LexK.A. KOTRAPPA REDDY AND ANR. versus RAYARA MANJUNATHA [email protected]. MANJUNATHA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2015] 12 S.C.R. 1042 K.A. KOTRAPPA REDDY AND ANR. V. [email protected]. MANJUNATHA& ORS. (Criminal Appeal Nos.774-776of2010) OCTOBER 15, 2015 [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND R.K. AGRAWAL, JJ.) Penal Code, 1860 - ss.143, 147, 148, 504, 114, 323, c 324 and 302 - Quarrel between the President of Village Panchayat and accused over some road repair work - Accused formed unlawful assembly, abused and beat the deceased with dangerous weapons resulting in his death - 0 Accused charged for offences punishable u/ss. 143, 147, 148, 504, 114, 32~, 324, 302 - Conviction of accused no.1-10, however, acquittal of accused no.11 - In appeal, the High Court acquitted accused no. 1-10 as also upheld acquittal of accused no. 11 - Interference with- Held: No compelling and E substantial reasons to in/erfere with the judgment passed by the High Court - Prosecution failed to impute motive upon the accused- Evidence of the eye-witnesses was doubtful- They were interested and partisan witnesses- The only non- partisan and chance witness, turned hostile - Prosecution F failed to examine any independent witness even though the incident occurred in broad day light with number of neighbours around - Presence of the injured witnesses is also disputed- There was delay in lodging FIR as also delay in sending the seized articles to FSL and in writing the post- G mortem report - There was non-explanation of material · irregularities by the prosecution - Thus, prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused nos. 1-10 - High Court was justified in doubting the veracity H of the ~rosecution case and the order of acquittal does not 1042 K.A. KOTRAPPAREDDYv. RAYARAMANJUNATHA 1043 REDDY@ N.R. MANJUNATHA suffer from the vice of perversity-As against accused Nos. 11 A and 12, alibi is sufficiently proved. Brahm Swaroop & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2010 (15) SCR 1 : (2011) 6 SCC 288; D.K. Basu v. State of WB. 1996 (10) Suppl. SCR 284: (1997) 1 sec 416; Mritunjoy BiSW?S v. Pranab @Kuti Biswas &Anr. 2013 (7) SCR 1105: (2013) 12 SCC 796; State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram 2003 (2) Suppl. SCR 445: (2003) a sec 1ao; Upendra Pradhan v. State of Orissa 2015 SCR 214: (2015) 5 SCALE 634 - referred to. Case Law Reference 2010 (15) SCR 1 referred to. Para 8 1996 (10) Suppl. SCR 284 referred to. Para 11 2013 (7) SCR 1105 referred to. Para 11 2003 (2) Suppl. SCR 445 referred to. Para 13 2015 SCR 214 referred to. Para 13 CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal Nos. 774-775 of2010 From the Judgment and Order dated 19.11.2008 of the High Court of Karnata~a at Bangalore in Criminal Appeals Nos. 829, 790 and 1408 of 2007. B c D E F Sushil Kr. Jain, Sr. Adv., B. R. Rudresh, Ashwin V. G Kotemath, Puneet Jain, Abhinav Gupta, K. V. Bharathi Upadhyaya, Advs., for the Appellants. B. H. Marlapalle, Sr Adv., ShanthkumarV. Mahale,Amith J., Aditya Kalal, Aditya Shul<la, Ajeet Singh, Rajesh W.2hale, H • 1044 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 12 S.C.R. A Anitha Shenoy,Advs., for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J. 1. These appeals are 11 directed against the judgment and order dated 19th November, 2008 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengalore in Criminal Appeal Nos.790, 829 and 1408 of 2007. Criminal Appeal Nos.790 of 2007 and 829 of 2007 were filed by accused Nos.1 to 10 against their conviction and the same c were allowed by the High Court. Criminal Appeal No.1408 of 2007 was filed by the State of Karnataka against the acquittal of accused Nos.11and12, which was dismissed by the High Court. 0 2. The brief facts necessary to dispose of these appeals are that on 13.09.2005 at about 10:30A.M., oneAjjanna Reddy (dece~ased), who was the President of Nandigavi Village Panchayat in Harihara Taluk, District Davangere, Karnataka, was monitoring execution of the road repair work in front of E lshwar Temple situated near the house of accused Nos.1 to 4. Accused No.6 objected to the same as the said repair would reduce the area of the front yard of his house. The accused persons picked up quarrel with AJjanna Reddy and asked him to stop the work which he refused to do so. It is alleged that the I· accu:3ed persons, who were 12 in number, formed an unlawful assembly carrying dangerous weapons, abused and beat the deceased at about 12:30 P.M. and soon, about 50 odd people gathered at the place
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.