LexYANKAPPA AND ORS. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 17 S.C.R. 623 YANKAPPA AND ORS. A II. • STATE OF KARNATAKA (Criminal Appeal No. 68 of 2002) DECEMBER 16, 2008 "" B [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] Penal Code, 1B60- ss.302 r/w s.149 and s.304 (Part I) rlw s. 149 - Conviction under - Land dispute between parties c - Armed accused assaulting the deceased in broad ,day light - Serious injuries inflicted resulting in his death - Conviction of A 1 uls.302 rlw s.149 - A2 to A6 convicted uls.304 (Part I) rlw s. 149 - Acquittal of others - High Court upholding conviction of A 1 and also convicted A2 - AB uls. 302 rlw s. 149 D - Acquittal of other accused upheld - On appeal, held: Evidence of prosecution witnesses relate only to A 1 - A6 and ~ do not ascribe any role to A 7 - AB - Thus, conviction of A 1 - A6 upheld and that of A7 - AB set aside. According to the prosecution case, on account of E land dispute between accused no. 1 and M, several accused persons jointly attacked M with various weapons resulting in his death. PW 3-complainant, PW 1-wife of M, PW 2, PW 6 and brothers of M intervened to save M. FIR was lodged. Investigation was carried out. Prosecution witnesses PW 1 to PW 21 were examined. F t. -t PWs 1 to 4 and 6 claimed to be eye witnesses~ PW 5 was also examined as eye witness but he did not support the prosecution case in its entirety. Accused no. 1 to 14 were charged uls. 143, 147, 148 and 302 rlw s. 149 IPC. Trial court convicted accused no.1 u/s. 302 r/w s. 149 IPC and G sentenced him to life imprisonment. Accused no. 2 to 6 were convicted uls. 304 (Part I) rlw s. 149 IPC and 't sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment. Accused no. 7 to 15 were acquitted. Accused no. 1 filed 623 H 624 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R. A appeal. Respondent-State also filed appeal against acquittal of accused no. 2 to 6 u/s 302 r/w s. 149 IPC and also against acquittal of accused no. 7 to 15. High Court upheld the conviction of accused no. 1 and also convicted A2 to AS u/s. 302 r/w s. 149 IPC and imposed B life imphlonment. However, it upheld the acquittal, of other accused. Hence the present appeal. Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: The reasoning indicated by the High Court suffers from no infirmity so far A 1 to A6 are concerned. It C concluded that there is consistent evidence of all the eye- witnesses, whose presence at the spot cannot be doubted, that they conjointly assaulted the deceased and caused his death. It is no doubt true that a reading of the evidence of PW-2 alongwith the evidence of PW-4 would 0 create some doubt about the presence of PW-2 at the time of the actual occurrence. But there is absolutely ·no reason to doubt the presence of PWs. 1, 3, 4 and 6 at the spot when the incident in question had occurred. ,The evidence against the Accused Nos. 1 to 6 is E over:whelming. It consists.of several eye-witnesses who saw the assault in the broad day light and whc;> knew all these ~ccused persons. There is no doubt that all these accused persons A1 to A6 joined in the assault committed on the deceased when he was near the gaddige with the various. weapons and_ they inflicted F such· serious injuries to th~· deceased that he had died on the spot. They must have known that at.the least, they were causing injuries, which were likely to cause death and if death has resulted, they were guilty of murder. The trial court had committed grave error in holding that G Section 302 was not applicable to them. Therefore, the High Court rightly convicted each A 1 to A6 in terms of Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC. So far as appellants A7 and AS are concerned, the reasoning indicated by the trial court for acquitting them does not H suffer from any infirmity. Evidence of PW-1 and PW-3 ~ YANKAPPAAND ORS. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 625 \, relate to only A 1 to AG. They have not ascribed any role A to A7 and AB. That being so, while upholding the judgment of the High Court to that extent the appeal is allowed so far as it relates to A7 and AB-appellants. [Para 5, Band 9] [62B-F-H; 629-A-B, G-H; 630-A-B] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal B No. 68 of 2002. ~ From the Judgment and Order dated 16.1.2001 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Crl. Appeal No. 553 of 1997. M. Gireesh Kulkarni, S.K. Kulkarni and Khwairakpam c _. Nobin Singh for the Appellants. Anil Kr. Mishra, A Rohen Singh, Amit Kr. Chawla, Vik
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.