LOKESH SHIVAKUMAR versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation: [2012] 1 S.C.R. 896 · Decided: 10-02-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AFTAB ALAM · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2012] 1 S.C.R. 896 
LOKESH SHIVAKUMAR 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA 
(Criminal Appeal No.1326 of 2005) 
FEBRUARY 10, 2012 
[AFTAB ALAM AND ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: s.302 rlw s.34 - Death by fatal blow -
A-1 had borrowed money from victim-deceased - On the 
C fateful day, A-1 took the deceased out of the house on the 
pretext of p<ivment of money - All the accused surrounded the 
deceased - A-2-appellant picked up a gobbaly tree wood 
piece lying nearby and struck on the head of deceased with 
it which caused his death - Conviction of appellant along with 
D the other three accused - High Court while acquitting A-3 and 
A-4 affirmed the conviction of appellant and A-1 - On appeal, 
held: There was no discrepancy between the ocular evidence 
and the medical evidence - Since prosecution case was 
established by reliable ocular evidence coupled with medical 
E evidence, the issue of motive was not of any significance -
Common intention can form and develop even in course of 
the occurrence, therefore, the fact that appellant had not 
brought any weapon with him was of no relevance - It was the 
appellant who struck the first blow on the head of deceased 
F and according to post-mortem report that blow itself caused 
his death - Appellant rightly convicted u/s.302 rlw s.34. 
Criminal law: Motive - Relevance of - Held: If the 
prosecution case is fully established by reliable ocular 
evidence coupled with medical evidence, the issue of motive 
G loses practically all relevance. 
The prosecution case was that the victim-deceased 
was engaged in the business of money lending. Accused 
No.1 had borrowed Rs.10,0001- from the deceased. The 
H 
896 
LOKESH SHIVAKUMAR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 
897 
deceased went to jail in connection with some case, A 
authorizing his younger brother (informant-PW.1) to 
realise the money from his debtors in his absence. PW1 
tried to realise the loan amount from accused No.1 but 
was unsuccessful. On a fateful day, when the deceased 
and his brother (PW.1) were in their house, accused No.1 
B 
came there and asked the deceased to go out with him 
saying that he wanted to pay back the money that he had 
borrowed from him. The deceased went along with him 
but did not return. After about half an hour, PW1 along 
with two of his associates PW.2 and PW.14 went looking C 
for him. On reaching near the house of accused no.3, they 
saw the deceased surrounded by accused no.2-appellant 
and accused nos.1, 3 and 4. At that point, the appellant 
picked up one gobbaly tree wood piece which was lying 
there and swinging it like a club hit the deceased with it 0 
on the right side of his head. Accused No.1 then picked 
up a large stone and flung it on the head of the deceased. 
The deceased got severe bleeding injuries on his head, 
face and nose. He was taken to hospital where he was 
declared dead. 
E 
The trial court convicted all the four accused under 
section 302/34, IPC and sentenced them to life 
imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/- each. On appeal, the 
High Court held that there was no evidence that accused 
Nos. 3 and 4 shared the common intention of causing the 
F 
death of the deceased. It, accordingly, acquitted them of 
the charge but maintained the conviction and sentence 
of the appellant and accused No.1. The instant appeal 
was filed challenging the order of the High Court. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
Held: 1.1 As regards motive, it is well established that 
if the prosecution case is fully established by reliable 
ocular evidence coupled with medical evidence, the issue 
G 
H 
898 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 1 S.C.R. 
A of motive loses practically all relevance. In this case, the 
ocular evidence led in support of the prosecution case 
was wholly reliable and there was see no reason to 
discard it. The submission, therefore, that the appellant 
had no motive for the commission of offence is not of any 
8 significance. All the three eye witnesses, namely, PWs.1, 
2 and 14 deposed that the appellant picked up a gobbaly 
tree wood piece and struck on the right side of the head 
of the deceased with it. The first external injury recorded 
in the post-mortem report that caused the compound 
C fracture of underlying frontal bone was on the right 
frontal region and according to the doctor, it could have 
· been caused by the piece of wood (M0.2). There was no 
discrepancy between the medical evidence and the 
ocular evidence. On the contrary, the medical evidence 
corroborat

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.