LexMANOJ AND ANR. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2013] 13 S.C.R. 873 ~ MANOJ AND ANR. A v. STATE OF KARNATAKA (Criminal Appeal No. 852 of 2013) JULY 5, 2013 B [T.S. THAKUR AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] :y Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302 and 325 - Prosecution of two accused u/ss. 302 and 506 rlw. s.34 - Conviction by trial court - High Court confirmed the conviction u/s. 302134 but c acquitted the accused u/s. 506134 - On appeal, held: Prosecution case proved its case as regards the sequence of events leading to death of the deceased, beyond reasonable doubt - The witnesses, including the eye-witness, ..... medical evidence as well as FSL report support the D prosecution case - However, in absence of evidence that appellant No.2 intended to cause death or shared intention to cause death with appellant No. 1, he cannot be convicted u/s. 302134 - Conviction of appellant No. 1 uls. 302 upheld - Conviction of appellant No.2 altered to s.325 and his sentence E altered to already undergone. The two appellants-accused were prosecuted ulss. ~ 1302 and 506 r/w. s.34 IPC. the prosecution case was that the deceased did not like coming of accused to his house F and suspected him having illicit relationship with his wife. On the day of the incident, pursuant to verbal altercation between the deceased and the accused persons, appellant No.2 threw a stone at the deceased with a 't- sword. Trial court convicted both the accused u/ss.302 and 506 r/w. s. 34 IPC and sentenced them to life G imprisonment u/s. 302/34 and to SI for one year with fine under s. 506/34. High Court affirmed the conviction u/ s.302/34, but set aside the conviction u/s.506/34. Hence the present appeal. 873 H 874 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2'013] 13 S.C.R. A Dismissing the appeal of appellant No.1 and partly allowing that of appellant No.2, the Court HELD: 1.1. The three witnesses namely PWs 8, 18 and 16 have clearly testified about the sequence of events 8 leading to the death of the deceased which version has been found to be reliable by the courts below. There is no reason to strike a discordant note, for there is hardly any infirmity in the depositions of the above-mentioned witnesses, which have stood the test of lengthy cross- C examination by the defence. The fact that the deceased suspected his wife's fidelity and an illicit intimacy with appellant No.1, is sufficiently proved from the deposition of the widow of the deceased (PW-16), and the other two witnesses (PWs 8 and 18). It is also evident from the said depositions that the deceased had forbidden appellant D No.1 from coming to his house and threatened to kill him in case he did so again. This happened shortly before the incident in question. The mutual relationship between the deceased and appellant No.1 was thus embittered. On the date of the occurrence, the presence of the deceased E around the bus stand where the occurrence took place has also been sufficiently proved by the deposition of the witnesses including the police witnesses who have prepared the site plan and made seizures from the spot. So, also the prese_nce of the two eye witnesses on the F spot at the time of occurrence in a place like a bus stand is in no way abnormal to cast any doubt about their credibility. [Para 14] [881--E-H; 882-A-B] 1.2. The medical evidence adduced at the trial, too G supports the ocular version. The doctor has clearly reported that the crush injury on the face of the deceased could be caused by the stone (M0.2) inflicted by appellant No.2, while the other injury could have been inflicted by the sword which appellant No.1 was allegedly carrying H ' . MANOJ AND ANR. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 875 at the time of the incident. The presence of human blood A on these two objects sufficiently supports the prosecution case that the said weapons were used for the commission of the offence. [Para 14] [882-C] 2. As per the evidence of PW-8, in the course of the 8 verbal altercation between the accused and the deceased, appellant No.2 appears to have hurled a stone towards the deceased which hit and injured him, but there is t nothing to show that the injury was by itself sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course nor is there anything C to show that there was any pre-concert between the appellant No.1 and his father (appellant No.2) to kill the deceased. In the absence of any evidence, to show that appellant No.2 intended to cause death or shared the intention to cause death
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.