RAMABORA @ RAMABORAIAH & ANR versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation: [2022] 4 S.C.R. 827 · Decided: 10-08-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: INDIRA BANERJEE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
827
RAMABORA @ RAMABORAIAH & ANR.
v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
(Criminal Appeal No.1697 of 2011)
AUGUST 10, 2022
[INDIRA BANERJEE AND V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]
Penal Code,1860 – ss.143,144,148,147,448,302 and 149 –
22 accused formed unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapon
and trespassed into the house of victim-deceased and committed
the murder of victim in furtherance of a common object – Sessions
Court acquitted all the accused – High Court set aside the acquittal
of appellants (A-1 and A-2) and held them guilty of the offence
punishable u/s 302 IPC and sentenced them to imprisonment for
life but the acquittal of all the other accused was confirmed by
High Court – Held: High Court has not given more stronger and
cogent reasons to set aside the acquittal – Further, the Judgment of
High Court is not in accordance with the law on the scope of s.378
of Cr.PC. – Judgment of the High Court insofar as relates to the
conviction of appellants set aside.
Arvind Kumar @ Nemichand & Ors. v. State of
Rajasthan 2021 SCC Online SC 1099; Ravi Sharma v.
State (Government of NCT of Delhi) & Another 2022
SCC Online SC 859 – referred to.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
1697 of 2011.
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.07.2008 of the High Court
of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No. 1590 of 2001.
Krishna Pal Singh, S. Quayyum, Ms. A. Aprajita, Harisha S. R.,
Advs. for the Appellants.
V. N. Raghupathy, Parikshit P. Angadi, Advs. for the Respondent.
[2022] 4 S.C.R. 827
827
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
828
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 4 S.C.R.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.
1. Aggrieved by the conviction for an offence under Section 302
IPC and the sentence of imprisonment for life handed over to them by
the High Court of Karnataka, reversing the order of acquittal passed by
the Sessions Court, accused Nos.1 and 2 have come up with the above
appeal.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the
learned standing counsel for the State of Karnataka.
3. The appellants herein were prosecuted along with 20 other
persons, before the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore,
for alleged offences under Sections 143, 144, 148, 147, 448 and 302 read
with Section 149 IPC. By a judgment dated 8.8.2001, all the accused
except those against whom the prosecution abated, were acquitted by
the Sessions Court.
4. However on appeals filed by the State of Karnataka, a Division
Bench of the High Court of Karnataka set aside the acquittal of the
appellants herein (A-1 and A-2) and held them guilty of the offence
punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced them to imprisonment
for life. But the acquittal of all the other accused was confirmed by the
High Court.
5. Aggrieved by the said judgment of reversal, accused Nos.1
and 2 have come up with the above appeal.
6. The case of the prosecution was that on 30.11.1997 at about 11
p.m., all the 22 accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly
and that armed with deadly weapons, they committed trespass by entering
into the house of the deceased Siddaraju and committed the murder of
the deceased in furtherance of a common object.
7. The motive for the murder according to the prosecution, was
that when A-1 was passing through the house of the deceased, he heard
the deceased hurling abuses in a foul and filthy language.  Though the
victim was purportedly abusing his own father, A-1 mistook as though
he was being abused. Therefore, he picked up a quarrel with the deceased
and thereafter went to the village, secured the other accused and went
to the house of Siddaraju, broke open the door, pulled him out to the
street and hacked him to death.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
829
8. The case of the prosecution rested on the ocular testimony of
PW-1 and PW-4 who were the mother and maternal uncle of the
deceased. Though the father and sister of the deceased were also
examined as PW-2 and PW-3, they were not treated as eye-witnesses
on the ground that they had not seen the incidence.
9. Four Panch witnesses examined as PWs 5, 6, 7 and 8 did not
support the case of the prosecution and were declared as hostile. PW-9,
the mahazar witness also turned hostile. PW-10 was the doctor who
conducted the post-mortem on the body of the deceased.
10. At this stage, it is relevant to note that PW-1, mother of the
deceased, gave a complaint at 00.45 hrs  on 1.12.1997, on the basis of
which Exhibit P-8 FIR was registered. Thereafter, one Nagamma, wife
of

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