REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICITION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.69-70 OF 2008

Vithal Laxman Chalawadi & etc. …Appellants

Versus

State of Karnataka Rep. by P. Prosecutor …Respondent

J U D G M E N T

T.S. THAKUR, J.

These appeals under Section 379 of the Cr.P.C. read  

with  Section  2(a)  of  the  Supreme  Court  (Enlargement  of  

Criminal  Appellate  Jurisdiction)  Act,  1970  arise  out  of  a  

judgment  and order  dated 22nd September  2006 and 12th  

December  2006  passed  by  the  High  Court  of  Karnataka

whereby  State  appeal  No.715  of  2000  has  been  partly  

allowed  and  Crl.  Appeal  No.  705/2000  allowed,  the  

appellants convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced  

to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.5,000/-  

each  and  in  default  of  payment  of  the  same to  undergo  

rigorous imprisonment for six months. The facts giving rise  

to the filing of these appeals may be summarized as under:

Padavva one of the sisters of accused no. 1 to 4 was  

engaged to get married to the deceased-Ramesh brother of  

PW-1 Guralingappa. Soon after the engagement was over a  

loan  of  Rs.30,000/-  was  advanced  to  the  accused  for  

purchase of a commercial  vehicle. Since the loan was not  

repaid  by  the  accused,  the  vehicle  was  taken  over  and  

parked in front of the house of PW-1 Guralingappa. This led  

to some bitterness between the two families which took a  

turn for the worse when deceased-Ramesh refused to marry  

Padavva on the ground that she was hard of hearing. To add  

confusion to the situation, Survana (PW-9) younger sister of  

2

Padavva  and  the  accused,  fell  in  love  with  Ramesh  and  

decided to marry him. The things came to a head when the  

deceased  took  Survana  away  to  Bijapur  and  got  his  and  

Survana’s marriage registered.  This enraged the accused no  

end as they felt that the deceased had spoiled the life of  

their  sister  Padavva  by  refusing  matrimony  even  after  

getting engaged to her.   

According to the prosecution on 25th December, 1995  

at about 4.00 p.m. accused nos.1 to 4 went to the house of  

Mahadevappa  Basappa  Dodamani  (accused  no.5)  and  

Yellappa  Yamanappa  Neelanaik  (accused  no.  6)  for  a  

meeting.   From  there  they  came  to  the  house  of  the  

Guralingappa (PW-1) around 6.30 p.m. looking for Ramesh-

deceased.  They  were  let  into  the  house  where  they  

questioned  the  deceased  about  his  marriage  to  Survana  

(PW-9)  without  their  consent.  This  led  to  an  altercation  

between  the  two  parties  in  the  course  whereof  accused  

Vithal  Laxman Chalawadi  is  alleged to have assaulted the  

3

deceased with a knife. When Guralingappa (PW-1) and his  

mother,  Smt. Putalawwa (PW-6) intervened, they too were  

assaulted. PW-6 mother of the deceased is alleged to have  

received a chappal blow from accused No.3 on her face. The  

injured  Ramesh  was  rushed  to  the  hospital  but  declared  

dead on arrival.  A charge-sheet was eventually filed against  

six  persons  for  commission  of  offences  punishable  under  

Sections 143, 451, 323, 324, 355, 504, 506, 302, 109 and  

149 IPC. Principal Sessions Judge, Bijapur, before whom the  

accused were tried, acquitted four of them while convicting  

the remaining two under Section 323 and Section 324 IPC  

respectively.  The Court held that the prosecution had failed  

to  prove  the  charge  of  murder  against  the  accused.  

According to it all that was proved was that a quarrel had  

taken place at the house of Guralingappa (PW-1) and his  

brother  deceased-Ramesh  and  that  accused  no.1  Nijappa  

had caused an injury  to  the deceased using a dangerous  

weapon  constituting  an  offence  punishable  under  Section  

324  IPC.   Accused  no.3  was  also  convicted  but  only  for  

4

causing a simple injury with a Chappal to PW-6 mother of  

the deceased and convicted under Section 323 IPC.  

Two appeals were filed against this judgment and order  

of the Sessions Judge. While Criminal Appeal No.705 of 2000  

was filed by the convicts, Criminal Appeal No.715 of 2000  

was filed by the State against the acquittal of the accused.  

The  High  Court  has,  as  noticed  earlier,  allowed  Criminal  

Appeal No.705 of 2000 while partly allowing Criminal Appeal  

No.715 of 2000 filed by the State.  The High Court has taken  

the  view  that  the  prosecution  had  established  its  case  

against accused 1 to 4, namely, Vithal Laxman Chalawadi,  

Umesh  Laxman  Chalawadi,  Gangappa  Laxman  Chalawadi  

and Nijappa Laxman Chalawadi  for  the  commission  of  an  

offence punishable under Section 302 read with Sec. 34 IPC.  

They were accordingly sentenced to undergo imprisonment  

for  life  for  the  offence  of  murder.  The  acquittal  of  the  

remaining  accused  persons,  Mahadevappa  Basappa  

Dodamani  and  Yellappa  Yamanappa  Neelanaik     was  

5

affirmed by the High Court. The present appeals assail the  

correctness of the said order of conviction and sentence.

      Appearing for the appellants Ms. Rajni K. Prasad argued  

that  the  evidence  adduced  by  the  prosecution  did  not  

establish the charges framed against the appellants and that  

the Trial  Court was justified in holding so. She contended  

that  there  were  material  contradictions  between  the  

depositions of the alleged eye-witnesses to the occurrence.  

She  submitted  that  while  Guralingappa  (PW-1)  and  PW-6  

were  the  brother  and  the  mother  respectively  of  the  

deceased,   the  other  two  eye-witnesses,  namely,  

Chandrakant  (PW-7)  and  Lakshman  (PW-8)  were  not  

present on the spot at the time of the occurrence and were  

wrongly described by the prosecution as eye-witnesses. She  

contended that even if the prosecution version was taken as  

proved against appellant, Umesh Laxman Chalawadi, who is  

alleged  to  have  taken  the  knife  from  appellant,   Vithal  

Laxman  Chalawadi  to  assault  the  deceased,  appellant,  

6

Gangappa  Laxman  Chalawadi  was  unarmed  and  is  not  

alleged  to  have  inflicted  any  injury  on  the  deceased  or  

anyone else except a chappal  blow allegedly given to the  

mother of the deceased. Conviction of appellant no.3 for the  

offence of murder was in that view not justified argued the  

learned counsel.  

As regard appellant, Umesh Laxman Chalawadi, learned  

counsel urged that there was no evidence to show that he  

was armed with a knife nor was any knife recovered from  

him.  The  allegation  that  accused  no.  4  had  assaulted  

Ramesh-deceased with the very same knife as was used by  

the other two accused was a clear  attempt to rope in as  

many members of the opposite party as possible.  Given the  

strained  relationship  between  the  parties  an  attempt  to  

falsely implicate persons who had not caused any hurt to the  

deceased or other members of his family could not be ruled  

out. The case against appellant, Umesh Laxman Chalawadi  

was at any rate doubtful, contended the learned counsel.  

7

Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, counsel for the respondents on  

the  other  hand  argued that  the  High  Court  had correctly  

appreciated the evidence and come to the conclusion that  

the  accused-appellant  had  gone  to  the  spot  with  the  

common  intention  of  committing  the  murder  of  the  

deceased-Ramesh against whom the accused had animosity  

on  account  of  the  insult  which  they  perceived  had  been  

caused to their sister Padavva by refusing to marry her and  

instead  marrying  Survana  (PW-9)  without  their  consent.  

The  depositions  of  the  eye-witnesses  to  the  incident  had  

stood  the  test  of  cross-examination  and  were  rightly  

believed by the High Court, argued Mr. Hegde.    

That  the  relationship  between  the  two  families  was  

strained on account of the refusal of the deceased to marry  

Padavva and in preference tying the knot with the younger  

sister  of  the  accused  without  their  consent  has  been  

sufficiently established by the material on record. It was also  

not disputed either before the High Court or even before us  

8

that  the  deceased-Ramesh  had  died  a  homicidal  death  

having suffered as many as 17 injuries which Dr. Goudappa  

Shankareppa Baragi (PW-16) noticed in the course of post-

mortem examination. Out of the said injuries injury nos. 16  

and 17 were fatal injuries resulting in shock and hemorrhage  

and eventual  death of the victim. In support of its case the  

prosecution  had  relied  upon  the  depositions  of  four  eye-

witnesses to the incident. While PW-1 Guralingappa and PW-

6 Smt. Putalawwa are the brother and mother respectively  

of  the  deceased  who  were  themselves  injured  in  the  

incident, PW-7 Chandrakanta and PW-8 Lakshman reached  

the spot when they heard noise coming out of the house of  

the  deceased  only  to  find  accused  1  to  4  assaulting  the  

deceased with a knife. A careful analysis of the depositions  

of the eye-witnesses leaves no manner of doubt in our mind  

that Nijappa who has since died was the first to assault the  

deceased  with  his  knife.   We  are  also  satisfied  that  the  

version  given  by  the  injured  eye-witnesses  PW-1  

Guralingappa  and  PW-6  Smt.  Putalawwa  that  appellant,  

9

Vithal  Laxman  Chalawadi  had  then  taken  the  knife  from  

Nijappa to  inflict  injuries  on  the  body of  the  deceased is  

credible and has been rightly relied upon by the High Court.  

We,  therefore,  have  no  hesitation  in  holding  that  Vithal  

Laxman  Chalawadi  was  responsible  for  inflicting  injuries  

attributed to him by the eye-witnesses that resulted in the  

death of the deceased-Ramesh. We accordingly uphold the  

conviction  and  sentence  imposed  upon  appellant,  Vithal  

Laxman Chalawadi.  

As  regards  the  role  of  appellant,  Gangappa   the  

evidence on record suggests that he gave a chappal blow to  

PW-6 the mother of the deceased-Ramesh. There is no other  

overt act attributed to accused-appellant No.3 who appears  

to  have  joined  the  melee  when  tempers  ran  high.   The  

allegation  that  he  exhorted  accused  1  and  2  to  kill  the  

deceased has not in our opinion been satisfactorily proved to  

justify his conviction for murder with the help of Section 34  

IPC. The nature of the evidence on record and the role that  

appellant, Gangappa is alleged to have played, does not, in  

10

our opinion, establish that the appellant no. 3 shared the  

common intention  with  Nijappa  and  Vithal  to  commit  the  

murder  of  deceased-Ramesh.  The  conviction  of  accused-

appellant No.3 for the offence of murder punishable under  

Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC is, therefore, not  

sustainable.  The  evidence,  however,  proves  beyond  a  

reasonable doubt that appellant, Gangappa assaulted PW-6  

Putalavva with a chappal.  His conviction under Section 323  

IPC by the Trial Court and the High Court deserves to be  

affirmed.

That  leaves  us  with  the  case  of  appellant,  Umesh  

Laxman  Chalawadi  about  whom  the  depositions  of  the  

prosecution  witnesses  has  not  made  out  a  clear  case  to  

justify his conviction for the offence of murder. Appellant,  

Umesh Laxman Chalawadi has, according to the prosecution,  

used the same knife which the accused no.1 had used for  

inflicting injuries on the deceased and which was then taken  

by Vithal Laxman Chalawadi to assault the deceased. While  

11

we have accepted the prosecution version to the extent it  

suggests that Vithal Laxman Chalawadi had taken the knife  

from Nijappa, we consider it wholly unsafe to attribute any  

injury to the deceased by the use of the same knife having  

regard to the nature of the evidence on record. Suffice it to  

say  that  the  prosecution  case  against  Umesh  Laxman  

Chalawadi is not free from doubt, the benefit whereof must  

go to said appellant.

In  the  result,  conviction  and  sentence  of  appellant,  

Vithal   Laxman  Chalawadi  for  the  offence  under  Section  

302/34  IPC  recorded  by  the  High  Court  is  affirmed.  

Conviction  and  sentence  of  appellant,  Gangappa  Laxman  

Chalawadi  is set aside and he is acquitted of all the charges  

framed against  him except  the charge under  Section  323  

IPC.   His conviction under Section 323 IPC is maintained but  

the sentence reduced to the period already undergone. The  

conviction  and  sentence  of  appellant,  Umesh  Laxman  

Chalawadi is set aside and he is acquitted of the charges  

framed  against  him  giving  him  the  benefit  of  doubt.  

12

Appellants,  Umesh  Laxman  Chalawadi  and  Gangappa  

Laxman Chalawadi, if  in jail,  shall  be released forthwith if  

not required in any other case.  The appeals are accordingly  

disposed of.    

……………………………J. (MARKANDEY KATJU)

……………………………J. (T.S. THAKUR)

New Delhi October 19, 2010

13