Karnataka High Court
Chandre Gouda vs The State Of Karnataka on 30 September, 2010
Author: H.G.Ramesh
Bench: H.G.Ramesh
Cri.A.NO.1071/2006
bmthere on the other hand. The deceased Suryanarayana
wine was at the relevant point of time the President of the
Taltxka 'Panchayat, Hospet, took the side of the br<>t11ei'V_fr:e
accused in the land dispute. This axmayed the *
Therefore, he was waiting for an opp<;r"t'u-:::ity--"_1:o rev?e_:f:g*e_ u
agemxst the deceased. On 26.01.2003,
54?" Republic: Day of the R{atiofi,'--§iag hefsteir:g.e_eere:5§i6I'"zy'V:had V
been arranged by the ReS;'Ie:}ue '¢:¢tit,:'A'TIfv'{1;{f';i_§:ipa«i'Autherities of
Hoepet in municipal p1aygrei1iid"L'-Tkie _f1:é§g'_'hv{jieting ceremony
had been SCh€d1,}}€3'f,§ €§f Commissioner
of Hospet Sub kiyfj';-:1emfe C}_.N-.'Shivamurthy was to
Llnfurl the 'P-'W~23 Sri.Che1:mama11appa
R.Be11akanaIi«.aul1ie Judge (Sr.Dn.) and JMFQ,
;{:}'}}e.:xfLdrasheka1" Reddy working as Civil
JMFC, Hospet, PW--18 Bheema Re<::1dy,
de<:eased~ M.Suryanarayana, President
of J A.;Pe:eehayat, one Smt.N.Ye1:*iyamma, President,
i;«ij'u.1;f:Vie'i«;<ja1VV"Council, Hospet and one Sri.Aaeha Mohammed
Preeident, Urban Development Authority, Hoepet,
.2'?
M"
CrI.A.NO.1U71/2006
spite of best treatment, succumbed to the injuries at about
H,u4~5 a,.m. on the same day. On receipt of tho death tnemo
from the hospital, PW~225 submitted a report
jurisdictional Magistrate to alter the offence
307 to section 302 IPC. After A t:'o. '
Mariyarnmanahalli Police Station,
independent punchas PWa-13 nheld '8e5arCh"' V
of the accused, seized M,€>~3_.A 3, 229 fiwhichoinocluded
.35 1"e'voive1", bullets. a,n<':"i' VA Mahazar
f3x.P.9 and latex; Ejudioial custody.
PWQ1 »._(':.1iifi»aawadagi, who took up
fL11"ther i:1V<3_asLigé;i:o1<1, '~%,.h€3 gee-no of oc:c'uo7*rence,
conducted Sp_ot_ EX.P.9, seized the metal
..portiovn.§:ptu" V {E16 also the handke as per E\/1.03. 1 and
__per M.O.6. The motor cycle M.O.3O useci
V by ti1e"~VaCCu€{€fdVA"§:o reach the Scene of oC<:u.rren<:e was. seized
é under msihazar E3x.P.5, at the instance of the accuzsed
f3j;11*ou,o.:1t £0 his voluntary statement Ex.P--24--. PW»-27 Add}.
Wno took up further investigation of the case got the
2":
3
~ QM»-*"
M"
M»
CrI.A.Nol1071/2006
: 10 :
denial and that of false implication. It was his further
defence that the deceased was a known rowdy sheetelj e.nd
an anti Social element in the locality as such he heel
with several people in the locality and
ihimical have killed the deceased Ru
incident, he hag been falsely implicated _ "
4, After hearing both sides anll'=oi"1 esseserhfeht of o1'a.'l as
Well as documentary eViCl~e_h¢'ce,'l__the~ .l'e'e.r'ned _Seeelons Judge,
by the judgment under ajgvpeexlfeconeyeicfedt eccused for the
offence-S pL1hi3h.£lb1e%c1_[ éecfioh 3 of l97l Act.
Being, aggf'ileVecl:ivf,l;;y jtldgment of conviction, the
appellant~eecueed-- before this court.
5. We ha\lfe.__hlearcl B.Nail<, learned Senior Counsel
vv'...g;ppeaV_li.l:;gl: lhrz.___;;p;>e1lant~accused and Sri.R.A.Patil,
for the respondent-State. We have
perLlehe'cl' the«*.V-ifeceflds and read the judgment: under appeal. lliflu the l'achj and circumstances of the case, the points that _ elfisaeliezf our CO1"1SlCl€3I'E1l;lO1'l in this appeal are:
M-
, ,M"
4 : (m~*''''' Crif-\.NO.lO71/2006 : 14 : seized at that place itself. It is the further submission of learned senior counsel that even if the recovery of revolver M.O.3, from the possessions of accused in Mariammeh:e;}3.e11i police station is believed, the presence of _ aeetlsed on the revolver is highiy the other hand it should have here finger =6;;jt1§é'rVt or any other Police Officer"/Offie'ia} predsexrrt at eye {£1/ef, seizure. Therefore, the :a11eged'v'Vd4fir'1_er_uprrrit.accused fotmd on the revolver is one. Vhflxccordimg to the tearrxed Senior the baihstie expert and the ferehsic .expert' are.v_e*fhe-~<:o11sequence if the evidence ef is termed as unreliable.
Therefore, "Ire rsoughtm.fef..r_'_':s'et.ting aside the judgment of conviction uordVe'1*."'0fddsehtenee and to acquit the accused. "iee.rned""sehior counsel submitted that having regard and time of the incident, and the allegdartiijexi. the accused indiscriminately fired with hie revolver "at_Athe deceased standing on the dais, in from of so «..ri1e_1:r1y_d_Egr1it.aries on and off the dais would clearly indicate CrLA.NO.lO7l/2006 : 18 : the appeal and confirmation of the judgment of conviction zmd order of sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge. 9» We have bestowed <:>ur anxious considerations"tof-.th,e submissions made at the bar. We have carefully;sett§t"ti'ftiVse<:¥/'A ' the oral as well as the doeumexttgmgz dd"
record. No doubt, it is wet}. settled leicy that the Appellate Court «Whi1e"s_drttjhg"ii'; judgment of com/ictio11 hets all ot"1e6tt.?f*I?1551"€Ci'3~ti1'€'§ the evidence and formihggdts. 'V However, it is made further C1€éEiI""C1f1'c'3t'[i t§.ie"'/£'ppei1.ett;e hefore doing so has to reeoi*d' whether the opinion formed by the trial cdztrt is I'easoh snot.
__10t perusa:1'~QVf:vthe: records indicate that the accused vsertottsly disputed the fact that deceased was the President of Taluk Panehayat, V Hospetl; at'-.'the"t"e1evant point of time, suffered bullet injwries Kivas participating in the flag hoisting Ceremony by the Municipal and Revenue Authorities of Cr!.A.No.1071/2006 : 19 : Hospet in the municipal ground, Hospet, on 26.01.2003 and he later succumbed to those bullet injuries. Thus the death of deceased was homicidal. It is also not in serious' that the deceased received those bullet injuries % standing on the dais and singing National \ Assistant Commissioner urifuriedt thieiiiV?iI:atijor:ai'1 is also no serious dispute as to: the tac.tTt'hat 23 were also present in the sai'd:V'f11r1ctioii. dais as Chief Guests. E:><;.P.1 is in of that ftmctiori wherein the riarriesi have been printed and showtvttojtias, t:me£V~'teu¢sts...friéie co marked as M.O.5 this Court by the Court below on our direction, Was".foI:,ihd4damaged. Therefore, it could hot be"ip'£ay'Aed. HowVevver,: the video cassette marked as M.O.4 Fgvas' p_Iayed.arid--..Viewed by us in the presence of the learned S(3I{'"it7ii_(§3v'};'.._':'C3()vUi*t71'V75_:"v*?.3:'?d]5p€aI"i1'1g§ for the accused and the learned V ,:'Xdditio'r1a}--.V:SI3P": The said video showed the presence of PWs~-- are the Judicial Officers and PV'\/.18 Dy.S.P., .,o_ri}:he "dais at the function. Therefore, the presence of PWs~ 6,, ¥""*%co Mwwvww CrE.A.NO.1071/2006 : 21 : incident, he was standing on the back side of the dais and from there, he witnessed the acts cemmitted by the accused. The comment against this witness by the learned Ccuneel is that PW~22 being a Police Officer on _ accused rushing towards the deceased b thereafter firing at the deceased have kept quiet and since the.' w_.itnedS';:>~_dvh"1*1e.s simply watched the acts byu vxdthotxt l'L1ShiI'lg to prevent the veuch acts we"Lt"Ed indicate thathe We find me substance in is a Police Officer. Hiieecene of occurrence is not in eertoue dispt1te;t M'ereiy '.:xe'cai.1ee he did not rush to prevent the acecftieeci froth.__ecco1t:.p}ishing the act or to rescue the "decee$ed,_it_cai1«--n0t be said that he was not an eye witness. the Supreme Court has held that Vdifferetzt g;5et~et3ns react differently to sim:i1a.r situation. :".v4.4MVLere1Vy_.becetuee PW--22 is a Police Officer, one cannot forget 4'_"t1jtest::heA"Ais also a human being with all apprehensions and Crl.A.NO.1071/2006 : 22 : weakiieeeee. Therefore, on the premise that since he did not proceed on seeing the accused advancing tewarcie the deceased holding the chopper and then firing "
deeeaeed with the revolver, either to prevent _ to reecue the deceased, it cannot be eaici that an eye Witness nor his Conduct in thie ate Lmbeeoming of a Police OffiC€}"., It4iis._ie;ie0 mind that the entire incicient Qf eeeende. if the evidence is read as a whole, soon after Flag by the Aesietant CommieSieifier,:=__the etarted playing Natienai on and off dais stood up and etertede--i.I_igihg;'~ National Anthem was half way th_§feugh, tiiieivaceused came to the dais; and ecCon:.p11ehed hievaet within 8 to 10 eecohde. Therefore, it is PW--22 could either rush towards the de{ieas--eei*dr towards the accused, the entire incident i3'fx'z1i;tst have.V_.beei1 over. Therefore, there are no reasons t0 ii the testimony of PW--22.
QCCWM Crl.A.NO.1071/2006 :23:
12. PWs~1. and 123 are the two Judicial Officers who had been invited to the furiction as Chief Guests. evidence before the Sessions Court, they mated that if: was; the accused who eaihe "
fired at the deceased" No doubt, -
not mated that he saw ac<:used'Vas§auiiixi5g the a chopper. However, he is definiu{e..iii*1 his VeKz'ii;ii:<:ftiee':§;hat after hearing some galata, whe-riiiie ieftg he Saw the deceased failing on vthe:A.r&ai_S:'i advancing towarde the hy. ihoid._ihg kreivolifer in his right hand and puimgfiifig 'cAoi§i.p1e::3oi" biiliets ihi:o"':ihe body of the deceased Except fitlggefitiiiifiV_)C}!.E§i»..h.i'}f1CE§ he was singing National Aiithemand \XfeeV'sehitifig Vthie National Flag, he could not eee e;e.,i:o ohith'e'"dVe:ceased, there is absolutely nothing hisiie-yidenee:. No doubt, according to PW~1, at i thai'tih'1e singing the National Anthem by lifting his andviisaluting the National Fiag. On this premise, it e'§i;iir1_oiii"'A_Ahe said that he was not in a position to turn to his as, such a move would result in insulting either the o, W, CV5./3\.NO.1071/2006 : 24 : National Flag or the National Anthem. The normal human conduct in a circumstance of that nature was to immediately turn to on hearing scream. Therefore, it is highly that PW-1 also had turned to his left and saw holding revolver pumping in couple of bL11Iets..int'o.Vvti"ie: i of the deeeaeed. We find no of P'W~i_. PW~1 being a ._IL1dicie.1_ Office'?-.had depoee falsehood against the of the accused that PW~1 against him. PWs.«1 and 23 are They have also stood the there ie nothing in the their testimony. They have also ide'ntifievdAer2tii*_e incident as found in the video easeetteiwhieh Vipleyed in the open court while they were 'giving'_»evid"enC_e"é3c.s is clear from the noting made by the tee_i*;ied.__€ie'ee'i'o,neV.i}}'ddge in the deposition sheets of aid these witneseee. could be seen from the record, the video had been played whenever the witnesses were in the open court and with reference to the Cr¥.A.N0.1071/2006 :26: scene of oecurrenc:e, sensing danger to the life of the accused, he immediately shifted the accused to Mariyemmanahealli. Police Station in a jeep. We L1m1ezture.1ness in this act on the part of PW»-18', _ specific defence of the accused thatthe known rowdy sheeter and he had erimina} eases. Therefore, it is.»qujte ti) have sensed danger to the life 'therefore to save the hlfe of the rehz1evi11g the accused to a neerby ApQti_e.e these circumstances, We c§;;mf2.:).t:*.firi§ii""fati1t_VWithethe failure on the pert of the':VVPW-eighties;"i:t1med_te*ife1y-'seize the revolver from the possession aeetieedieteehhthe spat itself. If PW~}8 was 1jeq'uire§1_;j'tO e.seize'theV revcfiver from the possession of the Zeceuseei' spot, hhewshould have stayed back there and heAe--.Wa_e ¥re.{§mjfeci~.VVt0 take some time which would have h»'""V';:>r0vide--c3_t 'Topportunity for the supporters of the _._..j'iv"Vi:$eeee.sed .i;Q :tak€ law into their hands and cause danger to " eh'e"1iefee§ the accused. Therefore, we fine no infirmity in the Crf.A.NO.1071/2006 : 27 : failure on the part of PW~18 to recover the revolver form the possession of the accused at the scene of occurrence itself. Perueal of the records and the evidence on record indicate that recovery of revolver is not pursuant to statement of the accused under Section 27 . K evidence of PW~18, soon after thej'eLAccused¢ Mariyammanahaili Police Station, two independent witnesses ind' their presence, persons-In see:e'h..i:'of'~.co,.the' aegccusied was conducted and at that possessing an revolver 'hidden the safari suit whichhe n:ras"Weat'in'g;vt.e{n--d he was also found possessing severe} othee-o'_2'a.1*tivc1'es couple of bullets and they _jvve1:'e s.e§zed.'L1nder._e; mahazar. Of course PWs--13 and 14 I-',}qéiv'eVn'ot case of the prosecution and they were »..ed.ec1e;t'VeVd Vdhostile. However, on that ground, the V " recovery oftevolver and other articles from the possession of _, eecusedt" cannot be doubted. PW-- 18 being a senior police "o.ft'i<:et, has no reason either to fabricate the evidence or to ¢<fg4§KV':§\.v.w.t»«.»w'"fl¢ Crl.A.NO.107l/2006 :29: the learned Sessions Judge has rightly rejected the said plea. Therefore it is reasonable to hold that the ecexféed as the owner continued to possess the revolver with him,'
15. The next: aspect required to be noticed H the revolver by the accused to pump: 'i"I1'--the u body of the deceased. In this reliance both on the oral evidence. As already nvo-tizeed .ofa1v..e\zi:eienee of Pws-*1, 18, 22 and 23 eé§,:ab11sh that the accused. after com4i1f1g._on jsjo dai'e'vL'fro1n"f;he northern eide, first esea};:It'eCi' {he biunter side of the chopper " took out the revolver' from his waiet.._ve11dVV'fireLi "co{1p1e of bullets at the deceased. V_~"§;:he__ e"§2'ideht:e...____Qf the material witnesses clearly Veetabfi'ehee,v'V'tf1e 'ufser of revolver by the accueed. The eV:ideoce of'.v-PV§ZeiéO~P.Su1fesh, PSI in Finger Print: Unit, *~.._'.44eei§ab}cie'}1ee;'fihat one being summoned by the Investigating went to the police station and examined M.O.3~ ____i"'evo1:Ver seized in the case and he found two chance finger <;" _ <9?
0/j&§§"wrw"°'WaMM Crl.A.NO.1071/2006 : 31 : the contents of EX.P-*9-Pa1'1Ch8.1'}a1'I1€1., possibility of any other person havir1g handled the revelver at the time of the seiuzure, is compietely ruied out. Therefore, the of 'PW-«2O would clearly establish the preeence_;~'uf impressions of the accused on the revolver.
16. The evidence of P"W--26 N.G.f'ra'h_hai«:ef;--
expert, working as Assistant 'D_i:f'e.etorA"ir1 §'_SL; Ae:etab1i'Shes".d' that he examined the re§J01ver~M_.uC}-:_3'=ar1d bufiets and Submitted ballistic fe:.;§§:%r_t ep--3l_1'1i<.:i%11 as per Exe.P»3O and 31. Aecordingto hire... 'iwere recovered from 'theddedéidee .:1.§fQd3'?::3:'§V(3ii' deééasee were fired from the revokver M"fO.:-3 émd evidences of discharge of the bullets from the fevei-ve1i~IM~'.'O.3. There is no serious Croee- vv..--e2§amiy1'e$:ie§i to this; regard. PW»~26 has set out Vdeteiileii e:.:1'enti.fifC~ reasonirxgs and the basis for coming to the V Said"e0nc1L1siC;gnLA'e:= There are he reasons for disbeheving the 'eVvide11e'ePW~26. Thus, it is manifestly clear fmm the PWMZZ6 that the bullets. recovered from the dead "bf©d;.{V effhe deceased had been fired from the revolver M.O.3 R_"_,.wav f "E CrI.A.No.1071/2006 : 33 : the 4 bullets pumped into the body of the deceased were found inside the body itself. Therefere, none of the bullets had gone out of the body, as such, there was no exit The absence of exit wotmd cannot be a basis H Case of the pmsecution. It is also the ., learned senior counsel that in the lacerated wound on the deceased, thetzser cannot be believed. If the eVide'i:ee"0n that the accused had axssauttedit"_th'e"-,§ieeee.sed ./With the sharper side of the Chgpij-€;h;t.hi.s' could have had some force. The is that the accused sesattltevdvsthe"dek:eVéised from the blunter side of the chopper. Therefore,"~thef'e is no substance in the sedd cententéomst Ifxthe 'b'b,1nxter. side of the chopper is used for asvsatflt, ceiftaiblzty it cannot resukt in incised Wound. In any es.se_,'«-the"s.ee§1uAItv.-tvith the chopper was not fatal. Oh the ether "hah;1i,' is the builet injuries which were fatal and in" the death of the deceased. Under these "'e.i.'I'::1;m1:s.ia.nees, even if the user of the chopper is disbelieved, CrE.A.NQ.1071/2006 : 35 :
18. The circumstances in which the accused committed the gruesome act, would indicate that he committed the eaid act with eh intention to commit murder of the deceaseVtie'.._fFh.e intehtion being mental state of 8. person eeldom be direct evidence in proof of intention.
intention. will have to be gatherefi circumstances. Here is a case where t}';--ereecused, eliminate the deceased while he W'et§'*}9a1"ttcipeti.31:§; sflag V lloieting ceremony. The psfeetse 'ti'ff1'eA'to"co'ft':1mit the act would indicate the tee! the accused.
The evidence ohw'1<eco1'dI_c1§eeLt'1y~_Ahizitiicathe that after the Aseietant }i::1_fu;»r1edc~' the National Flag and the police band'ete1*te<:1'p1e§rihg~..c:the National Anthem and the :d.ighiterie'eV on and' of the dais started singing the National byi eeltiting the National Flag, the accused entered diae .'tf1*7<T;$.1fgtA ti':e"_~2fto:9t'i°:'ern side holding a chopper and aseaulted the de'c:'eae:.ec1'cihd then at the deceased. The sound of ax/es ihtended to merge with the sound eminating from set and also from the singing of the National , W' N, ».«~ \ WM¢,.w . W MM"
Crl.A.N0.1071/2006 : 36 : Anthem. From this, a reasonable inference that can be drawn le that the accused wanted that his act should not he noticed by any one nor the firing sound should be hedtdetbyt any one. The intention of chosing that time was, deceased had raised the sounds of screaming,__it-._eh'ottlldl he heard by the people around that the accused planned his actioxlllin body' should notice him and the 'V deceased and get away from before-A singing of National Anthem was over.' relating to the Anthem shotlld in 52 Seconds. Thus, the duratio:n is lees than et°;if1i:1lite. The accused commenced his act after 'e'ingingl>; cf _the National Anthem commenced and he flthe actwloefore the singing of the National From thie, it is manifeetly clear that 'V"the acce.t1eeVd'ple¢'nn.ed his act very meticulously and chose an ll":7.4ept21joptielte.1'time and place to eliminate the deceased. Therefoilde, there is no difficulty in holding that the accused M ,m"' CrI.A.N0. 1071./2006 : 3'7 :
committed the said act with an intention to commit murder of the deceased, as such, the act committed by the accused equerely falls under Section 300 of the Indian Pena1'c':C»ode punishable under Section 302 IPC. We find no the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge.i1fii'no}'diiné _ accused guilty for the offence of IPC. Appreciation of the evidence Judge is in accordance with of law. Minor discrepancies. ._eViden'ce°has been rightly ignored by the Ieeifiiedi It is wen recognised that:-W'h_Ve':1eVe_r the evidence Vjis sought to be projected V*t_hrough""h'nVni;a;n'-._egericy, minor discrepancies are bound to occur; If tifieneiisi no discrepancy, it is always _argned_;that the"'ei{idiencs: of the witness is a parrot like 'vevidence oi' t;i'tored evidence. Even the Minor discrepancies in t1ie"'ie__Vid'e:n'ce etthese material witnesses, have not affected the cre'd,ibi1ityvo'f their evidence. Hence, we find no ground to with the finding of the learned Sessions Judge <'"1? M Mr . ' M,.m"'"w (:"§<;W Crl.A.NO.107'1/2006 9 § :45'.
Natiotml Honourfkt, 1.971 is hereby set aside. The accused is a<:qL1.itt:<+:d of the said charge. MEOSJ4 and 5 \/CD and. CD secured from Sessions are ordered, to be returned toithc; said"(;;cAi:*vf.""'~. '- Jm/Kmv