LexSEENA@ SRINIVASA versus STATE OF KARNATAKA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2014) 6 S.C.R. 1026 SEENA@ SRINIVASA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA (Criminal Appeal No. 165 of 2004 etc.) JULY 02, 2014 [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: ss.302134. 326 - Murder - Allegation C that accused 1 to 3 went with choppers where victim-deceased was grazing cattle and attacked him - PW1 rushed towards deceased but he was chased by the accused - PW1 ran upto land of PW2 - Accused started pelting stones at PW-1 - On intervention of PW2, accused left - Victim-deceased D succumbed to injuries - Accused no. 1 died during trial - Conviction by trial court u/ss. 302134 - High Court modified convicrion of accused no.2 to s.326 and acquitted accused no. 3 - On appeal, held: The evidence of PW 1 regarding participation of accused no. 1 and 2 and their presence nearby E the place of incident and immediately after the incident found corroboration from the evidence of PW 2, an independent witness - No enmity was attributed to him and nothing was brought out in the cross-examination as to why PW2 would falsely implicate accused no. 1 and 2 in the commission of F the offence - There was no evidence to suggest that some other persons were involved in the commission of the offence - Recovery of choppers and blood stained clothes made at the instance of accused - As regards accused no. 2, there was ample evidence to prove his presence and participation in the G commission of offence so he was rightly convicted by trial court for the offence uls. 302 - High Court though agreed that the prosecution proved the presence of accused no.2 in the commission of the qffence, wrongly held that the charge ul s.302 was not proved and wrongly formed an opinion that the H 1026 SEENA @ SRINIVASA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 1027 offence uls.326 /PC was established against accused no. 2 - A The impugned judgment in so far as accused no. 2 was concerned set aside - Prosecution witnesses did not speak about any specific act or presence of accused no.3, at the place of incident and, therefore, the part of the said judgment acquitting accused no.3 upheld. B Prosecution case was that on the fateful day, PW-1 sent his brother (the deceased) along with PW-7 to police station to lodge report regarding the threat caused to him by accused no. 1, 2 and 3. The deceased lodged the report and returned to the village at around 12 noon p.m. C The deceased accompanied PW-1 to graze cattle. While the cattle were grazing, the deceased sat on a rock. At that time, accused no. 1 to 3 went to the spot armed with choppers. Accused no. 1 hit the deceased on his head with the choppers. Accused no. 3 hit the leg of the D deceased. The deceased screamed which attracted the attention of PW-1. PW-1 rushed towards his brother- deceased but he was chased by accused no. 1 and 2 upto the land of PW-2. PW.1 ran and sought shelter. Accused 1 and 2 stood outside the land and continued E to pelt stones at PW.1. The stone caused injury to his right thigh. The accused asked him to come out. At that time PW.2 intervened and asked them to go away. Thereafter, PW.1 went back to the place of occurrence. He found the deceased dead. Again he returned to his F village and informed the villagers. Accused no. 1 died during the trial. The trial court held accus.ed no. 2 and 3 guilty for offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC. The High Court acquitted accused no. 3 and partly allowed the appeal filed by accused no. 2 by modifying G the conviction under Section 302 IPC to the offence under Section 326 IPC. Accused no. 2 filed instant appeal challenging conviction under Section 326 IPC. The State filed appea.1 H 1028 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 6 S.C.R. A challenging the acquittal of accused no. 3 and modification of conviction of accused no. 2. Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. PWs.1 and 2 gave similar statements that B accused no. 1 and 2 chased PW.1 up to the land of PW.2. PW.2 further deposed that the next day police arrived and checked his garden land which was pointed out by PW.1. PW.1 acted as witness to the seizure of stones used by the accused to assault him. PW.7 was a witness to c seizure of material objects. i.e. stones from the land of PW.2. The witness spoke clearly that he was summoned by the police to the land of PW-2 which was pointed out by PW.1 and around 2.00p.m. mahazar was prepared seizing stones. PW.8 was working as Medical Of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.