SAMGHAJI HARIBA PATIL versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 415 · Decided: 19-10-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

r 
SAMGHAJI HARIBA PATIL 
A 
V. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA 
OCTOBER 19, 2006 
(S.B. SINHA AND DALVEER BHANDARI, JJ.) 
B 
Penal Code, 1860-Section 302-Motive-Charge of murder-Sessions 
Judge ordering acquitta/-01' appeal, High Court reversing the order of 
acquittal- Held, not correct as prosecution failed to prove that accused had C 
any motive to kill deceased. 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 378-Acquittal by Sessions 
Judge-Deposition of witnesses show that view of Sessions Judge was not 
perverse-High Court taking contrary view and reversing the order of 
acquittal-Correctness of-Held, not correct as High Court not to ordinarily D 
overturn a judgment if two views are possible. 
According to prosecution, deceased and accused no. 1 belonged to 
the same village. On the fateful day, while ploughing land, accused no. I 
allegedly started ploughing the land of deceased to which he objected. A 
quarrel ensued whereupon the accused assaulted the deceased. Appellant E 
is said to have assaulted him with ham mer. Seeing the assault, daughter 
of deceased cried for help, whereupon the accused persons left the sticks 
and hammer at the spot and ran away. The deceased succumbed to his 
injuries on the same day. Appellant along with others was accused of 
commission of an offence punishable under Sections 302, 307, 504 r/w F 
Section 34 IPC. They were acquitted by Trial Judge. On appeal, High 
Court set aside the acquittal and ordered conviction of appellant u/s. 302 
IPC and other accused u/s. 307 IPC. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. The Appellant did not have any land in the vicinity. There G 
exists a dispute as to whether the land where allegedly the occurrence took 
place belonged to the deceased. It has been found by the Trial Judge, which 
finding has not been set aside by the High Court, that the land said to be 
adjacent to that of the deceased was given on lease by the Tahsildar to 
415 
H 
416 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 
A one 'B' who was a successful bidder in an auction held for the said purpose. 
The accused No.I, admittedly, did not own any bullocks to plough his land. 
The dispute in regard to the land, if any, was between the deceased and 
accused No. I. The deceased is alleged to have given some land to him, who 
was claiming more. 1418-C-DI 
B 
2. Sessions Judge had held that prosecution had failed to prove 
charges framed against accused and that they were entitled for acquittal. 
The High Court has taken a contrary view. Had the High Court been the 
first court, probably its view could have been upheld, but it was dealing 
with a judgment of acquittal. The depositions of the main prosecution 
C witnesses show that the view of the Trial Judge cannot be said to be 
perverse or the same was not possible to be taken. While dealing with a 
case of acquittal, it is well known, the High Court shall not ordinarily 
overturn a judgment, if two views are possible. Appellant had no axe to 
grind. The prosecution had not proved that he had any motive. He was 
only said to be the friend of accused No.I. If the accused had gone there 
D with six others to assault the deceased and his family members, it is 
unlikely that appellant would take with him for the said purpose, a 
hammer to an agricultural field. The hammer is not ordinarily used for 
agricultural operations. Even if accused No. I had been nurturing any 
grudge against the deceased, it is unlikely that appellant would be involved 
E therein. For these reasons, the impugned judgment of High Court cannot 
be sustained. [ 421-C, D-G I 
CRIMINAL APPEL LA TE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 444 
of 2006. 
F 
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 16.9.2005 of the High Court 
of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No. 936 of 1999. 
C.M. Angadi and Rameshwar Prasad Goyal for the Appellant. 
Sanjay R. Hegde and Anil K. Mishra for the Respondent. 
G 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S.B. SINHA, J. This appeal under Section 2 of the Supreme Court 
(Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 arises out of a 
judgment and order dated 16th September, 2005 passed by the High Court of 
H Kamataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No.936 of 1999 whereby and 
SAMGHAJI HARIBAPATILv. STATE OF KARNATAKA [SINHA, J.] 417 
whereunder an appeal preferred by the State of Karnataka against a judgment A · 
and order of acquittal passed by the trial court was allowed, 
Appellant herein along with t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.