GANDI DODDABASAPPA @ GANDHI BASAVARAJ versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation: [2017] 2 S.C.R. 62 · Decided: 28-02-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KURIAN JOSEPH · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 2 S.C.R. 62 
A 
GANDI DODDABASAPPA @ GANDHI BASAVARAJ 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 631 of2012) 
FEBRUARY 28, 2017 
[KURIAN JOSEPH AND A. M. KHANWILKAR, JJ.] 
Penal Code. 1860: 
s. 302 - Murder - By appellant-accused - Of his daughter -
Motive attributed to commit the murder was that the accused was 
frustrated as his daughter had married a boy of lower caste - PW-
18 (mother-in-law of the deceased) was the eye-witness - Trial Court 
discarding the evidence of PW-18 and holding that circumstantial 
evidence was not sufficient to convict the accused, acquitted him -
High Court accepted the prosecution case and recorded finding of 
guilt against the accused, but convicted him for offence uls. 304 
(Part I) !PC and sentenced him to 10 years of imprisomnent-Appeal 
to Supreme Court by the accused against his conviction - The court 
issued show cause notice to the accused for enhancement of 
sentence - Held: The entire version of PW-18 cannot be treated as 
untruthful - The version of PW-18 that she heard the cries of the 
deceased from public toilet; saw the accused coming out from the 
toilet with a blood stained sickle and throwing that sickle in a nearby 
dung-pit is reliable and truthful - This version is reinforced by the 
strong motive and further corroborated by seizure of blood-s(ained 
sickle and matching of blood group on the sickle and on the clothes 
of the deceased - However, none of the exceptions in s. 300 !PC is 
attracted in the present case, therefore, the case cannot be brought 
under first part of s. 304 !PC - The accused is liable to be convicted 
under s. 302 and is sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. 
Constitution of India: 
Art. 142 - Criminal appeal before Supreme Court - Filed by 
accused - Challenging his conviction - Suo-motu notice issued by· 
the court for enhancement of sentence - Permission to withdraw 
the appeal sought - Held: The appellalll cmii10t 'be permitted to 
withdraw the appeal - The show-cause notice has to be taken to its 
62 
GANDI DODDABASAPPA @ GANDHI BASAVARAJ v. STATE 
OF KARNATAKA 
logical end being substantive proceedings ascribable to the 
;urisdiction of the appellate court uls. 386 rlw. 397 and 401 of 
Cr.P.C and in the present case plenary jurisdiction of Supreme 
Court - It is the duty of the Court to decide the case, irrespective of 
the fact that the accused does not want to prosecute his appeal 
against conviction - Code of Criminal Procedure, 197 3 - ss. 386 
rlw 397 and 401. 
Dismissing the appeal and making the show-cause notice 
for enhancement of sentence absolute, the Court 
HELD: 1. This Court after hearing the parties and having 
been prima facie convinced, issued show cause notice to the 
appellant-accused for enhancement of sentence. In this backdrop, 
the appellant cannot be permitted to withdraw the appeal. The 
show cause notice will have to be taken to its logical end being 
substantive proceedings ascribable to the jurisdiction of the 
Appellate Court under Section 386 or read with Sections 397 
and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and, in this case, 
plenary jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. It is the duty of this 
Court to decide the case irrespective of the fact the accused does 
not want to prosecute his appeal against conviction. [Para 20] 
[74-C-E, G-H] 
Vikas Yadav v. State of UP (2016) 9 SCC 541; Khedu 
Mohton and Ors v. State of Bihar 1970 (2) SCC 450 : 
[1971] 1 SCR 839; Dea Narain Manda/ 1~ State of UP 
2004 (7) SCC 257; Pilot UJ.S. Chopra v. The State of 
Bombay [1955] 2 SCR 94 - relied on. 
2.1 The entire version of PW18 cannot be treated as 
untruthful. Her evidence that she had heard the cries of her 
daughter-in-law (deceased) from the public toilet "Appa Beda 
Appa" and thereafter she saw the accused coming out of the public 
toilet with a blood-stained sickle in his hand and throwing that 
sickle in the nearby dung pit after seeing PW18 when she asked 
him to stop and then' running away from the.spot, is reliable and 
truthful. There is no tangible reason to doubt this version of 
PW18. On accepting the same, it would necessarily follow that 
the accused alone was responsible for the killing of the deceased, 
which fact is reinforced by his strong motive to do so. Further, 
this version of PW18 stands corroborated from the other 
63 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
64 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 2 S.C.R. 
prosecution evidence including the seizure of bloo
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.