B.K. CHANNAPPA versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 810 · Decided: 10-11-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. MATHUR · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B.K. CHANNAPPA 
v. 
ST ATE OF KARNA TAKA 
NOVEMBER I 0, 2006 
B 
[A.K. MATHURANDLOKESHWARSINGH PANT A, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 : 
Sections 304 Part JI rlw 149 and 302 rlw 149-Murder-Caused by 
C unlawful assembly, by inflicting injuries with deadly weapons-Eighteen 
injuries found on the body of deceased-But none on the vital parts-Hence, 
it cannot be said that the injuries were inflicted with intention to cause 
death-Conviction of accused under S.302 r.w. S.149 therefore altered to 
that under S.304 Part-JI rlw S.149. 
D 
Section 302-Murder-Caused by unlawful assembly, by inflicting 
injuries with deadly weapons-23 accused-Acquittal of A-15 by Trial Court-
Conviction by High Court under S.302-Justification of-Held, notjustified-
Though name of A-15 finds mention in the FIR but injured witness or eyewitness 
had not mentioned his name in their statements recorded by Police under 
E S.161, CrPC or in the testimony that he participated in inflicting injuries on 
body of the deceased-A/so no weapon of offence recovered from A-15 or at 
his instance-Conviction of A-15 as recorded by High Court cannot be 
sustained as it is based on the inference drawn regarding his participation 
and existence of common. intention on the basis of conjectures and surmises. 
F 
Twenty three persons were tried for the offence of killing one person 
and injuring four others. The accused persons had allegedly assaulted the 
deceased with various deadly weapons like choppers, axes, sickle, clubs and 
stones which led to his death. 
The Trial Court held that A-2, A-3, A-10, A-11, A-13, A-14, A-17 to A-
G 22 had formed an unlawful assembly to cause the death of deceased in 
prosecution of which they murdered him and caused grievous injuries to 
PWsl to 4. Accordingly it convicted them under Section 302 IPC read with 
Section 149 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment. A-17, A-18 and A-
20 were also held guilty under Section 324, IPC while A-19 was additionally 
lI 
810 
B.K. CHANNAPPA 1·. ST A TE OF KARNA T AKA 
81,] 
convicted under Section 326 IPC. A-1, A-4 to A-9, A-12, A-15, A-16 and A 
A-23 were given benefit of doubt and hence acquitted. High Court however 
set aside the acquittal of A-1 and A-15 and convicted them under Section 302 
IPC and sentenced them to.undergo life imprisonment. It further affirmed 
the conviction of A-2, A-3, A-17, A-19 and A-20. The conviction of A-10, 
A-11, A-13, A-14, A-18, A-21 and A-22 was set aside by the High Court. 
Out of the present three appeals, two have been filed by A-1 and A-15 
while the third appeal has been jointly filed by A-2, A-3, A-17, A-19 and 
A-20. A-1 died during pendency of appeal before this Court, hence his appeal 
stands abated. 
Disposing of the other two appeals, the Court 
B 
c 
'HELD:l.1. The injured witnesses PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 have fully 
established the case of the prosecution against A-2, A-3, A-17, A-19 and 
A-20, although there were certain discrepancies in their testimony and in 
comparison to the versions of PW-6, PW-7 and PW-19, the eyewitnesses, in 
regard to the weapons of offence individually used by A-1, A-3, A-17, A-19 D 
and A-20 for inflicting injuries on the person of each of injured witness as 
also on the person of the deceased. The discrepancies pointed out are however 
minor and insignificant. The witnesses were examined in the Court after a 
gap of almost five years after the occurrence. The evidence on record further 
shows that the injured witnesses had been subjected to searching length~ E 
cross-examination and in such type of cross-examination, some improvements, 
contradictions, and omissions are bound to occur in their evidence, which 
cannot be treated very serious, vital and significant so as to disbelieve and 
discard the substratum of the prosecution case. There is no merit in the 
I 
argument of the appellants that the evidence of the injured witnesses and other 
eyewitnesses should be labelled as the evidence of the interested witnesses. F 
On the other hand, the evidence of all the eyewitnesses including injured 
persons is quite natural, convincing and trust-worthy. There is no materi~I 
on record from which an inference can be drawn that the material witnesses 
have implicated the appellants A-2, A-3, A-17, A-19 andA-20 in a false case. 
1818-B-GI G 
1.2. The judgment of the High Court holding A-2, A-3, A-17, A-19 an;d 
. A-20 guilty of assaulting the injured witnesses and causing fatal injuries to 
the deceased cannot be found fault
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.