REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.    436 OF 2006

Sangappa Sanganabasappa. M & Ors. …Appellants

Versus

State of Karnataka & Ors. …Respondents   

JUDGMENT

B. Sudershan Reddy, J :

1. The  appellants  –  Sangappa  Sanganabasappa  

Murakachatti,  Yamanappa  Rudrappa  Murakachatti  and  

Pundalik  Sanganabasappa   Murakachatti  (A-1,  A-2  &  A-4  

respectively) along with four others were tried in Sessions  

Case  No.   169  of  1995  by  the  Principal  Sessions  Judge,  

Bijapur for offences punishable under Sections 148, 302 and  

506 (2) read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for

short  IPC).  The  learned  Principal  Sessions  Judge,  vide  

judgment  dated  26th September,  1998  acquitted  all  the  

accused appellants of the aforesaid offences. The State of  

Karnataka preferred appeal under Section 378 (1) & (3) of  

the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order of acquittal  

before the High Court at Bangalore. A Division Bench of the  

High  Court  by  the  impugned  judgment  dated  1.4.2005,  

partly allowed the said appeal, setting aside the acquittal of  

the appellants herein and affirmed the acquittal in so far as  

the rest of the accused are concerned.  

2. Against  the  said  judgment  of  the  High  Court,  the  

appellants have preferred the present Criminal Appeal under  

Section 379 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read  

with  Section  2  of  the  Supreme  Court  (Enlargement  of  

Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970.  

3. In  order  to  consider  as  to  whether  the  impugned  

judgment  convicting  the appellants  herein  for  the  offence  

punishable  under  Section  302  read  with  Section  34  IPC  

suffers from any infirmities requiring our interference, it may  

be just and necessary to briefly notice the prosecution case.  

2

4. We shall  refer to only such of the relevant facts and  

material evidence since the High Court has very meticulously  

analysed  the  entire  evidence  available  on  record  by  re-

appreciating the same.  

5.   On  29.5.1995  at  about  5.00  or  6.00  P.M,   when  

Ningamma (PW-10) who is none other than the daughter of  

Basappa (PW-8)  was returning home from the fields along  

with her brother Sadashiva (PW-11),  Sangappa (A-1) made  

an  attempt  to  outrage  her  modesty,   but    she  was,  

however, rescued with the intervention of Chandrappa (PW-

7) and Bheemappa (PW-4).  She went home and complained  

about  the  incident  to  the  deceased  Irappa  who chastised  

Sangappa.  On 2.6.1995 at about 11.00 a.m. in the morning  

when Laxman (PW-15) was in his  fields looking after  the  

sheep, Sangappa went there and assaulted Laxman with a  

stick  over  the  issue  of  being  chastised  by  his  father  –  

Irappa.  Laxman on returning from the fields informed about  

the incident  to his  father  – Irappa.   Both Irappa and his  

brother  Kenchappa  (the  other  deceased)    rushed  to  the  

3

garden  land  of  Sangappa  in  order  to  enquire  as  to  what  

transpired in the matter.  That all the accused  who were  

armed with deadly weapons questioned the propriety on the  

part  of  Irappa   in  coming  to  their  place  and  making  an  

inquiry  about  the  incident  of  assault  on  his  son.   In  the  

process  Sangappa  who  was  armed  with  jambiya  inflicted  

injury  on  the  abdomen  of  the  deceased  -  Irappa   and  

Yamanappa  (A-2)  inflicted  injury  over  the  head  of  the  

deceased with axe and in the meanwhile, the other accused  

Sangana  Basappa  (A-3),   Rudrappa  (A-5)  and  Smt.  

Bhagawwa (A-6)  over powered the deceased - Kenchappa  

and  assaulted  him  and at that point of time, Sangappa  

inflicted injury on  the abdomen of deceased – Kenchappa.  

In the same process Pundalik (A-4) committed assault  on  

Irappa and shouted that he should be finished. It is the case  

of the prosecution that even Pundalik, who was armed with  

axe, assaulted the deceased Irappa over his head.  Basappa  

(PW-8) along with   Siddappa  (PW-9) and others tried to  

intervene in order to rescue the two deceased persons in  

vain  as  they  were  threatened  by  the  accused  with  dire  

consequences.    Basappa  and  Siddappa  witnessed  the  

4

incident  as  they  were  following  the  two  deceased  having  

come to know of  the fact  that the two deceased persons  

were proceeding to the garden land of Sangappa to inquire  

about  the  incident  of  assault  on  Laxman  (PW-15).  The  

incident  in  question  had  occurred  at  about  2.00  p.m.  

afternoon on 2.6.1995 in the garden land of Sangappa. It is  

at a distance of about 10 kms. from the police station. That  

immediately after the incident the first information had been  

lodged by  Basappa (PW-8) with the SHO, Nagappa (PW-14)  

at the Kolhar Police Station.  FIR was registered at about  

3.30 p.m. Out of the two injured persons, Irappa died on the  

spot while the injured Kenchappa succumbed to the injuries  

in the hospital.  Ramappa (PW-13), sub-Inspector of police  

took up the further investigation. Inquest proceedings over  

the dead body of deceased – Irappa were held on 3.6.1995  

and  statements  of  PW-3,  PW-4,  PW-7,  PW-9,  PW-10 and  

PW-11  were  recorded.  M.Os  1  to  4  were  seized.  In  the  

meanwhile,  Investigation  Officer  received  the  intimation  

from the hospital about the death of injured Kenchappa and  

immediately proceeded to the hospital and held inquest over  

the body of the deceased – Kenchappa. The dead bodies of  

5

the  two  deceased  were  subjected  to  the  post-mortem  

examination.  

6. Dr. Ramappa (PW-5) is the Medical Officer, who held  

autopsy on the dead body of the deceased - Kenchappa and  

issued  the  post-mortem  report  (Ex.  P-9).   The  following  

injuries on the dead body of Kenchappa were noticed:  

1.  Sutured  wound  over  upper  abdomen  8”  in  length  on  right  side  of  umbilicus  1”  below  1”  away  from  midline  vertical  direction  

2. Transverse  sutured  crocoid  present  on  left  side  on  anterior  abdominal  wall  just  below costal  margin  in  the  anterior  axillary  line.  

He  opined  that  death  was  due  to  shock  and  

haemorrhage as a result of the injury to vital organs and  

he  was  also  of  the  opinion  that  such  injuries  could  be  

caused with the weapon like jambiya.  

Dr. Yalagurdacharya  (PW-12), is the Medical Officer,  

who conducted the post mortem examination on the dead  

body  of  the  deceased  -  Irappa  and  found  the  following  

external injuries on the dead body of Irappa:  

6

1. Lacerated wound 4.5 cms. X 1.5 cms.,  on  the  scalp  in  the  midline  in  the  frontal  area.  Margins  irregular  and  contused.  

2. Lacerated  wound  on  the  left  parietal  area  2.5  cms.  Long  1.5  cms.,  wide  since  surrounding  the  wound  is  ecchymosed  present  swelling  of  the  surrounding tissues.

3. Elliptical  stab wound (penetrating) on  the left side of the chest, 7 cms, below  left nipple 2.5 cms., long and 1.2 cms.,  wide at  the  cetredepth of  the  wound  12 cms.  

The post-mortem report in respect of deceased – Irappa is  

exhibit P-12.  The Doctor opined that the death was due to  

perforating  wound  on  the  left  side  of  the  chest,  causing  

perforating  of  the  heart  leading  to  haemorrhage,  cardiac  

failure and death.  He was of the opinion that the injury nos.  

1 and 2 found on the dead body of Irappa could be caused  

by weapons like  axe and club  and  injury  no.  3  could  be  

caused by means of a dagger.  The report of the serologist  

(Ex. P-16) discloses that blood stains found on jambiya since  

disintegrated,  origin could not be determined but the two  

axes were found to be stained with human blood.  

7

7. The  prosecution,  in  order  to  establish  its  case,  had  

altogether examined 15 witnesses (PW-1 to PW-15) at the  

trial and placed on record Exhibits P-1 to P-17 and M.Os 1 to  

16.

8.  Be it noted that PWs 1, 2, 3 and 4 did not support the  

case  of  the  prosecution  and  hence  they  were  declared  

hostile.  Chandrappa (PW-7) had been examined to speak  

about the incident which took place on 29.5.1995 and also  

to the occurrence, which took place on 2.6.1995 but he did  

not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile.  

Basappa (PW-8) is the father of PW-10 and eye witness to  

the  incident  which  took  place  on  2.6.1995,  wherein  two  

deceased Kenchappa and Irappa had been assaulted.  He is  

also the  first informant and lodged FIR.  Siddappa (PW-9) is  

the younger brother of PW-8 as well as the two deceased  

persons Kenchappa and Irappa. He is also an eye witness to  

the occurrence, which took place on 2.6.1995.  The entire  

prosecution story rests upon the evidence of PW-8 and PW-9  

who fully supported the prosecution version of the incident  

8

that took place on 2.6.1995 with which we are concerned in  

the present case. The sequence of events suggests that the  

origin  leading to  the fatal  attack  on the two deceased is  

traceable to the incident that took place on 29.5.1995 when  

Sangappa (A-1) had tried to outrage the modesty of PW-10.  

Sadashiva (PW-11) who is none other than the son of PW-8  

speaks  about  the  incident  that  took  place  on  29.5.1995  

relating to the outrage of the modesty of PW-10.  

9. The High Court  upon re-appreciation of  the evidence  

found that PW-8 and PW-9 have consistently spoken to with  

regard  to  the  incident  that  had  taken  place  on  2.6.1995  

resulting  in  the  death  of  Irappa  and  Kenchappa  and  

accordingly  believed  and  accepted  their  evidence  in  its  

totality.  The High Court came to the conclusion that if their  

evidence read as a whole, ignoring minor contradictions and  

inconsistencies, if any, inspires confidence. The High Court  

found fault with the trial court for rejecting the evidence of  

PW-8 and PW-9 on the sole  ground that  they are closely  

related to the deceased.  The High Court took the view that  

the  appellants  herein  are  liable  to  be  convicted  for  the  

9

offence punishable under Section 302 with the aid of Section  

34 of IPC since they had inflicted the injuries with the deadly  

weapons like axe and jambiya on vital parts of the body of  

the two deceased persons which itself would show that all of  

them shared the intention to cause the death.  

10. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants  

as well as the learned counsel for the State.  The learned  

counsel for the appellants strenuously contended that PW-8  

and  PW-9  are  highly  interested  witnesses  being  close  

relatives of the deceased and it would be unsafe to convict  

the  appellants  based  on  the  evidence  of  such  highly  

interested witnesses.   This  aspect  of  the matter  becomes  

relevant according to the learned counsel for the appellants  

in view of the fact that other eye witnesses did not support  

the case of the prosecution at all.  The learned counsel for  

the State supported the impugned judgment and submitted  

that  the  evidence  of  two  eye  witnesses  (PW-8  &  PW-9)  

cannot be rejected on the simple ground of their relationship  

with the deceased.  It is quite natural that being the kith and  

kin  of  the  two  deceased  persons  PW-8  and  PW-9  have  

1

followed the deceased when they came to know that  the  

deceased were proceeding to the land of  Sangappa in order  

to inquire about the incident of assault on PW-15.  Now we  

shall proceed to consider the submissions.  

11. That  the  deceased  Irappa  and  Kenchappa  had  died  

homicidal  death  is  beyond  the  pale  of  any  doubt.  The  

evidence of two Medical Officers PW-5 and PW-12 and the  

contents of the post-mortem reports have not been seriously  

challenged by the defence.  The deceased Irappa had died  

on the spot, whereas Kenchappa had succumbed   to the  

injuries while undergoing treatment at the hospital  on the  

next  day  of  the  incident.  The  evidence  of  the  Medical  

Officers in clear and categorical terms establishes that both  

the  deceased  Irappa  and  Kenchappa  succumbed  to  the  

injuries that were found on their bodies. Those injuries could  

have  been  caused  with  the  sharp  weapons  like  axe  and  

jambiya. The only question that arises for our consideration  

is that is there any evidence available on record as to who  

caused the death of Irappa and Kenchappa? In this regard  

the sequence of events as is evident from the evidence of  

Basappa  (PW-8),  Siddappa  (PW-9),  Ningamma  (PW-10),  

1

Sadashiva (PW-11) and Laxman (PW-15) has to be properly  

evaluated.  The incident of assault resulting in the death of  

deceased Irappa and Kenchappa took place in the garden  

land  of  Sangappa  around  2.00  p.m.  on  2.6.1996.   It  is  

important to note this incident was preceded by an assault  

on Laxman (PW-15) when he was in his fields.  PW-15 who  

is none other than the son of the deceased Irappa. There is  

nothing unnatural  that  Irappa  and his  brother  Kenchappa  

proceeded to the land of Sangappa to question him as to  

why PW-15 was assaulted by him.  There is enough material  

available on record  to establish that there was deep rooted  

enmity between the appellants and the deceased.  The origin  

of the whole sequence of events lies as to what transpired  

on  29.5.1995  when  PW-10  who  is  none  other  than  the  

daughter of PW-8 was subjected to an attempt to outrage  

her modesty by Sangappa.  This incident is followed by the  

incident of assault on Laxman (PW-15) by Sangappa.  The  

events took place in quick succession.  There is nothing on  

record to disbelieve the evidence of PW-15 as regards the  

incident that had taken place on the fateful day before noon  

which  led  to  the  assault  on  both  the  deceased  in  the  

1

afternoon.  Mere fact that Sangappa has been acquitted in  

the case regarding the attempt to outrage the modesty of  

PW-10 itself is of no consequence. The evidence of PW-10  

receives  a  complete  corroboration  and  support  from  the  

evidence of PW-11. This evidence is to be read along with  

the evidence of PW-8 who is not only an eye witness to the  

occurrence but also the first informant  who lodged the FIR.  

It is in the evidence of PW-8 that after PW-15 complained of  

assault on him by Sangappa, both deceased persons Irappa  

and Kenchappa proceeded to the garden land of Sangappa  

to  question  him about  the  incident  of  assault  on  PW-15.  

There  is  nothing  unnatural  in  PW-8  following  both  the  

deceased  when  they  were  proceeding  to  the  land  of  

Sangappa.   PW-9 also  accompanied  PW-8.  When both  of  

them were  at  a  distance  of  10  marus,  from the  land  of  

Sangappa, they witnessed the actual incident of assault on  

the deceased.  It is clearly and categorically stated by PW-8  

that Sangappa attacked deceased Kenchappa with jambiya  

and as a result of which Kenchappa had sustained injuries  

on his abdomen and chest.  It is also in the evidence of PW-

8  that  Pundalik  (A-4)  was  armed  with  axe  and  so  also  

1

Yamanappa  (A-2)  while  Sangappa  (A-1)  was  armed  with  

jambiya.  The weapons were identified by him in the court.  

It is specifically stated in the course of his evidence that A-2  

was holding axe, A-4 was holding the other axe and A-1 was  

holding the jambiya and all of them assaulted the deceased  

Irappa  with  axe,  jambiya  and  stick.   That  so  far  as  the  

deceased Kenchappa is concerned it is stated by PW-8 that  

A-1 inflicted injury on the body of Kenchappa with jambiya.  

It  is  true  in  cross-examination  he admitted  that  the land  

belonging  to  one  Sangappa  and  Ramagond  is  situated  

adjacent to the scene of incident and whereas his land is at  

the distance of about 2 to 3 kilometers from the scene of  

occurrence. It is also admitted by him that at the time of  

incident,  the  wife  of  adjacent  land  owner  Sangappa  was  

present  in  their  land.   It  is  true wife of  Sangappa is  not  

examined  but  that  itself  is  not  so  fatal  based  on  which  

evidence  of  PW-8  could  be  disbelieved.  The  evidence  of  

Siddappa (PW-9) who is none other than the brother of PW-

8 is more or less same as of the evidence of PW-8.  It is in  

his evidence that deceased Irappa received head injury and  

died on the spot.  When Kenchappa went to the rescue of  

1

Irappa,  he  too  had  been  subjected  to  assault  by  the  

appellants.  It is Sangappa who had assaulted Kenchappa  

with jambiya and caused injury on the abdomen.  He vividly  

deposed as to which of  the accused was holding of  what  

weapons which is in conformity with what has been stated  

by PW-8.  

12. The evidence of Doctors (PW-5 and PW-12) completely  

supports the ocular evidence.  The evidence of PWs- 5, 8, 9,  

10, 11 and 12 has been meticulously analysed by the High  

Court  as  is  clearly  evident  from the  judgment.  On  going  

through the said  evidence  we are in complete  agreement  

with  the  conclusions  drawn  by  the  High  Court  and  the  

reasons assigned by it to believe the evidence of the said  

witnesses and more particularly the evidence of PW-8 and  

PW-9 who are the eye witnesses to the incident.  The High  

Court rightly concurred with the view of  the trial  court  in  

coming to the conclusion that it is not a case which would  

attract the provisions of Sections 148 and 149 of the IPC.  

On  the  other  hand,  the  evidence  available  on  record  

suggests  that  it  is  only  the  appellants  who  committed  

1

assault  on Irrappa and Kenchappa with jambiya and axes  

and caused the fatal injuries to the two deceased persons  

Irappa and Kenchappa.  The participation of other appellants  

along with appellant no. 1 and common intention on their  

part is clearly evident from the evidence available on record.  

The  High  Court  rightly  convicted  the  appellants  for  the  

offence punishable under Section 302 with the aid of Section  

34 IPC.  The High Court is absolutely right in coming to the  

conclusion that the appellants participated in the assault on  

the two deceased persons and inflicted fatal injuries on the  

vital parts of the bodies of both the deceased.  The assault  

had been conjointly committed by all  the appellants.  The  

sequence of events and total circumstances if taken together  

into  consideration  it  is  clearly  evident  that  the  appellants  

shared common intention to commit the offence for which  

they are  liable  to  be  convicted.   The  High  Court  did  not  

commit any error in convicting the appellants alone for the  

offence punishable under Section 302 with the aid of Section  

34 IPC.  The High Court is perfectly justified in reversing the  

order  of  acquittal  passed  by  the  trial  court  which  totally  

misread the evidence of eye witnesses and disbelieved them  

1

on fanciful grounds.  The trial court was carried away with  

the  minor  inconsistencies  in  the  evidence  of  prosecution  

witnesses for rejecting the prosecution case. The trial court  

committed serious error in rejecting the evidence of PW-8  

and PW-9 only  on  the  basis  that  they are  related  to the  

deceased.   Their  relationship  with  the  deceased  per  se  

would not be a ground to reject their evidence.  It is true the  

evidence of interested witnesses has to be properly assessed  

and carefully scrutinized which the High Court did in exercise  

of its appellate jurisdiction.  

13.  For all the aforesaid reasons we uphold the conviction  

as well as sentence for the offence punishable under Section  

302 read with Section 34 IPC.  

14. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.  

…………………………………………J. (B. SUDERSHAN REDDY)

…………………………………………J. (SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR)

NEW DELHI, SEPTEMBER  13, 2010.  

1

1