PUNDAPPA YANKAPPA PUJARI versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation: [2014] 14 S.C.R. 1211 · Decided: 02-07-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

' I 
[2014] 14 S.C.R. 1211 
PUNDAPPA YAN KAPPA PUJARI 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA 
(CriminalAppeal No. 1251 of2006) 
JULY 02, 2014 
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND 
RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, JJ.J 
A 
B 
Penal Code, 1860 - Murder -Acquittal by trial court -
Conviction by High Court - On appeal, held: The evidence c 
of three eye-witnesses are credible - They are corroborated 
by evidence of one another as well as by medical evidence 
- The qase also does not fall under any exception - Hence, 
the accused is liable to be convicted u/s.302. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court · 
D 
HELD: 1. The evidence on record, particularly the 
testimonies of eye-witnesses - PW-7, PW-8 and PW-9 
are consistent, trustworthy and fully corroborates with 
one another, without giving any room to doubt their 
credibility. Their evidence is also fully supported by the E 
testimony of PW-10 and PW-11. All the facts directly point 
to the guilt of accused No.1. Testimony of PW-1 is fully 
corroborated with medical evidence. Merely, due to 
some discrepancies in the statements of witnesses as 
to timings 1 & '!.hour does not go to the root of the case .. F 
[Paras 23, 24][1225-B-D] 
2. Considering the facts and circumstances of the 
case and on careful examination of the act of the 
accused as proved by testimony of witnesses, the act 
of accused which resulted in death of the deceased G 
neither comes within the ambit of the exceptions under 
Section 300 IPC nor within the scope of Section 304 IPC. 
Therefore, the Appellate Court rightly held that the act of · 
H 
1211 
1212 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 14 S.C.R. 
A accused No.1 thus falls within the ingredients of s.300 
IPC punishable u/s. 302 IPC. [Para 26][1226-C-E] 
Hem Raj and another v. State of Punjab [2003) 
3 Suppl. SCR 466 : (2003) 12 sec 241 ; 
B 
T. Subramanian v. State of Tamil Nadu [2006) 1 
SCR 180: (2006) 1 SCC 401, Haji Khan v. State 
of U.P (2005) 13 SCC 353...: referred to. 
CASE LAW REFERENCE 
[2003) 3 Suppl, SCR 466 referred to · 
Para 10 
C [2006) 1 SCR 180 
referred to 
Para 11 
' 
(2005) 13 SCC 353 
referred to 
Para 12 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal 
Appeal No(s). 1251 of2006. 
o 
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.06.2006 of the 
E 
High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No. 
9 of2000. 
· 
- ' 
. 
I 
Krutin R. Joshi, Gunashekar, Rajesh Mahale, Advs. for 
the Appellant. 
. , 
V. N. Raghupathy, Lagnesh Mishra, Parikshit Angadi, 
Sanjay R. Hegde,Advs, for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Courtwas delivered by 
I 
, 
• 
SUDHANSU J'(OTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. 
F 
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 
161h June, 2006 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in 
Criminal Appeal No.9/2000. By the impugned judgment the 
High Court partly allowed the appeal preferred by the State of 
Karnataka, set aside the judgment of ac:quittal of the appellant 
G · for the offence under Section 302 IPC, held the appellant guilty 
for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to 
undergo life imprisonment.' 
; 
2. The case of the prosecutionis that the complainant-
Giriyavva, her sons, Shivalingappa, Adiveppa, deceased 
H 
PUNDAPPAYANKAPPAPUJARI V. STATE OF 
1213 
KARNATAKA [SU OHAN SU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.] 
Mahantappa and Pundappa as well as accused No.1, A 
Pundappa Yankappa Pujari (appellant herein) and accused 
No.2 Siddappa Pundappa Pujari are the resident ofYankanchi 
village of Bagalkot's Taluk. The land of the deceased's family 
as well as the land of the accused is adjacent to one another. 
The deceased's land is on the northern side whereas the B 
accused's land is on the southern side. In between there is a 
band fixed with boundary stone. There was a dispute regarding 
fixing of boundary stone between the accused and the 
deceased's father Chandrappa Telagi. On 5th July, 1997 at 
.about 9 a.m., accused No.1 was in his land and was removing c 
\ 
the boundary stone. The deceased-Mahantappa questioned 
as to why he was removing the boundary stone and an 
altercation took place between accused No.1 and deceased- · 
Mahantappa. While the deceased was putting boundary stone 
to the pit, accused No.1 assaulted him with an axe on his neck o 
anp caused severe fracture and injuries which resulted in 
profuse bleeding whereas, accused No.2 assaulted the 
deceased with a stick. Laxmawa (PW-7), who was grazing 
her sheep, on seeing the incident of assault, shouted. 
Immediately, Sangappa (PW-8), Chandrashekar (PW-9) E 
rushed to the spot
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.