LexYALLAWA & ORS. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015) 11S.C.R.695 YALLAWA& ORS. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA (Criminal Appeal No. 1126 of2007) OCTOBER 09, 2015 [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA AND . UDAY UMESH LAUT, JJ.] A B Pena/Code, 1860-ss. 143, 147, 148, 342, 114, 302, C 436 and 506 read withs. 149- Murder- Previous enmity- Ill will between the parties growing for quite some time before the occurrence - Prosecution case that on the date of occurrence the deceased, his son and their men assaulted 'A' -Accused persons (28 in number) infuriated by the said D act, marched towards the house of the deceased with weapons - In order to escape from the onslaught, the decsased and others got inside the deceased's house and bolted it from inside - Accused persons bolted the house of the deceased from outside and set it on fire - As a result all E those inside the house, charred to death - Appellant and others proceeded against for the offences punishable ulss. 143, 147, 148, 342, 114, 302, 436 ~nd 506 rel'Jd with 149- Acquittal by trial court however, conviction and sentence by High Cowt for offences ulss. 148, 302, 506, 342 and 436 rlw F s. 149 - On appeal, held: Plea of A 11 that he was not present at the scene of occurrence since he shifted 'A' from the place where he was assaulted and shifted him to the hospital and . also went to the police station to lodge a complaint, is not G sustainable - There is categorical evidence of witnesses about the manner in which A-11 was movin9 at the place of occurrence and actively giving commands to set the house of deceased fire - High Court took no_te of the eye witness account supported by the medical evidence - Thus, the H 695 696 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 11 S.C.R. A appellants could not be exonerated of the charge found proved against them. Dismissing the appeal, the Court B HELD: 1.1 Ttie High Court took note of the various details with reference to the sequence of events spoken to by the eye witnesses, specific role played by such of those accused who contributed their might in setting fire to the house of deceased well as the adjacent house and c thereby ensuring that none of the victims who entered the house of deceased were allowed to escape from t~e clutches of the appellants and other accused and ultimately met with their death. Having regard to the detailed analysis made by the Division Bench by making o specific reference to the eye witness account supported by the medical evidence, there is no scope for this Court to make any further analysis in order to find out whether any of the appellants could be exonerated of the charge found proved againstthem. [Para 14, 15] [703-E-G] E 1.2 While on the one hand, the grievous attack on 'A' cannot be said to be justified, A11's mind set to take revenge at those who caused the said attack on A cannot also be justified. Therefore, when the distance between F the place of occurrence and the Police Station was hardly 8 kms in the village, such a distance could be covered in a matter of few minutes in a jeep in any case within 1 O or 15 minutes. Therefore, in the absence of any concrete evidence to show that as between 7:45 a.m. and 9:15 G a.m. during the entirety ofthe said period A-11 remained only inside the Police Station and did not move out of the said Police Station it would not be safe to simply go by the version of P.Ws. 43, 48 and 50 who referred to his presence at the Police Station at specifie~ hours i.e. H i 7:45a.m., 8:15a.m., 9:00a.m. and 9:15a.m. and thereby YALLAWA& ORS. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 697 hold that A-11 could have never made himself present in A the place of occurrence in between those hours. [Para 18] [706-D-F] 1.3 The evidence of other eye witnesses were very categoric in their statement about the manner in which B A-11 was moving here and there at the place of occurrence, actively involving himself in issuing commands to other accused in the process of setting fire to the house of deceased and ensured that the said house was completely burnt with all the ten victims C inside. Therefore, the conclusion of the Division Bench in having found A-11 also guilty of the offence for which he was convicted was fully justified. There is no scope to deal with A-11 differently. [Para 19] [706-G-H; 707-A-B] D CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal. No. 1126 of 2007 From the Judgment and Order dated 31.03.2006 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.