LexSTATE OF KARNATAKA versus CHIKKAHOTTAPPA @ VARADE GOWDA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 8 S.C.R. 1167 .. Ji. STATE OF KARNATAKA A V. CHIKKAHOTTAPPA @ VARADE GOWDA & ORS. (Criminal Appeal No. 313 of 2001) MAY 16, 2008 B (DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, P. SATHASIVAM AND AFTAB )i ALAM,JJ.) Penal code, 1860, SS 148, 302 rlw s. 149 : Murder - Rivalry between eight accused persons and c deceased -Accused persons assaulted deceased with weap- ans causing multiple injury on his body which resulted in his death - Accused, A4 allegedly Assaulted by deceased and other causing serious injuries - Fl.R. lodged by mother of de- ceased and complaint by A4 - Investigation - Charge sheet D - Trial Court found all the accused persons guilty of commit- ting offences punishable uls 148, 302 rlw S. 149 /PC and sen- fenced them to R. I. for life and also imposed fine - Convic- tion altered uls 326 rlw S. 149 /PC by High Court acquitting accused A4 - Correctness of - Held : In correct - Accused E persons inflicted multiple injuries on the body of the deceased - Most of injuries were deep incised wounds of varying sizes - Intention of assailants as established by the evidence of the witness was to cause the death of the deceased and not to cause grievous injury - Hence, the judgment of High Court F altering conviction from s. 302 rlw s. 149 /PC to S. 326 rlw s. 149 /PC not sustainable and set aside restoring the convic- tion and the sentence imposed by Trial Court - Sentencing. Words & Phrases 'Unlawful assembly' 'common object' 'common intention' G ~ - meaning of in the context of s. 149 !PC. According to the prosecutrix, (there was some rivalry between the accused persons and the deceased and oth- 1167 H 1168 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008) 8 S.C.R. A ers). Allegedly eight accused persons, members of an .}.__ ~ unlawful assembly assaulted the deceased with machus, sticks and wooden reaper, the deceased succumbed to injuries. PW1 mother of the deceased lodged an F.l.R. in the Police Station. Accused no.4 also received injuries of B serious nature and admitted to the hospital and he also filed a complaint in the Police Station that the deceased and two other persons had assaulted him on the day of " occurrence. The police after completion of investigation submitted the charge sheet against accused persons. c Trial Court found all the accused persons guilty of the offences punishable u/s.302 r/w.s.149 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and im- posed fine etc. High Court affirmed conviction of all the accused persons except A4, acquitting him of the of- D fences charged but altered the conviction of accused persons u/s. 326 r/w.S.149 IPC. Hence the present appeal. Appellant-State contended that the reasons indicated by the High Court are palpably wrong and cannot be sus- tained; that the intention of the unlawful assembly was E clear from the weapons held by the assailants; That the injuries inflicted on the eyewitnesses i.e. PW1, PW3 and PW6 clearly described the role of the accused persons in surrounding and assailing the deceased; that the High Court has wrongly held that there were only two injuries F on the head and that the rest of the injuries on the lower part of the body and limbs. In fact, there were three inju- ries on the head. Additionally, the injuries 6 & 7 clearly show the force with which the injuries were inflicted, and in fact, injury No.7 shows that a hand was severed; and G that the doctor's evidence also shows that there were multiple fractures of base of the occipital bone. " ;. Respondent-accused submitted that the acquittal of A4 because of non-explanation of injuries on him by the prosecution shows the falsity of the prosecution case; H STATE OF KARNATAKA v. CHIKKAHOTTAPPA 1169 @ VARADE GOWDA " )( and that the occurrence took place in the course of free A fight and therefore the High Court's judgment does not warrant any interference. Allowing the appeal, the Court Held: 1.1 The pivotal question is applicability of Sec- B tion 149 IPC, said provision has its foundation on con- structive liability which is the sine qua non for its opera- tion. The emphasis is on the common object and not on common intention. Mere presence in an unlawful assem- bly cannot render a person liable unless there was a com- c mon object and he was actuated by that common object and that object is one of those set out in Section 141 IPC. Where common object of an unlawful assembly is not proved, the accused persons cann
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.