SUBHASH @ SUBANNA & ORS. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
*βAuthor [2024] 4 S.C.R. 328 : 2024 INSC 294 Subhash @ Subanna & Ors. v. State of Karnataka Ministry of Home Affairs (Criminal Appeal No. 328 of 2012) 10 April 2024 [Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prasanna B. Varale,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court convicting and sentencing accused no. 1 u/s. 302, and accused no. 2 and 4 u/ss. 324 and 326 IPC. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 β ss. 302 and 324 β Murder β Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapon or means β Right of private defence, if applicable β On facts, morning incident wherein quarrel between the complainant and accused on account of blocking the way and accused persons hurled abuses to her β In the evening, the complainant informed her father about the incident, the father-victim went to the house of accused persons to enquire, wherein he was assaulted by the accused persons, resulting in his death β Complainant, her brother and mother followed the victim and witnessed the attack β Accused no. 1 convicted and sentenced for offence punishable u/s. 302, and accused no. 2 and 4 u/ss. 324 and 326 and others u/s. 323, by the courts below β Interference: Held: On the assessment of the evidence of the prosecution, it reveals that though there was a verbal exchange between the victim and the accused persons, but not in the form of a provocation by the victim to the accused β Evidence clearly show that that there was a dispute on account of the pathway; that the victim was alone, he went to the house of the accused persons to make an inquiry, but he had not entered in the house and on the contrary, accused persons armed with stick, chopper and stone attacked the victim; and that neither the complainant nor her brother carried any weapon β Evidence of the injured eyewitnesses shows that the intention of the accused was to do away with the victim β If right of private defence is applied and the facts are appreciated, it is clear that the victim was unarmed, [2024] 4 S.C.R. 329 Subhash @ Subanna & Ors. v. State of Karnataka Ministry of Home Affairs whereas the accused persons who were armed led a brutal attack on the victim by stick, by koita and stone β High Court rightly upheld the judgment and order of trial court, thus, does not call for interference. [Paras 28-34, 36] Case Law Cited Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab and Another [2010] 1 SCR 642 : AIR (2010) SC 1212; Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab [1958] 1 SCR 1495 : AIR (1958) SC 465 β referred to. List of Acts Penal Code, 1860. List of Keywords Murder; Right of private defence; Provocation; Injured eyewitnesses. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 328 of 2012 From the Judgment and Order dated 20.04.2011 of the High Court of Karnataka at Gulbarga in CRLA No. 3601 of 2010 Appearances for Parties Ms. Kiran Suri, Sr. Adv., S.J. Amith, Ms. Vidushi Garg, Dr. Mrs. Vipin Gupta, Advs. for the Appellants. D. L. Chidananda, Ravindera Kumar Verma, Advs. for the Respondent. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Prasanna B. Varale, J. 1. By way of present appeal, the appellants challenged the judgment and order dated 20th April, 2011 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in Criminal Appeal No. 3601/2010, thereby confirming the conviction and sentence of the Trial Court in Sessions Case No.213/2009 which had convicted appellants (accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4) under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment. Additionally the High Court also upheld the conviction and sentence of appellant 330 [2024] 4 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports Nos.1 and 3 (accused Nos 2 & 4) under Sections 324 and 326 of IPC as awarded by Trial Court. 2. The First Information Report No.18/2009 was lodged at Kamalpur Police Station, Gulbarga against the accused persons for commission of offences under Section 143, 147, 148, 504, 323, 324 and 302 r/w Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, on the basis of complaint submitted by Kumari Sangeeta D/o Mahadevappa Natikar. The Complaint refers to the incident occurred on 18th February, 2009 at 7.00 a.m. (we may refer to this incident as a prequel to the fateful incident which occurred on the same day in the evening). It was submitted in the report that a day earlier i.e., on 17th February, 2009, uncle of the complainant brought fire wood which was dumped on the way, blocking the path of the complainant. Thus, Sangeeta tried to reach the said pat
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.
Lex