Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 15, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Somalinga @ Suresh S/O Umashankar vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 July, 2020

Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 KAR 1345, 2020 (3) AKR 635

Author: R.Devdas

Bench: R.Devdas

                               1

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                  KALABURAGI BENCH

         DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2020

                          PRESENT

          THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.DEVDAS

                            AND

       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.KRISHNA BHAT

          CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.3519/2013

BETWEEN:

Somalinga @ Suresh
S/o Umashankar,
Age: 45 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o: Hyderabad (A.P.)
Native of Mehkar,
Tq. Bhalki, Dist: Bidar.
(Now Central Jail, Gulbarga)
                                               ... Appellant

(By Sri Ishwar Raj S.Chowdapur, Advocate)

AND:

The State of Karnataka
(Through Halsoor P.S.)
represented by Addl. State
Public Prosecutor,
Kalaburagi Bench, Kalaburagi.
                                             ... Respondent

(Sri Prakash Yeli, Addl.SPP)

     This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 (2) of
Code of Criminal Procedure praying to set aside the order of
                                    2

conviction and sentence passed on 31.12.2011 in
S.C.No.67/2009 on the file of Fast Track Court-II, Bidar,
camp at Bhalki and acquit the appellant for the offences
punishable under Sections 147, 148, 447, 307 and 302 read
with Section 149 of IPC.

       This appeal having been heard, reserved for judgment
on 15.06.2020 and coming on for pronouncement of
judgment this day, P.Krishna Bhat J., delivered the
following:-

                              JUDGMEMT

        Accused No.5 against whom the case was split up

before the Court below, having suffered an order of

conviction for offences punishable under Sections 147,

148, 447, 307 and 302 read with Section 149 of the

India        Penal    Code,    1860     (for   short    'IPC'),   in

S.C.No.67/2009 before the Fast Track Court-II, Bhalki,

has come up with this appeal before this Court.


        2.      Accused No.5, who will herein after be

referred to as the appellant, is the son of accused No.1 -

Umakanth         and     accused       No.2    -   Parvathibai    @

Padminibai.          The two other accused in the case were

accused No.3 - Gurunath and accused No4 - Ramling

are his brothers.         Since the appellant had remained
                             3


absconding, accused Nos.1 to 4 were tried separately

before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Bidar in

S.C.No.56/2000 and by a judgment dated 16.09.2004

they were all convicted for the offences punishable

under Sections 147, 148, 447, 307 and 302 read with

Section 149 of IPC and they were sentenced for the said

offences accordingly.   They preferred an appeal before

this Court in Criminal Appeal No.1468/2004 and by

judgment dated 22.10.2007, the appeal came to be

dismissed and the judgment of conviction and sentence

passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Bidar

as against them was confirmed. Later, on 29.03.2009,

the appellant was arrested and he was remanded and

thereafter a charge sheet was filed against him and he

faced trial before the learned Fast Track Court-II, Bhalki

in S.C.No.67/2009 which ended in his conviction as

noted above.


     3.    The gist of the prosecution case is that

deceased Beerappa was the owner of about 16 acres of
                                 4


land in Survey No.388 of Mehkar village of Bhalki

taluka and he was cultivating the same along with his

children. Accused Nos.1 to 4 and the present appellant

were objecting to the cultivation of the said land by the

deceased Beerappa and they were also quarreling with

him. There was a civil litigation also between both the

parties in regard to the said land.         On 18.12.1999, at

about 2.00 p.m., when deceased Beerappa, his son

Prabhakar      (deceased),    his   other   children    PW.2   -

Tatyrao, PW.7 - Rangarao and other members of the

family were working in the field in Survey No.388

removing weed etc., accused No.1 to 4 and the appellant

went   there    forming      themselves     into   an   unlawful

assembly being armed with Jambia, sickle, axe and

kamakatti, and started assaulting Beerappa with the

same and when deceased Prabhakar went to his rescue

they assaulted him as well with deadly weapons and

further when PW.7 - Rangarao went to their rescue,

accused assaulted him as well causing him serious
                             5


injuries, with the result, both Beerappa and Prabhakar

died instantaneously in the spot itself and PW.7 was

shifted to the hospital with the injuries and he survived.


     4.    The present appellant was represented by a

learned counsel before the Trial Court which after

hearing both sides, framed charges against him for the

offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 447, 307

and 302 read with Section 149 of IPC.      The appellant

having denied the charges, prosecution examined PWs.1

to 23 and Exs.P1 to P32 were marked.        MOs.1 to 16

were also marked.      Prosecution closed its side and

thereafter the statement of the appellant was recorded

under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. drawing his attention to

the incriminating circumstances appearing against him

in the deposition of the prosecution witnesses.       The

appellant did not examine any witnesses on his behalf.

The Trial Court after hearing has passed the judgment

impugned     herein   convicting   the    appellant   and

sentencing him for the offences punishable under
                                  6


Sections 147, 148, 447, 307 and 302 read with Section

149 of IPC.


       5.     Before the Trial Court initially defence has

pleaded alibi and further contended that he was

innocent and he was falsely implicated in the case. The

Trial Court after appreciating the entire evidence placed

before it has believed the eyewitnesses PWs.2 and 7

(who    is    an     injured    witness)      and   also     other

circumstances        placed    before   the    Court   and    has

disbelieved alibi pleaded as not supported by evidence

and entered the judgment of conviction against the

appellant herein.


       6.     In this appeal identity of the dead bodies of

Beerappa and Prabhakar have not been disputed on

behalf of the appellant before us. The evidence of PWs.2

and 7 who are two children of deceased Beerappa and

brothers of Prabhakar leaves us in no doubt the

deceased      were    none     other    than    Beerappa      and
                              7


Prabhakar.     Similarly, homicidal nature of death of

Beerappa and Prabhakar cannot be disputed in the face

of overwhelming material available in the records of this

case.     Not only PWs.2 and 7 have spoken about the

same but there is also the evidence of Medical Officer

PW.13 - Dr.Devindra S/o Kashappa Mainhalle who has

conducted postmortem examination over their dead

bodies.


        7.   PW.13 has conducted postmortem on the

dead body of Beerappa on 19.12.1999 between 10.15

a.m. and 12.15 p.m.         He has noted the following

external injuries on the dead body of Beerappa:

    1.       "Clean cut edged oblique injury over the
    lefty     temparo-parietal   region    of   head
    measuring about 4 cm x 1 ½ cm, it was a bony
    deep injury and the underlying temporal bone
    was fractured and its length was 3 cm. The
    brain was exposed.

    2.       Clean cut edged oblique over the base of
    left side neck measuring 3 ½ cm x ½ cm depth
                         8


was ½ cm, cutting underlying muscles vessels
and nerves.

3.      Clean cut edged vertical injury over the
center of fore head measuring 2 cm x 1 cm,
bony deep.

4.      Oblique clean cut edged injury over
outer aspect of right shoulder measuring 6 cm
x 5     cm bony    deep     causing fracture   of
underlying humorous bone measuring 4 cm x
1 cm.

5.      Transverse clean cut edged injury over
left side of abdomen it was situated 4 cm
above the iliac crest measuring 5 cm x 2 cm x
1 cm. Peritoneum deep.

On dissection he found the following internal
injuries:
 " The surrounding and underlying tissues
around all the above injuries were congested
and contains extravasated blood and blood
clot. On dissection of the body he noticed all
the internal organs were pale and shrunken.
The stomach contained 500 M.L. of semi-
digested rice, bread particles and water. While
                              9


    mentioning the external injuries he described
    the corresponding internal injuries in      the
    manner noted supra.      All the above injuries
    were antemortem in nature. According to him
    the cause of death was coma due to shock as a
    result of multiple injuries over the body. The
    time since death was between 18 to 24 hours.
    He has issued the P.M. report which is marked
    now as Ex.P.9 and his signature is marked as
    Ex.P.9 (a). He has rendered an opinion that,
    the above injuries could be caused by M.O.1 to
    M.O.4 shown to him and the above injuries are
    sufficient in the ordinary course to cause the
    death of the injured."

     8.    Similarly, PW.13 has conducted postmortem

examination over the dead body of deceased Prabhakar

on the same day between 12.30 p.m. and 3.30 p.m. and

he found the following external injuries:

     1.   "Transverse clean-cut injury over right
          side lower aspect of the back measuring
          3 cm x 2 cm x 5 cm blood and blood clot
          were present.
                          10


2.   Transverse clean cut injury over right
     scapula measuring 6 cm x 2 cm x 2 cm
     causing      fracture    of   the   underlying
     scapula Bobbie measuring 4 cm x ½ cm.
3.   Oblique clean cut injury over 5 cm above
     injury No.3 measuring 4 x 1 cm x ½ cm.
     Reddish brown blood clot present.
4.   Transverse clean-cut injury over 2 cm
     above injury no.3 measuring 5 cm x 1 cm
     x ½ cm.        Reddish brown blood clot
     present.
5.   A vertical clean cut injury over posterior
     aspect of head measuring 6 x 2 cm
     fracturing     underlying     occipital   bone
     measuring 4 cm x ½ cm inturn lacerating
     the underlying brain measuring 2 cm x 1
     cm, reddish brown blood clot present.
6.   A vertical clean cut injury over the left
     scapula measuring 5 cm x 3 cm bony
     deep, fracturing the underlying scapula
     measuring 3 cm x ½ cm reddish brown
     blood clot present.
7.   A transverse clean cut injury over right
     side upper aspect of the chest measuring
     4 cm x 1 cm, fracturing the underlying
                       11


     two ribs measuring 1 cm in length.
     Reddish brown blood clot present.
8.   Transverse clean-cut injury over left ear
     measuring 2 x ½ cm reddish brown blood
     clot present.
9.   Transverse clean cut injury over right
     side middle of the neck, measuring 3 cm
     x 1 cm x 4 cm cutting the underlying
     nerves, vessels, and muscles reddish
     brown blood clot present.
10. An oblique clean-cut injury over right side
     head measuring 6 x ½ cm bony deep
     reddish brown blood clot present.
11. A vertical clean-cut injury over center of
     head measuring 6 x 1 cm bony deep
     reddish brown blood clot present.
12. An irregular bruise over left temple
     measuring 8 x 6 cm reddish brown in
     colour.
13. An oblique clean cut injury over right
     dorsum of hand measuring 4 x ½ cm
     bony deep reddish brown blood clot
     present.
14. An oblique clean cut injury over right
     shoulder measuring 10 x 4 cm causing
                        12


    fracture of     head    of   humorous bone
    measuring 3 x 1 cm reddish brown blood
    clot present.
15. An oblique clean cut injury over dorsal
    aspect     of   right   middle   fore   arm
    measuring 5 x 1 x ½ cm reddish brown
    blood clot present.
16. An oblique clean cut injury over lateral
    aspect of middle of left leg measuring 4 x
    1 x 1 cm reddish brown blood clot
    present.

    "In all the above injuries the underlying
and surrounding tissue were congested. All
the above injuries were antemortem in nature.
On dissection of the body all the internal
organs were pale and shrunken.         Stomach
contains 500 m.l. of semi-digested rice bread
particles and water. The above injuries could
be caused from M.O.1 to M.O.4. He is of the
opinion that the cause of death was coma due
to shock as a result of multiple injuries over
the body. The time since death is between 18
to 24 hours prior to P.M. Examination, he has
issued P.M. report and it is marked as
Ex.P.10 and the signature is at Ex.P.10 (a).
                             13


     Since external injuries in both the P.M. cases
     were more, he has mentioned them in detail
     in a separate page annexed to Ex.P.10. As
     far as Ex.P.9 is concerned it is written
     separately that the external injuries are
     sufficient in the ordinary course to cause the
     death of Prabhakar."

     9.    There is no serious cross-examination to

PW.13 on this aspect.    In any event, the nature and

large number of injuries seen on the dead bodies of

Beerappa and Prabhakar completely rule out they

having suffered any injury accidentally or they having

inflicted such injuries on themselves.     The evidence

clearly shows that they had died a homicidal death.


     10.   In the earliest version of the incident namely

the complaint lodged by PW.2, there is a reference to the

land dispute between the parties.     Various witnesses

examined before the Trial Court have also spoken about

the land dispute between the parties.      The bone of

contention between the parties is regarding ownership
                           14


and enjoyment of the land in Survey Nos.388 and 389.

The records annexed to this case pertaining to trial

against accused Nos.1 to 4 who are the parents and

brothers of present appellant in S.C.No.56/2000 show

that the judgment and decree in O.S.No.182/1998

dated 11.03.1999 passed by the learned Senior Civil

Judge, Bhalki was exhibited in the said case as Exs.P27

and P28. However, the said judgment and decree have

not been specifically exhibited during the trial in this

case.     The certified copy of the said judgment and

decree shows that the suit was filed by deceased

Beerappa through PW.2 as his general power of attorney

holder against the present appellant who was defendant

No.3 and accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 who are his father and

brothers. The suit was for declaration of ownership and

permanent injunction against the defendants with

respect to land Survey Nos388/1 and 389/3, measuring

about 16 acres, situated in Mehkar village of Bhalki

taluka.     The said suit was decreed against the
                              15


defendants including the present appellant. There is a

detailed reference in the said judgment to the accused

in this case challenging the grant of occupancy in

respect of the said lands in favour of deceased Beerappa

before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority at Bidar

and thereafter before this Court without any success.

The Trial Court has also noticed the land dispute being

the bone of contention between the parties creating bad

blood between them.


     11.    The machinery of law was set in motion in

this case by PW.2 - Tatyrao who is the son of deceased

Beerappa, lodging a complaint before the police.        The

complaint     was   lodged   at   about   5.00   p.m.    on

18.12.1999.     As per the endorsement made by the

learned jurisdictional JMFC, the FIR had reached him

on the same evening at 8.00 p.m.            There is no

unreasonable delay in lodging the complaint.            The

complainant had lost his father as well as his one

brother and another brother had suffered injuries
                               16


requiring    hospitalization.         Under      the    said

circumstances, he has acted with reasonable dispatch

in lodging the complaint.


     12.    In the said complaint, he has stated about

the accused including the present appellant trespassing

into land Survey No.388 forming themselves into an

unlawful    assembly    holding    deadly     weapons   like,

Jambia, sickle, axe and Kamakatti and thereafter

stabbing Beerappa with the same and when Prabhakar

went to his rescue, assaulting him also with deadly

weapons and on seeing both of them being brutally

assaulted    when      PW.7     intervened,   the   accused

assaulting him also. In the complaint, PW.2 has given

in precise manner the description of the spot and also

time of the incident.         PWs.2 and 7 during their

deposition have clearly stated about it and learned Trial

Court has also noted the same and chosen to accept

their version.   We have no reason to disbelieve the
                             17


evidence of PWs.2 and 7 on this aspect and disagree

with the Trial Court on the said aspect.


       13.   PW.2 is an eyewitness to the incident and

PW.7 is not only a witness to the incident but also he

has suffered injury while trying to rescue his father and

his brother - Prabhakar.     In view of the Civil Court

judgment referred to earlier, there is no doubt about the

fact that the deceased being the owner of the land,

accused including the present appellant having entered

upon the land armed with deadly weapons, have

committed the offence of criminal trespass.        It is no

doubt true that, in this case Kamakatti used by the

present appellant was not traced and produced before

the Court. However, PW.18 - Investigating Officer has

stated in his evidence that even though the incident

took   place   on   18.12.1999,   the   present   appellant

remained absconding and he was traced and arrested

only on 29.03.2009 and therefore due to lapse of nearly

a decade it was impossible for the Investigating Officer
                              18


to trace the said weapon.              PW.7 is an injured

eyewitness.     He   has     clearly    stated    about    the

participation of the appellant in the commission of the

offences along with accused Nos.1 to 4. PWs.2 and 7

have stated that appellant being armed with Kamakatti

had constituted himself a member of an unlawful

assembly in prosecution of their common object to

commit the murder of Beerappa and others, as a matter

of vengeance for having failed to take possession of the

said land, having lost the civil suit only about nine

months prior to the incident. The learned Trial Court

has noticed the evidence of PWs.2 and 7 which clearly

show   that   the    present      appellant      has   actively

participated in committing the murder of deceased

Beerappa and Prabhakar along with accused Nos.1 to 4

and we have no reason to disagree with the finding of

the learned Sessions Judge which is supported by

evidence placed on record.
                              19


     14.    It was feebly contended before us that PWs.2

and 7 are interested witnesses and in view of the land

dispute    they   have   falsely   implicated   the   present

appellant and accused Nos.1 to 4. The said argument

did not find favour with this Court in the appeal

preferred by accused Nos.1 to 4 against their conviction

in Criminal Appeal No.1468/2004 and we are also not

impressed with the same. The two cut injuries found on

PW.7 by PW.13 supports the version of PW.7 that he

was present at the time of the incident and he has

suffered injuries while trying to rescue his father and

brother.   The incident had taken place at about 2.00

p.m. and therefore there was no possibility for PW.7

making any mistake in identifying the real culprits.

Even otherwise, PWs.2 and 7 have lost their father and

brother in the incident and therefore there is no

plausible reason for them to let off the real culprits and

to falsely implicate the present appellant and other

accused that too after having succeeded in the civil suit.
                           20


On re-appreciating the entire evidence, we are satisfied

that the trial Court has correctly assessed the evidence

and come to a proper conclusion and that being so

there is no reason to disagree with the same. Therefore,

we hold that the present appellant is guilty of the

offences charged against him and there is no reason to

interfere with the order of conviction and sentence

passed by the Trial Court.       Hence, we pass the

following:

                           ORDER

The appeal is dismissed. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court in S.C.No.67/2009 dated 31.12.2011 is confirmed.

Sd/-

JUDGE Sd/-

JUDGE Srt