Karnataka High Court
Hanamappa Alias Hanamantappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 December, 2022
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
CRL.A No.100100/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100100 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
HANAMAPPA @ HANAMANTAPPA
S/O SIDDAPPA MEVUNDI,
AGE : 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O ASUNDI, NEAR BASAVESHWAR GUDI,
TQ: & DIST: GADAG-591126.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI SAURABH A.SONDUR, ADV.)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH GADAG RURAL POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD-580011.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI V.M.BANAKAR, ADDL.S.P.P.)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF THE
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
Digitally
signed by AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 29.10.2021
ROHAN
ROHAN HADIMANI T PASSED BY PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, GADAG IN
HADIMANI Date:
T 2022.12.16
10:52:30
+0530
-2-
CRL.A No.100100/2022
S.C.NO.4/2019 AGAINST THE APPELLANT AND ACQUIT THE APPELLANT
FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302 OF IPC IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 15.11.2022, COMING ON FOR 'PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT', THIS DAY, G BASAVARAJA J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. This Appeal is filed by the accused under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.10.2021 passed in S.C.No.4/2019 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Gadag ("the Trial Court" for short).
2. The parties are referred to as per their ranks before the Trial Court for the sake of convenience.
3. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the filing of the appeals may be noticed hereunder:
3.1. The accused is the husband of the victim/deceased Vinoda. He was nursing ill-will against her as the deceased Vinoda had kept the accused out of the -3- CRL.A No.100100/2022 house, transferred the land bearing R.S.No.213/4 situated in Mallasamudra village, which would have fallen to the share of the accused, to the name of their minor son Kishan, registered herself as the minor's guardian and began cultivating the said land. She had also obtained an order of maintenance for herself and the minor son from the court of law.
3.2. Therefore, on 10th of August 2018, at around 10.30 a.m., when the victim/deceased Vinoda arrived in the tractor with CW.5/PW.7 Ashok Karigar to harvest greengram on the aforementioned land bearing R.S.No.212/4 and the tractor came to be stopped on the public road closed to the said land, the accused entered the tractor trailer from hind side with an intention to murder the victim/deceased Vinoda and used a wooden club to assault the victim/deceased Vinoda on her head, face, hands, and legs with force, causing severe -4- CRL.A No.100100/2022 injuries and committed her murder and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.
4. After filing the charge sheet, the jurisdictional magistrate has taken cognizance against the accused for the alleged commission of offenses, and the case was registered in C.C.No.1057/2018. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Gadag, and the same was registered in S.C.No.4/2019, the police produced the accused from judicial custody, and he was represented by his Advocate. On hearing the charges, the trial court framed the charges for the alleged commission of offense, and the same was read over and explained to the accused. Having understood the same, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. The prosecution examined 22 witnesses as PWs.1 to 22, marked 36 documents as Exs.1 to P.36 and marked nine material objects as MOs.1 to 9 to prove its case. On -5- CRL.A No.100100/2022 closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. has been recorded as to the incriminating evidence appearing against him. The accused has denied all the incriminating materials appearing against him in the prosecution evidence, but has not chosen to adduce any defence evidence.
6. On hearing the arguments of both sides, the trial court convicted the accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and the accused was sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default of paying the fine amount, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the accused has preferred this appeal.
-6-CRL.A No.100100/2022 SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR ACCUSED:
7. The learned counsel appearing for the accused has advanced his arguments and reiterated the grounds of appeal urged in the memorandum of appeal as follows:
7.1. The impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court is contrary to law, facts, and the material placed on record.
7.2. The entire case of the prosecution in terms of the accused motive for the crime has been based on the premise that, due to pending litigation between the deceased and the accused, the accused committed murder of the deceased in order to put an end to the litigation. However, on perusal of the materials on record, it is abundantly clear that no material has been placed by the prosecution so as to establish that any litigation regarding the partitioning of the properties was pending between the parties.-7-
CRL.A No.100100/2022 7.3. PWs.12 to 14, who have been examined by the prosecution deposed regarding the mediation held for the settlement between the deceased and the accused and have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. Even on that count, the motive said to have been established by the prosecution has not at all been proved.
7.4. The prosecution has produced Ex.P.34-FIR of Gadag Rural Police Station Crime No.165/2016 for the offence punishable under Sections 506, 504, 323 and 324 IPC and Ex.P.36 FIR of Gadag Rural Police Station Crime No.22/2018 for the offence punishable under Section 107 IPC. Ex.P.34-the complainant is Manjunath Venkappa Pujar (PW.18) against the accused, alleging that the accused had hit his own father, when the father had refused to permit the accused to take out the tractor for drive, so also Ex.P.36 is registered under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C. These documentary evidence nowhere -8- CRL.A No.100100/2022 establish the motive of the appellant against the victim. However, the accused has been acquitted in the FIR registered in Ex.P.34, as per the judgment of the Trial Court dated 30.07.2020. 7.5. So far as Ex.P.35 is concerned, the said complaint was lodged by the deceased Vinoda against the accused and three other persons, and in the said proceedings, the accused has been acquitted by the Trial Court by judgment dated November 29, 2021.
All of these facts and circumstances clearly undermine the prosecution's case in terms of motive and reveal that the complainant and her family members were harbouring malice toward the accused in this case.
7.6. PW.4 to PW.9 have been treated as eyewitnesses to the case of the prosecution. Out of the said witnesses, PWs.4 to 6 and 9 have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. It is only PWs.7 & 8 who are alleged to be the eyewitnesses who have -9- CRL.A No.100100/2022 supported the prosecution's case. However, on perusal of the depositions, it is clearly shown that both of them admit to not having seen the accused assault the victim, therefore, they cannot be eyewitnesses.
7.7. The accused is already having an illicit relationship with PW 10, which has been portrayed as part of the motive. However, the said PW-10 has been examined as a prosecution witness and she too has turned hostile to the prosecution's case. Thus there is no iota of material to establish the fact that, there was any such illicit relationship between PW.10 and the accused.
7.8. PW.18, who is the brother of the victim, has also been treated as a hostile witness and he has been cross-examined by the prosecution. However, nothing incriminating has been elicited from the said witness by the prosecution.
- 10 -
CRL.A No.100100/2022 7.9. Ex.P.5 is the spot panchanama and Ex.P.14 is the clothes seizure panchanama and the author of both of these documents is one K.B. Sankadal. The said author of the document has not been examined by the prosecution so as to establish the genuineness of the said document. This serious defect has been completely overlooked by the trial court. 7.10. PW.1 & 2 who are the pancha witnesses of the inquest panchanama and tractor seizure panchanama, have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. PW.3 has also denied having any knowledge of the contents of the inquest panchanama. As such, the said documents (Ex.P.1 and 5) have not at all been proved by the prosecution.
7.11. PW.11, who is daughter of PW.10, has also turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. Further, it is submitted that the testimony of PW.8 has been given unnecessary weightage. The said witness has
- 11 -
CRL.A No.100100/2022 specifically admitted in her cross-examination that, she had not seen the accused before the tractor came into the field and at that time she went near the trailer, deceased Vinoda was already lying in the trailer. However, contrary to the said admission, it is averred in the complaint that PW.10 and 11 took the accused from the tractor and went away from the spot. These material contradictions have not been properly appreciated by the Trial Court.
7.12. The Trial Court ought not to have convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC since there are no material evidence at all apart from interested and related witnesses. On all these grounds he sought for allowing the appeal.
8. During the pendency of this appeal, on behalf of the accused, an application is filed under Section 391 of Cr.P.C., for the production of additional evidence, which
- 12 -
CRL.A No.100100/2022 is supported by an affidavit of Smt. Chinnavva Kuri, wife of Shekharappa, in which she has stated that; 8.1. she is the sister of the present appellant and knows the facts of the case. The present appeal is filed by her brother against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.10.2021 passed by the Trial Court in SC.No.4/2019 thereby convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.
8.2. While trying to convict the accused, the trial court issued an order sentencing him to life in prison. The Trial Court has taken into consideration the pendency of criminal proceedings against him in Gadag Rural Police Station Crime No.312/2017 and Crime No.165/2016.
8.3. With respect to Crime No.312/2017 of Rural Police Station, Gadag, a charge sheet was filed in C.C.No.910/2017 on the file of the II Additional
- 13 -
CRL.A No.100100/2022 Civil Judge & JMFC, Gadag for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC, and the Trial Court was conducted in the said case. After completion of the Trial in the said case, accused has been acquitted of all the offences alleged against him vide judgment of the Trial Court dated 29.11.2021. 8.4. In the case registered against the accused in C.C.No.310/2016 on the file of II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Gadag for the offence punishable under Section 323, 324, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, this accused has been acquitted of all the offences alleged against him vide judgment of the Trial Court dated 30.07.2020. 8.5. She has also stated that her brother (the accused) is in judicial custody from the date of his arrest, which was August 10, 2018. During the period of his custody, he was also tried in the present case.
- 14 -
CRL.A No.100100/2022 However, insofar as the judgment in C.C.No.910/2017 is concerned, her brother has been acquitted only after the passing of the impugned judgment on 29.10.2021, as such the judgment has been produced along with the present application.
8.6. Insofar as the judgment in C.C.No.310/2016 is concerned, the same was passed on 30.07.2020, but her brother had not been made aware of the said fact. However, at the time of filing of the present appeal, when enquires as regards status of the other cases was made. The said fact came to her knowledge, and she, being a rustic villager, was not aware of all the legal procedures and technicalities. Only after making serious and hectic efforts was she able to get certified copies of the judgments and make them available to her brother's counsel so as to enable him to file the present application before this Court. The judgment
- 15 -
CRL.A No.100100/2022 sought to be produced herewith is taken on record. They would undoubtedly point towards the innocence of her brother, even in the present case. On all these submissions she sought for allowing the application. Along with this application, the appellant's counsel has also filed two documents, i.e., copy of the judgment passed in C.C.No.310/2016 dated 30.07.2020 on the file of II Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Gadag and also copy of the judgment passed in C.C.No.910/2017 on the file of II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Gadag dated 29.11.2021.
SUBMISSIONS OF ADDL SPP FOR STATE:
9. Per contra, Sri V.M.Banakar learned Additional State Public Prosecutor advanced his arguments that the Trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record and passed the impugned judgment. There are eyewitnesses to the incident. PW.8-Hanumavva Siddappa Mevundi who is none other than the mother of
- 16 -
CRL.A No.100100/2022 the accused has clearly stated as to the commission of offence by the accused and another witness PW.7-Ashok Iragappa Karigar has also clearly deposed as to the act of the accused. Absolutely, there are no material witnesses to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court. Hence, he sought for the dismissal of this appeal.
10. With regard to the application filed under Section 391 of Cr.P.C. by the accused is concerned, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor has submitted his argument that the proposed documents annexed to the application filed under Section 391 of Cr.P.C. are not at all required to adjudication of the matter in dispute. The accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced for life imprisonment. On the basis of these documents, this Court cannot reduce the sentence imposed by the Trial Court. Accordingly, the proposed documents are not required to
- 17 -
CRL.A No.100100/2022 be adjudicated in the matter in dispute. Hence, sought for rejection of that application.
11. After re-examination of the prosecution evidence, impugned judgment, and also after hearing the arguments submitted on both sides and having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, the following points that would arise for the consideration of this Court are as follows:
(1) Whether the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court suffers from any legal infirmities requiring this Court to intercede?
(2) Whether the application filed on behalf of the appellant under Section 391 of the Cr.P.C.
deserves to be allowed?
(3) What order?
12. The answers of this court to the above points are as follows:
- 18 -
CRL.A No.100100/2022 Point No. 1 : In the negative.
Point No. 2 : In the negative.
Point No. 3 : As per the final order.
REGARDING POINT NO.1:
13. We have carefully re-examined the prosecution evidence, the materials on record, the impugned judgment and the arguments submitted on behalf of both sides. The prosecution has proved that the death of the deceased was homicidal. The appellant has not disputed all these findings given by the Trial Court. However, we have re-appreciated the evidence on record and a perusal of the evidence placed before this Court, it is crystal clear that the prosecution has produced inquest panchanama of the deceased Ex.P.1 to substantiate its case. The prosecution has examined P.W.1-Hurchappa Hirehole and PW.2-Mahammad Yunus Dalayath. Both the witness have not supported the case of the prosecution. However, they have clearly admitted that they have put their signatures on inquest panchanama. PW.22-
- 19 -
CRL.A No.100100/2022 Siddalingappagouda Patil, Police Inspector, has clearly deposed in his evidence as to the conduct of inquest panchanama as per Ex.P1.
14. During the course of cross-examination, it is not disputed as to the inquest panchanama. PW.16-Dr. Raju G. M., Professor and Head of the Department of Forensic Medicine, GIMS, Gadag, has clearly deposed in his evidence as to the postmortem conducted and the issuance of postmortem report, as per Ex.P.25. Even during the course of cross-examination of PW.16, it is not disputed by the accused counsel as to the contents of Exs.P.25 and 26. In Ex.P.26, the doctor has opined that the injuries sustained by the deceased are sufficient to cause death if assaulted by a person with a weapon like MO.1.
15. Considering the oral and documentary evidence placed by the prosecution, the Trial Court has held that the death of the deceased was homicidal. The Trial court has
- 20 -
CRL.A No.100100/2022 properly appreciated the evidence on record. In this regard, it is held that the death of the deceased is homicidal.
16. The question before this court now is whether the accused was responsible for the death of Vinoda. It is the case of the prosecution that on 10.08.2018 at about 10.30 a.m., on a public road situated near by the land bearing Sy.No.213/4, when the deceased Vinoda came along with PW.7-Ashok Karikar in the tractor to pluck the green gram, the accused, with an intention to commit murder of deceased Vinoda got into the tractor trailer from backside and picked up the wooden club from the tractor trailer, assaulted the deceased Vinoda on her head, face, and legs with force, causing severe injuries, and committed murder.
17. To substantiate the same there are eyewitnesses to the incident. PW.8-Hanumavva Siddappa Mevundi, who is none other than the mother of the accused, has clearly stated as to the commission of offence by the accused
- 21 -
CRL.A No.100100/2022 and another witness PW.7-Ashok Iragappa Karigar has also clearly deposed as to the act of the accused. To substantiate this, the prosecution has examined CW.1- Hanumavva Siddappa Mevundi, the complainant as PW.8. PW.8 is the none other than the mother of the accused. She has clearly deposed in her evidence regarding the relationship between the deceased Vinoda and the accused and also illicit relationship of the accused with PW.10-Shekhavva wife of Prahlad. Further she has deposed that the accused was living separately. Accused was demanding for his share in the joint family properties and there are some litigations pending before the Court between the accused and the deceased in respect of properties.
18. Further she has deposed that at the relevant point of time, she had gone for harvesting green gram in the land situated in Mallasamudra along with coolies Huligevva and three other women coolies. At about 9.00 a.m., PW.10-Shekhavva came with the accused to the
- 22 -
CRL.A No.100100/2022 land and objected her not to harvest the green gram. At that time PW.7-Ashok Karigar driving the tractor and trailer came to the field with deceased Vinoda, at that time the accused was uttering that because of deceased Vinoda there is property dispute and if she were to be finished, all the problems would be solved and accordingly he assaulted the deceased Vinoda with wooden club on her head, face and body and caused bleeding injuries at 10.30 a.m.
19. The deceased was shifted to the District Hospital, Gadag in the same tractor trailer, but Vinoda died on the way. Then the police came to the District Hospital, Gagad and inquired. PW.18-Manjunatha Pujar her grandson has written the complaint as stated by her as per Ex.P.18. Then she made a thumb impression with her left hand. She has also identified the wooden club used by the accused in the commission of the offence. She also identified a tractor and trailer in photos in which Smt.Vinoda had fallen after the assault. She also
- 23 -
CRL.A No.100100/2022 identified the Nighty worn by the deceased Vinoda at the time of the incident, which is marked MO.5.
20. Another eye witness CW.5-Ashok Karigar is examined as PW.7, has clearly deposed in his evidence regarding the illicit relationship of the accused with PW.10-Shekhavva the eldest daughter-in-law of PW.1 and further, he has deposed in his evidence as to the property dispute between the accused and his deceased wife Vinoda. Further he has deposed in his evidence as to the assault made by the accused with wooden club MO.1 and committed the murder of deceased Vinoda. The evidence of PW.7 is credit worthy ,from his evidence we can made out the motive and the intention behind the alleged incident . When the prosecution has put forth the entire prosecution case through PW.7, eye-witness who has given no room to disbelieve the story of the prosecution.
- 24 -
CRL.A No.100100/2022
21. According to the prosecution's case, PW.4-Smt.Saroj, wife of Suresh Bankapur, PW.5-Smt.Mallavva, wife of Nagappa Gudi, PW.6-Huligevva, wife of Ramappa Ganti, PW.9-Smt.Sharifa Banu, wife of Nabisab Gunjala, PW.10-Smt.Shekhavva,all these witnesses have not supported the prosecution's case. All these witnesses have been treated as hostile witnesses and cross- examined by the Public Prosecutor with the permission of the Court. During their cross-examination also, they categorically denied the statements recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 of Cr.P.C, which are marked at Exs. P. 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, and 21. Though PWs.4 to 6 and 9 to 11 said to be the eyewitnesses, have not supported to the case of the prosecution, the material witnesses PW.8-Hanumavva Mehundi and PW.7-Ashok Karigar have clearly deposed in their evidence as to the commission of the offence committed by the accused. During the course of cross-
- 25 -
CRL.A No.100100/2022 examination of PW.7 and PW.8 nothing has elicited any favourable answers from them to discard their evidence.
22. Apart from this, the evidence placed before the Trial Court reveals that soon after the incident, the concerned police received the complaint from PW.8. On that basis, PW.21-Assitant Sub-Inspector of Police has registered the case in Crime No.242/2018 and submitted the FIR to the court as per Ex.P.31 on the same day at 7.00 p.m. without causing any delay. Thereafter PW.22 has received the case file from PW.21 for further investigation, and on the same day he has visited the Mortuary, District Hospital and conducted an inquest panchanama in the presence of panchas PWs.1 and 2 and as per Ex.P.1, and also taken photos as per Exs.P.2 to 4. He also performed the tractor panchanama as described in Ex.P.5, and by that time he had taken photos from Exs.P.6 to 11.At the time of mahazar he has seized MO.1-wooden club which was used for the commission of offence and also seized the blood fallen
- 26 -
CRL.A No.100100/2022 on the tractor. He has also deposed as to the spot panchanama conducted by him as per Ex.P.5. He has also deposed as to the recording of the statements of the eyewitnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., and he has obtained a postmortem report as per Ex.P.25 and RTC extract-Ex.P.33. He has also deposed as to the preparation of sketch as per Ex.P.27. Further he has deposed in his evidence that he has obtained the certified copy of FIR pertaining to Crime No.165/2016 and Crime No.312/2017 as per Exs.P.34 and 35. He has also obtained the document pertaining to Crime No.22/2016 which was registered by Taluka Magistrate, Gadag, as per Ex.P.36 and after obtaining the opinion of the doctor as per Ex.P.26 and the FSL report as per Ex.P.30, he has submitted a charge sheet against the accused for the alleged commission of the offence. The evidence of the PW.21 investigation officer corroborates with that of eye witnesses PW.7 and PW.8 followed by
- 27 -
CRL.A No.100100/2022 the recovery of weapon used for commission of alleged Incident i.e., M.O.1 a wooden club.
23. The criminal jurisprudence believes in best evidence rule, in our adversial judicial system an accused is considered to be an innocent until proven guilty and the guilt of the accused has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and not on a mere preponderance of probabilities, thus imposing upon the prosecution the obligation to adduce the best possible evidence to prove the guilt of the accused. The rule has been defined to mean "so long as the higher or superior evidence is within your possession or may be reached by you, you shall give no inferior proof in relation to it."
24. In the case of MOHANLAL SHAMJI SONI v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR., it has been held by the Supreme Court that:
"...it is a cardinal rule in the law of evidence that the best available evidence should be brought before the court to prove a fact or the points in issue."
- 28 -
CRL.A No.100100/2022
25. On careful scrutiny of entire evidence placed by the prosecution, prosecution has put forth best evidence so far as possible by placing substantial evidence to prove the quilt of the accused, hence we are of the considered view that the learned Sessions Judge has properly appreciated the evidence on record in a proper perspective manner and has rightly convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. On re-evaluation of the material prosecution witnesses, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment.
26. Accordingly, the impugned judgment does not call for any interference by this Court as the same is not suffering from any legal infirmity. Accordingly, we answer Point No.1 in the negative.
REGARDING POINT NO.2:
27. With regard to the application filed under Section 391 of Cr.P.C. is concerned, the accused/appellant intent to
- 29 -
CRL.A No.100100/2022 produce the proposed document i.e., certified copy of the judgment passed in C.C.No.310/2016 dated 30.07.2020 passed by the learned II Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Gadag and another copy of the judgment passed in C.C.No.910/2017 dated 29.11.221 passed by the II Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Gadag. We have examined these judgments passed in both the cases, The present accused is also accused in the above said cases and he has been acquitted by the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Gadag from the offence punishable under Sections 323, 323, 504 and 506 of IPC and another case in C.C.No.910/2016 for the offence punishable under section 341, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.
28. In the case on hand, the accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. The minimum sentence for the commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC is imprisonment for life and fine. On the basis of these proposed documents,
- 30 -
CRL.A No.100100/2022 we cannot reduce the sentence passed by the Trial Court. Accordingly, these additional evidence are not helpful to the accused. Hence, there are no grounds to allow this application. Hence, we answer Point No.2 in the negative.
29. The learned Sessions Judge has not passed any order as to the victim compensation as required under Section 357A of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In this regard, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has issued a Circular No.4/2019 dated 23.09.2019. In view of said Circular, all the Judicial Officers in the State are instructed to follow the Guidelines issued in the judgment dated 29.08.2019 passed in Crl.A.No.770/2013 and are also directed to comply with the object and intent of Section 357 and 357-A of Cr.P.C. while awarding compensation to the victims under Victim Compensation Scheme.
- 31 -
CRL.A No.100100/2022
30. Insofar as victim compensation is concerned, the learned Sessions Judge has not complied the aforesaid decision and Circular issued by the High Court of Karnataka. The learned Sessions Judge has not assigned any reasons for non compliance of Circular and decision passed by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka.
31. In the case on hand, the accused has committed the murder of his wife Vinoda and now accused is convicted by the trial court, which is confirmed by this Court. P.W.8 - Hanumavva Siddappa Mevundi, who is the mother of accused, has clearly stated that Kishan is the son of accused and deceased Vinoda, who is a minor. The prosecution papers do not reveal that Kishan is having sufficient source of income to eke-out his livelihood and pursue his education. Considering the financial status of the minor son, it is just and proper to award compensation under Victim Compensation Scheme.
- 32 -
CRL.A No.100100/2022 REGARDING POINT NO.3:
32. In view of the aforesaid reasons and discussions, we proceed to pass the following.
ORDER (1) The appeal filed by the accused under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C is hereby dismissed.
(2) The application filed on behalf of accused under Section 391 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed.
(3) The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.10.2021 passed in S.C.No.4/2019 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Gadag is hereby confirmed.
(4) Member Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Gadag, is directed to award compensation to minor son Kishan and to take necessary legal steps in accordance with relevant Acts and Rules, in favour of minor guardian
- P.W.8 - Hanumavva Siddappa
- 33 -
CRL.A No.100100/2022 Mevundi, resident of Asundi, Gadag Taluk, within 3 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.
(5) Registry is directed to transmit the Trial Court Records along this judgment to the Trial Court and to Member Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Gadag, to take necessary steps as observed by this Court.
(6) Registrar General is directed to once again forward the judgment of this Court in Criminal Appeal No.770/2013 to all Judicial Officers in the State of Karnataka for compliance.
(7) The Director, Judicial Academy is also directed to sensitine all Judges on training about the aspect of Victim Compensation and the steps and orders to be followed in relation thereto.
(8) One shocking aspect which has come to light in the present matter is that
- 34 -
CRL.A No.100100/2022 the accused was not even made aware of his acquittal in a related matter while the present matter was pending. The judgment in the present matter is passed on 29.10.2021, the accused had been acquitted in C.C.No.310/2016 on 30.07.2020.
(9) It is required by the prosecution to bring to the notice of the concerned judge about any orders/judgments passed in a related criminal proceedings against same accused before the judgment is passed.
(10) The Director, Public Prosecution is directed to instruct all Public Prosecutors to abide by the above directions.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE EM