Supreme Court of India
PUNDAPPA YANKAPPA PUJARIversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA
- Citation
- 2014 INSC 455
- Decided
- 2 July 2014
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- S MUKHOPADHAYA
Holding
The conviction under Section 302 IPC is upheld because the eye‑witness testimonies are credible, corroborated, and the act does not fall within any statutory exception.
Summary
The appellant, Pundappa Yankappa Pujari, was charged with murder after allegedly assaulting Mahantappa with an axe during a boundary stone dispute, resulting in Mahantappa's death. The trial court acquitted the accused, but the Karnataka High Court set aside the acquittal and convicted him under Section 302 IPC, imposing life imprisonment. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the credibility of three eye‑witnesses (PW‑7, PW‑8, PW‑9) whose testimonies were found consistent, corroborated by additional witnesses and medical evidence. The Court held that the discrepancies in timing did not undermine the reliability of the eyewitness accounts and that the act did not fall within any exception under Sections 300 or 304 IPC. Consequently, the appellant's conviction under Section 302 IPC was upheld and the appeal dismissed.
Issues considered
- The trial court erred in acquitting the accused despite credible eyewitness testimony.
- Whether the evidence of the eye‑witnesses was reliable enough to sustain a conviction for murder.
- Whether the accused's act fell within any exception under Section 300 or Section 304 IPC.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 313
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 300, s. 302, s. 304, s. 307, s. 324, s. 326, s. 34
Subjects
murdereye‑witness testimonycredibilitySection 302 IPCappellate reviewacquittalconvictionboundary dispute
Judgment
[2014] 14 S.C.R. 1211
PUNDAPPA YAN KAPPA PUJARI A
v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
(CriminalAppeal No. 1251 of2006)
JULY 02, 2014 B
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND
RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, JJ.J
Penal Code, 1860 - Murder -Acquittal by trial court -
Conviction by High Court - On appeal, held: The evidence c
of three eye-witnesses are credible - They are corroborated
by evidence of one another as well as by medical evidence
- The qase also does not fall under any exception - Hence,
the accused is liable to be convicted u/s.302.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court · D
HELD: 1. The evidence on record, particularly the
testimonies of eye-witnesses - PW-7, PW-8 and PW-9
are consistent, trustworthy and fully corroborates with
one another, without giving any room to doubt their
credibility. Their evidence is also fully supported by the E
testimony of PW-10 and PW-11. All the facts directly point
to the guilt of accused No.1. Testimony of PW-1 is fully
corroborated with medical evidence. Merely, due to
some discrepancies in the statements of witnesses as
to timings 1 & '!.hour does not go to the root of the case.. F
[Paras 23, 24][1225-B-D]
2. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case and on careful examination of the act of the
accused as proved by testimony of witnesses, the act
of accused which resulted in death of the deceased G
neither comes within the ambit of the exceptions under
'I Section 300 IPC nor within the scope of Section 304 IPC.
Therefore, the Appellate Court rightly held that the act of ·
H
1211
1212 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.
A accused No.1 thus falls within the ingredients of s.300
IPC punishable u/s. 302 IPC. [Para 26][1226-C-E]
Hem Raj and another v. State of Punjab [2003)
3 Suppl. SCR 466 : (2003) 12 sec 241 ;
T. Subramanian v. State of Tamil Nadu [2006) 1
B SCR 180: (2006) 1 SCC 401, Haji Khan v. State
of U.P (2005) 13 SCC 353...: referred to.
CASE LAW REFERENCE
[2003) 3 Suppl, SCR 466 referred to · Para 10
C [2006) 1 SCR 180 referred to Para 11
(2005) 13 SCC 353 ' to
referred Para 12
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal
Appeal No(s). 1251 of2006.
o From the Judgment and Order dated 16.06.2006 of the
High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No.
9 of2000. · - ' .
I
Krutin R. Joshi, Gunashekar, Rajesh Mahale, Advs. for
the Appellant. .,
E V. N. Raghupathy, Lagnesh Mishra, Parikshit Angadi,
Sanjay R. Hegde,Advs, for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Courtwas delivered by
I , •
SUDHANSU J'(OTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.
F 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated
161h June, 2006 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in
Criminal Appeal No.9/2000. By the impugned judgment the
High Court partly allowed the appeal preferred by the State of
Karnataka, set aside the judgment of ac:quittal of the appellant
G · for the offence under Section 302 IPC, held the appellant guilty
for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to
undergo life imprisonment.' ;
2. The case of the prosecutionis that the complainant-
Giriyavva, her sons, Shivalingappa, Adiveppa, deceased
H
PUNDAPPAYANKAPPAPUJARI V. STATE OF 1213
KARNATAKA [SU OHAN SU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
Mahantappa and Pundappa as well as accused No.1, A
Pundappa Yankappa Pujari (appellant herein) and accused
No.2 Siddappa Pundappa Pujari are the resident ofYankanchi
village of Bagalkot's Taluk. The land of the deceased's family
as well as the land of the accused is adjacent to one another.
The deceased's land is on the northern side whereas the B
accused's land is on the southern side. In between there is a
band fixed with boundary stone. There was a dispute regarding
fixing of boundary stone between the accused and the
deceased's father Chandrappa Telagi. On 5th July, 1997 at
.about 9 a.m., accused No.1 was in his land and was removing c \
the boundary stone. The deceased-Mahantappa questioned
as to why he was removing the boundary stone and an
altercation took place between accused No.1 and deceased- ·
Mahantappa. While the deceased was putting boundary stone
to the pit, accused No.1 assaulted him with an axe on his neck o
anp caused severe fracture and injuries which resulted in
profuse bleeding whereas, accused No.2 assaulted the
deceased with a stick. Laxmawa (PW-7), who was grazing
her sheep, on seeing the incident of assault, shouted.
Immediately, Sangappa (PW-8), Chandrashekar (PW-9) E
rushed to the spot and witnessed the incident of assault.
Laxmawwa (PW-7) rushed towards the village. On the way,
she met Bhimappa (PW-10) and Ranganagouda (PW-11) and
informed them about the incident, who in turn went to the place
of incident. Further, she proceeded and informed the incident F
to complainant-Giriyawa (PW-1 ), the mother of the deceased.
Immediately, Giriyawa (PW-1) rushed to the place of incident
and noticed the injuries. The deceased-Mahantappa was
shifted to the village by Bhimappa (PW-1 O) and
Ranganagouda (PW-11 ). From there, the injured was shifted G
to Goverdhan Hospital, Bagalkot.
3. The injured was treated by Dr. Hanamant (PW-16) on
5'h July, 1997 and immediately, intimation was sent to Sub-
Inspector of Police, Rural Police Station, Bagalkot as per Ex.P-
H
.1214 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.
A 12. The Sub-Inspector of Police;1 Sekharapa (PW-14) on
receipt of Ex.P-12 proceeded to Hospital and enquired
. about.
the condition of the injured. The Doctor issued an endorsement
as per Ex.P-9 stating that the inju~edwas not in a position to
give statement. Thereafter, Sub-Inspector of Police (PW-14)
B received a written complaint Ex.P-1 from Giriyawa, the mother
of injured. A case in Crime N0.95/1997 for the offence under
Section'326, 324 and 307 read with Section 34 IPC was
registered and an FIR as per Ex.P-13 was prepared and
forwarded to the Magistrate. In the meantime, the Assistant
I c Sub-Inspector of Police, Gousasab(PW-13) received the death
intimation report of the injured as per Ex. P10. Accordingly, a
requisition was forwarded to the Court as per Ex.P-11 seeking
permission to alter the offence to one under Section 302 IPC.
On the same day, the Sub-Inspector of Police proceeded to
D the place of occurrence, prepared a spot panchnama as per
Ex.P-2, seized the blood stained earth and sample earth-
Material Objects (hereinafter referred to as the "MOs")-1 and
2 and handed over further.investigation to the Circle Inspector ·
of Police, Pandurang (PW-17). The Circle Inspector of Police
E took over further investigation. He recorded the statement of
witnesses and arrested accused No.1, Pundappa, seized the
blood stained shirt under the mahazar and recorded his
voluntary statement as per Ex.P!18. He sent accused No.1,
Pundappa to Hospital for medical examination and kept him
F in custody. On 6th July, 1997, he proceeded to General Hospital, .
Bagalkot, prepared _the inquest panchanama on the dead body
·of Mahantappa as per Ex.P-24 a~d recorded the statement of
the witness. He seized the blood stained towel and chaddar -
M.Os 4 and 5 under the panchanama Ex.P-15. At the instance
of the accused No.1, he recovered M.0.10-axeand M.0.11-
G
stick and prepared panchanama Ex.P-7. The dead body was
subjected to postmortem examination. On the same day ~
accused No.2 was arrested and produced by the Assistant
Sub-Inspector of Police. The chargesheet was filed against
both the accused for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC.
H
PUNDAPPA YANKAPPAPUJARI V. STATE OF 1215
KARNATAKA[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
4. Learned Sessions Judge secured the presence of the A
accused, framed charges under Section 302 read with Section
34 IPC. Both the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to
be tried.
5. The prosecution in all examined 17witnesses, marked
24 Exhibits, produced 11 M.Os. The defence, in their turn, got B·
marked Exs.0-1 to D-6. The statement of the accused was
recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the defence is one of
total denial. The accused did not choose to lead any defence
evidence.
6. Learned Sessions Judge for the reason recorded in C
his judgment dated 151h December, 1998, acquitted both the
accused for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC.
The said judgment of acquittal was questioned by the State
before the High Court wherein the High Court passed the
impugned judgment setting aside the order of acquittal with D
respect to accused No.1-appellant, convicting him under
Section 302 IPC to undergo life imprisonment.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
view taken by the Trial Court being reasonable, there was no E
occasion for Appellate Court to reverse the order of acquittal
by expressing a different view on the same set of evidence.
On the other hand, it was submitted on behalf of the respondent
that the Trial Court had committed an error and had failed to
assess the credibility and trustworthiness of the statements F
given by the eye-witnesses.
8. In view of the submissions made by the parties, the
point that arises for determination is : whether the High Court
is justified in interfering with the order of acquittal by reversing
the judgment of the Trial Court. G
9. It is settled that if two views are reasonably possible
from the very same evidence, the Appellate court on re-
appreciation of the same evidence cannot impose its own view.
The Appellate Court may re-appreciate the evidence when it
. is satisfied that the Trial Court has committed an error and H
1216 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.
A has failed to consider the credibility and trustworthiness of the
account given by the eye-witnesses. The evidence on record
has to be read as a whole and it is not proper to reject one or
other evidence on the ground of certain contradictions and
omissions which do not go to the roots of the case. If the
8 testimony of ~he eye~witnesses ;;ire found trustworthy and
remained unchanged, ignorance of such testimony can be held
to be perverse .
.10. In Hem Raj and another vs. State of Punjab,
(2003) 12 SCC 241, this Court held as follows:
c "36. In this state of the evidence on record, we find
that the view taken by the trial court is also a possible
reasonable view of the evidence on record. The
evidence adduced by the prosecution is rather
inconsistent and creates a serious doubt about the
D truthfulness of the prosecutiof"! case. Even if it may be
possible to take a different view, we cannot say that the
view taken by the trial court is not a reasonable view of
the evidence on record. It is well settled that if on the
basis of the same evidence two views are reasonably
E possible and the trial court takes the view in favour of .
the accused, the appellate court, in an appeal against
acquittal, will not be justified in reversing the order of
acquittal, unless it comes t6 the conclusion that the view
taken by the trial court was wholly unreasonable or
F perverse and it was not possible to take the view in
favour of the accused on the basis of the evidence on
record.."
11. In T. Subramanian vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2006)
G 1SCC401, this Court observed:
"17.:. Where two views are reasonably possible from the
very same evidence, prosecution cannot be said to
have proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.. ... "
12. In the circumstances where evidence of witness is
H not found to be wholly trustworthy the principle of severability
PUNDAPPA YANKAPPA PUJARI V. STATE OF 1217
KARNATAKA[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
can be applied and that part of the evidence which is reliable A
may be accepted and the other part can be discarded. This
Court in Haji Khan vs. State of U.P., (2005) 13 SCC 353,
held:
"That part of his evidence which inspires
confidence may be accepted and the unreliable pait B
discarded."
Further it was also observed that:
"9. From the evidence on record the Sessions
Court and the High Court have rightly held that the c
prosecution has failed to establish the conspiracy
theory, and that the motive to commit the crime has not
been proved, but does this mean that the High Court
could not have convicted the ac.cused placing reliance
on the statement of the eyewitnesses just because the D
prosecution failed to prove a particular theory. We do
not think so. It is not necessary that if the prosecution
theory of the conspiracy or the motive fails, the entire
case would crumble to the ground. The High Court has
found the version given by the witnesses trustworthy and E.
found support to their statement from the medical
evidence and lodging of the prompt FIR, apart from the
fact that the appellant was apprehended on the spot or
nearabout the spot of crime with the weapon which was
used in commission of the crime. When the court finds
F
that the evidence of the eyewitnesses is true and can
. be relied upon, absence of proof of motive or the
conspiracy to commit the crime would not dislodge the
prosecution from securing the conviction of the accused .
on the basis of reliable evidence."
G
13. Laxmawwa (PW-7) in her examination-in-chief stated
I
that she had gone to the land of Giriyawa (PW-1 ), for watching
the sheep at 10 a.m.Atthattimethe deceased, Mahantappa
had come to the land. Accused persons were present in the
land. Accused No.1-Pundappa removed boundary stone. H
1218 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.
A Mahantappa asked accused No.1 as to why he had removed
the boundary stone. Accused No.1 told Mahantappa that
boundary stone shall lie there only. Mahantappa insisted that
he will put the boundary stone at the place from where it was
removed. Accused No.1-Pundappa challenged Mahantappa
B to put boundary stone in its original place. When Mahantappa
was putting the boundary stone ih the pit, accused No.1-
Pundappa assaulted Mahantappa with the axe on the neck. At
that time accused No.2-Siddappa assaulted Mahantappa on
his head with the stick. Accused No.1-Pundappa had assaulted
C Mahantappa six to seven times with the axe on the neck and
on the head. On seeing the fncident Laxmawwa (PW-7)
shouted, hearing his shouting, Charge Witnesses, CWs.13,
14 and 15 (CWs. 14 and 15 are PW-8 and PW-9 respectively)
came there. When she was returning back to the house, on
o her way she met CWs.-17 and 19 (PW-10 & PW-11) and sh~
narrated the incident to them. She proceeded. further and
informed the incident to Giriyavva (PW-1), mother of the
Mahantappa. Giriyavva (PW-1) went to. see· her son
Mahantappa, who was brought to Yankanchi village and from
E Yankanchi village he was shifted to Bagalkot. Mahantappa
died in the Hospital at Bagalkot at 3 p.m. Her statement was
recorded by the Police.
In her cross-examination she reiterated that she had seen
the alleged incident. She stated that accused No.1 was found
F sitting in his land. Mahantappa came there and took rounds in
the land. Mahantappa came to the boundary by passing through
his land. She was standing in the middle of the road. From
there she heard the exchange of.words and saw the incident
taking place. She went near Mahantappa and had seen him.
G At that time, both the accused persons were present there.
During the cross-examination at one stage she stated that she
had not seen who had removed the boundary stone but
reiterated that when Mahantappa wanted to put the boundary
stone in the pit, accused No.1-Pundappa objected for it and·
H quarrel took place. When Mahantappa was putting the stone
PUNDAPPAYANKAPPAPUJARI V. STATE OF 1219
KARNATAKA[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
iri the pit,· accused No.1 and 2 have assaulted A
Mahanfappa.Mahantappa fell down on the ground near the
boundary stem!. Mahantappa sustained bleeding injuries and
the blood had fallen on the ground and near the boundary stone.
When she enquired from Mahantappa, Mahantappa fell down,
she shouted and when she left the spot, accused persons were B
still there. There is no reason to doubt the credibility and
trustworthiness of the account given by this eye-witness.
14. Sangappa (PW-8), in his deposition stated that he
along with CW-13-Pundappa and PW-9, Chandrashekhar had
gone to the land of CW-24 Rangappa Sannappa Gouli for C
ploughing the land. At about 9 a.m. they heard the shoutings.
They had seen Mahantappa being assaulted with the axe on
his neck and head, two to three times. They had seen another
person assaulting Mahantappa with the stick on his head. When
they went there, they were threatened by the accused persons. D
He stated that Laxmawa (PW-7) was present there at that time.
Laxmawa (PW-7) went to the village and on the way she met
Bhimappa (PW-10) and Ranganagouda (PW-11) and
narrated the incident to them. They had given water to
Mahantappa and thereafter Mahantappa was shifted to E
Vankanchi village and from Yankanchi village, Mahantappa
was shifted to Bagalkot for medical treatment.
In his cross-examination he stated that he left the village
at 7 a.m.He went to the spot on hearing the shouting and at the
spot he saw Mahantappa falling down due to assault. F
Thereafter, the accused persons stood there for five minutes.
When they enquired with the accused persons as to why they
had assaulted Mahantappa, accused No.1-Pundappa went
towards Sindal village taking the axe and the stick. Accused
No.2-Siddappa went to graze the sheeps. G
15. Chandrasekhar (PW-9) in his statement stated that
he along with Sangappa (PW-8) and CW-13 (Pundappa) had
gone for ploughing the land of CW-24 (Rangappa) on that day
at about 9 a.m.Accused No.1 and 2 had assaulted Mahantappa H
1220 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.
A and Mahantappa fell down. Accused No.1 had assaulted
Mahantappa with the axe and Accused No.2 had assaulted
Mahantappa with stick. Laxmawa (PW-7) was·present there
at that time. Laxmawa (PW-7) went to the village and informed
about the incident. Giriyavva (PW~ 1) and the villagers came
B there. Injured Mahantappa was shifted to the Hospital at
Bagalkot at 2 p.m. and finally Mahantappa succumbed to the
injuries in the Hospital.
Chandrashekar (PW-9) disputed the suggestion that the
land of Chandrashekar (PW-9) belonged to their ancestors
C previously. He also disputed the suggestion that there was any
dispute between their ancestors and the accused persons
regarding the land of the accused persons. In his cross-
examination he reiterated that when they heard the exchange
of words, the distance between them and those persons was
D abouf10 feet. By the time they went there Mahantappa was
found lying on the ground. After reaching the land, they have
seen accused No.1 assaulting Mahantappa with the axe. He
denied the sugg~stion that the scene of offence was not visible .
from the place where they were ploughing.
E 16. Giriyavva (PW-1), mother of the deceased, is the
complainant. She stated that on the fateful day her son,
Mahantappa had gone to their land at about 7 a.m. for seeing
the crop. The land of the accused persons is adjoining to their
land.At about 10 a.m., she was present in her house.At that
F time, Laxmavva (PW-7) came and informed her that her son
Mahantappa was assaulted by accused No.1-Pundappa and
accused No.2"Siddappa. She went to the site of occurrence.
Her sort had sustained injuries on the head and on the back of
the neck. Bhimappa (PW-10) and Ranganagouda (PW-11)
G had come to her land at that time. Bhimappa (PW-10) had
brought her injured son,· Mahantappa to the village Yankanchi. ·
From Yankanchi village they came to Mugalolli village and then
the injured Mahantappa was brought to Bagalkot and admitted
in the. Government Hospital at Bagalkot. Mahantappa died at
H 3 p.m. in the Hospital at Bagalkot.
PUNDAPPA YAN KAPPA PUJARI V. STATE OF 1221
KARNATAKA[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
In her cross-examination she stated that on that day at A
6 a.m. her husband left for Bagalkot. Laxmawa (PW-7) came
and reported the incident to her in the house when she alone
was present in the house. At about 9 a, m. Laxmawa reported
the incident to her. Luxmavva(PW-7) did not accompany her
•
to her land. She went to her land alone. Bhimappa (PW-10) B
and Ranganagouda (P-11) of their own accord came to her
land by the time she reached, Bhimappa (PW-10) and
Ranganagouda (P-11) were present in her land. She further
stated that except her. Bhimappa (PW-10) and Ranganagouda
(P-11), none else were present in her land. At that time C
Mahantappa was in a position to talk.
17. Bhimappa (PW-10) in his evidence, stated that he
knows Giriyavva (PW-1), deceased Mahantappa, accused
persons and also Ranganagouda (PW-11 ). He further stated
that at about 9.30 a. m. Mahantappa was found having sustained D
injuries on his neck and stated that he covered a towel on the
injuries of Mahantappa and shifted him from that place. The
towel and chaddar are M.Os.4 and 5.
18. Coming to the evidence of Sangappa (PW-8) and
Chandrasekhar (PW-9), we find that both of them have E
deposed that they heard the shouting when they came near
the place of incident, they saw accused No.1 and accused
No.2 assaulting Mahantappa with axe and with stick. Even
· though the witnesses were cross-examined at depth, no much
evidence were elicited to discredit the testimony of Sangappa F
(PW-8) and Chandrasekhar (PW-9). It is apparent in the
evidence of Bhimappa (PW-10) and Ranganagouda (P-11)
that they came to the land of one Rangappa Gou Ii for ploughing
at about 7 or 7.30 a.m. then they heard the screaming and
rushed to the spot wherein they noticed the presence of G
Laxmavva (PW-7) who proceeded to the village side to inform
the same to the complainant Giriyawa (PW-1 ).
· ·• 19. It is true that there are certain discrepancies in
mentioning the time of the incident. Laxmawa (PW-7) stated H
1222 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.
A that the incident took place at about 11 a.m. whereas,
Sangappa(PW-8) and Chandrasekhar (PW-9) stated that the
incident of assault took place at 9 or 9.30 a.m.· Such
discrepancies cannot be a ground to disbelieve the statements
• of the witnesses if the difference is about one hour, as the
B villagers generally suggest the approximate time.
20. The testimony of Laxmawa (PW-7), clearly indicates
that on the day of the incident, she was grazing her sheep near
the land of Giriyawa (PW-1). According to her evidence,
accused No.1-Pundappa Yankappa Pujari was in his land
C whereas, accused No.2 was' grazing his sheep near
Durgamma Temple. Thereafter, the deceased Mahantappa
came to his land, which is adjacent to the land of accused
persons. The deceased noticed the removal of the boundary
stone, When the deceased went to put the stone in the same
D pit, there was some altercation between them regarding fixing
of the boundary stone at the very same place. ft is clear from
her evidence that while Mahantappa was putting the stone in
the pit, the accused No.1 assaulted him with axe over his neck
and head three or four times. As a result, he suffered with
E multiple fracture injuries and collapsed. On seeing the incident,
Laxmawa (PW-7) shouted. Then Sangappa (PW-8), and
Chandrashekhar (PW-9) who were ploughing the land at a
distance of about 10 feet in the land of one Rangappa, rushed
to the spot. The testimony of Laxmawa (PW-7) clearly indicates
F that it was accused No. 1, who inflicted blows with the axe on
the neck and head of the deceased Mahantappa. Apart from
that, though Laxmavva (PW-7) has been lengthily cross-
examined, the defence failed to bring out some evidence that
would lead to disbelieve her testimony with respect to the
G incident of assault.
21. The testimony of Giriyavva (PW-1), mother of the
deceased Mahantappa shows that she knows the accused
persons. She stated that at about 10 a.m., while she was in
the house, Laxmawa (PW-7) came and informed her that her
H son Mahantappa was assaulted by accused No.1 Pundappa
.
PUNDAPPA YANKAPPA PUJARI V. STATE OF 1223
KARNATAKA[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
and accused No.2 Sidappa with axe and stick respectively. A
Further, she stated that then she went to the land and saw ·
Mahantappa lying on ground with injuries on the head and back
of the neck. She also stated that by that time Bhimappa (PW-
10), Ranganagouda (PW-11) also came to their land.
Bhimappa (PW-10) shifted her son Mahantappa to the village B
and from there, he was brought to Bagalkot Hospital and ·
admitted.
In the cross-examination, she clearly stated that on that
day at 6 a.m. her husband had left for Bagalkot. Laxmavva
(PW-7) came and reported the incident when she was alone C
in the house at about 10 a.m.
From the testimony of the complainant, Giriyawa (PW-
1) it is clear that when she was in the house Laxmavva (PW-7)
came about 10 a.m. and informed her about the incident of
assault on Mahantapp by accused No.1 Pundappa. On a D
careful reading of the deposition of the complainant, it is clear
that Mahantappa left house early in the morning towards the
land to see the-crop after taking food. The fact that the
deceased took food in the early morning is supported by the
medical evidence. In the postmortem report, Dr. Hanamant E
(PW-16) has clearly stated that stomach is intact containing
plenty of food particles more of rice. Therefore, the testimony
of Giriyavva (PW-1) is fully corroborated with medical
evidenceof Dr. Hanamant (PW-16) in so far as the deceased
Mahantappa leaving the house early in the morning. F
22. The evidence of Dr. Hanamant (PW-16) shows that he
examined Mahantappa on 5th July, 1997 at 1 p.m. and found
the following six incised wounds:
1. "lncisedwoundof5x2x2cms. bone deep in leftpanetal G
scalp are with blood clots ...
2. Incised wound of in vertex placed long-itudinal/y of
· 5x2x2 ems. with fracture of underlying skull bone with
blood clots.
H
1224 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.
A 3. Incised wound behind the left ear of 7x3x2 ems. with
lacerate of muscles underlying.
4. Incised wound in right parl of occipital area of 5x3x2
ems with fracture of that bone with blood clots.
5. Incised wound in right part of occipital area of 4x2x2
B
ems. with blood clots and bone deep.
6. Incised wound in right parietal scalp area of 2x1x1
ems with blood clots.
He issued the wound certificate as per Ex.P16. It is
c also in evidence that on the death' of Mahantappa, he
conducted the post mortem and found the following injuries.
Head is completely shaved and there were 7 stitched
scalp wounds are found all were opened and examined.
1. Cut lacerated wound along with midline in vertex of
D
5x1x1 ems. with depressed fracture of right parietal
bone.
'
2. Cut lacerated wound placed obliquely in right parietal
~
scalp area.
E 3. Cut lacerated wound of 5x2x1 ems. in upper part of
occipital area placed transversely.
4. Cut lacerated wound behind the left ear of 4x 1x1 ems.
placed obliquely. I
5. At the hair line at the hape of neck cut lacerated would
F
placed transversely of 5x2x2 ems. bone deep.
6. Cut lacerated would in left part of occipital area of
5x2x1 ccms bone deep placed obliquely.
7. Transverse cut lacerated would in right part of occipital
G ..
region of 5x2x2 ems. with fracture of that bone.
Abrasion of 2x2 ems. over right malar region dark
8.
brown colour.
'
9. Abrasion on right forehead of 4x3 ems dark brown
colour."
H
PUNDAPPA YAN KAPPA PUJARI V. STATE OF 1225
.
KARNATAKA[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA,
.
J.]
Thus from the nature of incised injuries found on the A
scalp, it is clear that death of Mahantappa was due to injury to
the brain as a result of wounds caused to the head probably
by multiple hits by heavy sharp edged weapon and the same
is marked as Ex.P-17. There is no dispute regarding the cause
•
of death that the deceased met with homicidal death. B
23. The afo~said medical evidence also corroborates
the statements of Laxmawa (PW-7), Sangappa (PW-8) and
Chandrasekhar (PW-9).
24. Normally, the ploughing of the land is being done in
the morning and in the evening till sun set. This is the normal C
practice. Therefore, the presence of Sangappa (PW-8) and
Chandrasekhar (PW-9) witnessing the incident is proved by
the testimony of Laxmavva (PW-7). Merely, due to some
discrepancies in the statements of witnesses as to timings 1
& ~ hour does not go to the root of the case. The evidence on
0
record, particularly the testimonies of eye-witnesses -
Laxmawa (PW-7), Sangappa (PW-8) and Chandrasekhaar
(PW-9) are consistent, trustworthy and fully corroborates with
one another, without giving any room to doubt their credibility.
Their evidence is also fully supported by the testimony of E
Bhimappa (PW-10 and Ranganagouda (PW-11 ), who went to
the spot after coming to kriow of the incident from Laxmavva
(PW-7). All the above facts directly point to the guilt of the
accused No.1.
F
25. We have noticed that there exists a boundary dispute
between the accused persons as well as the family of the
deceased. This is clear from the testimony of Somappa (PW-
2), who has categorically stated that 10 to 15 days prior to the
incident, Chandrappa (father of the deceased) and accused
persons approached them regarding the boundary dispute of G
their lands. He himself, Sonnappa (PW-3),CWs-23 and 24 had
advised both the parties and fixed the boundaries of their lands.
Thereafter, accused No.1 Pundappa got his land measured
by a private surveyor. The private surveyor confirmed the H
1226 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014] 14 S.C.R.
A boundary fixed by the elderly persons. It is in the evidence of
Laxmavva (PW-7) that while she was grazing the sheep near
the land of Giriyavva (PW-1 ), there was altercation between
the deceased Mahantappa and accused No.1 regarding fixing
of the boundary stone. It is also seen fro~ her evidence that
B the boundary stone was found removed by accused No.1 and
deceased Mahantappa attempted to refix the stone at the same
place. On this the accused No.1 assaulted the deceased
Mahantappa with axe over his head and back of the neck
resulting in fracture, which had led to his death subsequently
C in the Hospital. ...
;26. Considering the facts and circums.tances of the case
and on careful examination of the act of the accused a~:Ptoved
by testimony of witnesses, we are of the opinion that the said
act of accused which resulted in death of Mahantappa neither
D comes within the ambit of the exceptions under Section 300
IPC nor within the scope of Section 304 IPC. It is not an· act
done under grave and sudden p_rovocation or in good'f;iith or
not an act, which he in good faith believes to be laWful and
necessary for due discharge in his duty. or not an act committed
E without premeditation in sudden fight. Therefore, theApp~llate
Court rightly held that the act of the accused No.1 thus falls
within. the ingredients of Section 300 IPC punishable ·under
Section 302 IPC. , ...,
27. We find no ground tci interfere with the impugned
F judgment. In absence of any merit, the appeal is dismissed.
Kalpana K.. Tripathy Appeal di.smissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "murder"Sign in to search