoziod objects". He further stated that, all the injuries
sustained by the deceased are ante-mortem in nature. Apart
from the evidence of Medical Officer, the prosecution also relied
on the inquest panchanama conducted on the dead body of the
deceased as per Ex.P4. PW.2 and CW.2 are witnesses for the
same. Among them, PW.2 identified the injuries on the dead
- 16 -
CRL.A NO.100002 OF 2021 C/W
CRL.A.NO.100260 OF 2020
CRL.A.NO.100261 OF 2020
body. Hence, on a collective reading of the evidence of PW.2
and PW.9 along with Exs.P4 and 16, we are of the considered
view that the death of deceased-Yallappa is homicidal one.
16. To connect accused Nos.1 to 3 to the homicidal
death of deceased-Yallappa and accused Nos.1, 2, 5 and 6 to
the injuries sustained by PWs.8 and 10, the prosecution apart
from relying on other evidence, primarily relied on the evidence
of PW.1-complainant, PW.7-independent eyewitness and PWs.8
and 10-the injured witnesses to the incident. Among these
witnesses, PW.1 the son of PWs.8 and 10 and brother of
deceased-Yallappa, set the criminal law into motion by lodging
complaint-Ex.P1. According to him, on the fateful day at about
03:30 p.m., PW.7-Shashidara Kumbara called him through
mobile phone and informed that accused Nos.1 to 6 were
quarreling with his parents PWs.8 and 10 and his brother-
Yallappa, near the land of accused No.4. Hence, he rushed to
the spot and saw accused Nos.1 to 4 holding axe, chopper,
wooden club and stone respectively along with accused Nos.5
and 6. Further, he saw his parents had sustained severe
injuries and his brother-Yallappa had died and was lying in a
pool of blood. On enquiry with his parents, they stated that the
- 17 -
CRL.A NO.100002 OF 2021 C/W
CRL.A.NO.100260 OF 2020
CRL.A.NO.100261 OF 2020
accused Nos.1 to 6 assaulted them and the deceased with the
weapons they were holding. Later, with the help of villagers,
the injured PWs.8 and 10 were shifted to the Government
Hospital, Mudhol where they were given first aid treatment and
shifted to Kumareshwara Hospital for higher treatment.
Subsequently, he lodged a complaint as per Ex.P1. PW.1 in his
evidence before the Court reiterated the statement made in
Ex.P1. No doubt, he is not an eyewitness to the incident.
However, on perusal of his evidence it could be gathered, he
reached the spot soon after the incident and the accused were
present on the spot of incident and were holding the weapons.
Further, PWs.7, 8 and 10 informed about the act committed by
the accused. In such circumstance, PW.1 has to be treated as
res gestae witness as contemplated under Section 6 of the
Indian Evidence Act and due credence can be given to his
evidence. Further, PW.7-independent eyewitness also reiterated
the contents of his 164 statement recorded before the learned
Magistrate as per Ex.P14. In his evidence, he clearly stated that
on the date of the incident all the accused together, by holding
M.Os.7, 21 to 23, indiscriminately assaulted PWs.8, 10 and the
deceased. Due to the assault, PWs.8 and 10 sustained severe
injuries and their son-deceased succumbed to the injuries at
- 18 -
CRL.A NO.100002 OF 2021 C/W
CRL.A.NO.100260 OF 2020
CRL.A.NO.100261 OF 2020
the spot. The evidence of this independent eyewitness further
corroborates the testimony of PWs.8 and 10-injured witnesses.
On careful analysis of the evidence of PWs.8 and 10, both these
witnesses have unequivocally deposed that on the fateful day,
the accused Nos.1 and 2 assaulted with axe and chopper on the
head of PW.10 and accused Nos.1, 5 and 6 assaulted PW.8.
Further, accused Nos.1 to 4 assaulted the deceased-Yallappa
with stone, axe, chopper and wooden club i.e., M.Os.7, 21 to
23 respectively and committed his murder. According to them,
the reason for the commission of the act, they questioned
accused No.4 and other accused about the illicit relationship of
accused No.1 with accused No.6. Further, the statement of
both these witnesses recorded by the learned Magistrate under
Section 164 of Cr.P.C. as per Exs.P15 and P18 respectively.
They have indentified M.Os.7, 21 to 23 i.e., the weapons used
by the accused for the commission of crime. Both these
witnesses took first aid at Government Hospital, Mudhol and
higher treatment at Kumareshwara Hospital for the injuries
they sustained. PW.11 is the Doctor who treated both these
witnesses at Government Hospital, Mudhol issued the wound
certificates of PWs.8 and 10 as per Exs.P20 and P19
respectively. Apart from that, PW12-Doctor who treated PWs.8
- 19 -
CRL.A NO.100002 OF 2021 C/W
CRL.A.NO.100260 OF 2020
CRL.A.NO.100261 OF 2020
and 10 at Kumareshwara Hospital also issued the report as per
Exs.P24 and P25 along with the CT scan report Ex.P21 and 23
respectively. All these documents categorically established,
PWs.8 and 10 had sustained grievous injuries in the spot due to
assault made by the accused. Though the defence counsel
cross-examined these witnesses intensely and extensively,
nothing worthwhile was elicited from them to discard their
testimony, except minor contradictions, which does not go to
the root of the prosecution case. Hence, on a careful scrutiny of
the evidence of PWs.1, 7, 8 and 10, their testimony is
believable and trustworthy since they are the injured and
natural witnesses to the incident.
17. Further, PW.13 the daughter of PWs.8 and 10 and
sister of PW.1 and deceased, stated the motive for the alleged
incident i.e., a civil dispute was pending between PWs.8, 10
and accused No.4 and also about the illicit affair of her husband
i.e., accused No.1 with accused No.6-Sunitha. She further
stated that her husband accused No.1 and accused No.6-
Sunitha were residing in a shed situated in the land of accused
No.4 and on the fateful day, her parents PWs.8 and 10 along
with her brother visited the said place and questioned accused
- 20 -
CRL.A NO.100002 OF 2021 C/W
CRL.A.NO.100260 OF 2020
CRL.A.NO.100261 OF 2020
No.4. Enraged by the same, accused No.4 along with other
accused assaulted her parents and her brother and committed
his murder. This evidence of PW.13 further corroborates the
testimony of PW.19, who stated that he conducted a panchayat
between accused and PWs.8 and 10 in respect of the illicit affair
between accused Nos.1 and 6.
18. It is pertinent to mention at this juncture that the
oral testimony of PWs.7, 8 and 10 corroborates the medical
evidence i.e., the evidence of PWs.11 and 12-Doctors who have
treated PWs.8 and 10 and the medical reports issued by them
as per Exs.P19 to 25. PWs.11 and 12 have opined that the
injuries sustained by PWs.8 and 10 could be caused if assaulted
by M.Os.21 and 23. Further, on a careful perusal of the
postmortem report, the Doctor who conducted the autopsy on
the dead body of the deceased noticed 4 injuries, which reads
as under:
1. Deep cut lacerated wound of 5 X 3 X 2 cm
below left eye with left face deep
congested.
2. Blood with Frooth oozing out from mouth,
nostrils, left Ear. Tongue congested.
- 21 -
CRL.A NO.100002 OF 2021 C/W
CRL.A.NO.100260 OF 2020
CRL.A.NO.100261 OF 2020
3. Back of skull two HAPOZIOD swelling on
scalp on temporal region left side
measuring 5 X 3 X 3 cm and 5 X 4 X 2 cm
on Palpitation. Fracture present on both
selling with blood oozed out.
4. On right side of occipital bone fracture of 5
X 2 cm with bone crushed and brain
Herniated.
19. The Doctor-PW.9 has given an opinion that the
injuries sustained by the deceased could be possible if
assaulted by axe-M.O.23, chopper-M.O.21, wooden club-
M.O.22 and stone-M.O.7 as per Ex.P17. The learned counsel for
the accused vehemently contended that the injuries sustained
by the deceased could not be caused if assaulted by M.O.22-
wooden club. To cross-check the same, we summoned the
material objects to this Court from the trial Court and perused
them carefully. M.O.22 is a wooden club, the flat surface of
which approximately measures 5 cm. There was a bulge at the
top end of the club. The injury No.3 mentioned in the
postmortem report measures 5 X 3 X 3 cm and 5 X 4 X 2 cm.
Hence, the size of injury No.3 mentioned in postmortem report
could be caused by M.O.22. The Investigation Officer-PW.20
- 22 -
CRL.A NO.100002 OF 2021 C/W
CRL.A.NO.100260 OF 2020
CRL.A.NO.100261 OF 2020
recovered M.Os.20 to 25 i.e., weapons and blood stained
clothes of accused Nos.1 and 2 under mahazar Ex.P12. PW.6 is
the witness for the same and supported the case of
prosecution. Additionally, M.Os.20 to 25 were sent for chemical
examination and the FSL report Ex.P50 shows that M.Os.20 to
25 were stained with human blood of 'O' group. In such
circumstance, the oral testimony of material witnesses
corroborates the medical and scientific evidence adduced by the
prosecution.
20. The learned Sessions Judge convicted accused
Nos.1 to 3 for all the charges leveled against them and
convicted accused Nos.4 to 6 only for the offence punishable
under Section 143 of IPC. For the said findings, the learned
Sessions Judge relied on the evidence of PWs.7, 8 and 10 and
held that accused Nos.1, 5 and 6 assaulted PW.8, accused
Nos.1 and 2 assaulted PW.10 and accused Nos.1 to 4 assaulted
the deceased. As discussed supra, the consistent testimony of
all the material witnesses clearly established the said aspect.
Thus, in our considered view, the learned Sessions Judge
rightly passed the impugned judgment which does not call for
any interference at the hands of this Court. In that view of the
- 23 -
CRL.A NO.100002 OF 2021 C/W
CRL.A.NO.100260 OF 2020
CRL.A.NO.100261 OF 2020
matter, we answer point No.1 raised above in the 'negative'
and point No.2 in 'affirmative' and proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
i. The Criminal Appeals No.100002/2021,
100260/2020 and 100261/2020 are
dismissed.
The Registry is directed to send back the trial Court
records and the material objects along with the certified copy of
this judgment to the concerned Court forthwith.
SD/-
(R.NATARAJ)
JUDGE
SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
HKV
CT:PA
