LexBHIMANNA versus STATE OF KARNATAKA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 7 S.C.R. 909 BHIMANNA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA (Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 2005) SEPTEMBER 4, 2012 [P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - s.304 Part-I r/w s.34 - Applicability - Homicidal death - Three accused - While returning home from A B the agricultural fields, the accused trespassed on to the land C of the victim - Verbal altercation ensued between the parties whereafter the accused assaulted the victim with axe and "meli" (wooden part of the plough) which the accused were carrying at that time - Victim fell down after receiving injuries, whereupon the accused stopped the assault - A-2 threw down D the "mefi" and all the accused left the place of occurrence saying that the victim had fallen - Victim died consequently - Conviction of A-1 u/s 302, and A-2 and A-3 uls.302 rlw s.34 - Challenge to - Held: The evidence on record established that the three accused did not intend to kill the victim and it all E happened in the spur of the moment upon a heated exchange of words between the parties, after criminal trespass by the accused on to the land of the victim - Therefore, it does not seem to be a pre-determined or pre-meditated case - Ends of justice would, therefore, be met, if all the three accused are F convicted uls. 304 Part-I rlw s.34. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss.216, 217, 385(2), 386, 464 and 465 - Homicidal death due to grievous injuries caused by weapons - Three accused - Trial court framed charges against all the accused u/ss.447, 504 and 302 rlw G s.34 /PC - However, ultimately it came to the conclusion that A-2 was solely responsible for the death of the victim and all the accused did not act in furtherance of any common 909 H 910 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 7 S.C.R. A intention, and therefore, A-1 and A-3 could not be convicted uls.302 rlw s.34 JPC, and convicted A-1 and A-3 only u/ss. 447 and 504 /PC - Trial court held that, inspite of the fact that A- 1 and A-3 were clearly responsible for causing multiple injuries to the victim, they still could not be convicted for any B offence for want of framing of charges under any other penal provision - Held: The trial court did not proceed with the case in a proper manner - If trial court was of the view that there was sufficient evidence on record against A-1 and A-3, which would make them liable for conviction and punishment for c offences, other than those under ss.447 and 504134 /PC, it was certainly not helpless to alter/add the requisite charges, at any stage prior to the conclusion of the trial - An accused can be convicted for an offence minor than the one, he has been charged with (s.302 /PC in the instant case), unless the D accused satisfies the Court that there has been a failure of justice by the non-framing of a charge under a particular penal provision, and some prejudice has been caused to the accused - Further the defect must be so serious that it cannot be covered under ss. 4641465 CrPC - The plea of prejudice E has to be in relation to investigation or trial and not matters falling beyond their scope - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 447, 504 and 302 rlw s. 34. Criminal trial - Homicidal death due to grievous injuries caused by assault with weapons - Trial court framed charges F against all the three accused uls.s.302 rlw s.34 IPC - However, ultimately it held that A-2 was solely responsible for the death of the victim and all the accused did not act in furtherance of any common intention, and therefore, A-1 and A-3 could not be convicted uls.302 rlw s.34 /PC - High Court convicted A-1 G and A-3 u/s.302 rlw s.34 /PC - It came to the conclusion that, as the charge uls. 302134 was also framed against A-1 and A- 3, they too, were liable to be convicted u/s.302 /PC - Held: The conclusion of High Court was not justified, as it had not reversed the finding recorded by the trial court that all the H three accused did not act in furtherance of any common BHIMANNA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 911 intention - Penal Code, 1860 - s.302 rlw s.34. A Criminal Jurisprudence - Right to fair trial - Rights of the accused - Held: Though the rights of the accused have to be kept in mind and safeguarded but they should not be over emphasised to the extent of forgetting that the victims also 8 have rights. Words and Phrases - Expression 'failure of justice' and 'prejudice' - Meaning of A-1 owned land adjacent to the land of the 'B'. The c prosecution case
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.