LAWS(SC)-1994-8-31

SHIVALINGAPPA KALLAYANAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Decided On August 31, 1994
Shivalingappa Kallayanappa And Others Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under S. 2 of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act read with S. 379, Cr. P.C. All the five accused (original accused Nos. 1 to 5) in the case are the appellants. They were tried for offences punishable under Ss. 147, 148, 302/- 149 and 326/ 149, I.P.C. The trial court acquitted them. The State preferred an appeal and the High Court reversed the order of acquittal and convicted the accused for the said offences and sentenced them accordingly. The prosecution case is as follows:

(2.) Basappa son of Shankarappa Bagewadi and Murigeppa son of Dundappa Bagewadi, the two deceased persons in the case, the accused and the material witnesses are all related to each other. A-1 to A-4 are the residents of village Mattur and A-5 is a resident of village ankanwadi, Jamkhandi Taluk, Bijapur District. A-1 to A-4 are the sons of one Kallayanappa and the two deceased persons were the sons of brother of Kallyanappa. A-5 is a friend and neighbouring cultivator of A-1 to A-4. Kallyanappa and his brothers divided the joint family properties and got separated a long time back except with regard to the land in Survey No. 25. In the year 1975 when the Land Reforms Act came into force giving the rights of the cultivating tenants, Kallyanappa whose name had been entered in the record of rights as tenant of the said land, started claiming exclusive occupancy rights and made an application by himself for the grant of occupancy rights. He also started threatening his other brothers, filed a suit and obtained temporary injunction against them. The other brothers also made applications for the grant of occupancy rights in their names. By an order dated 13-10-1981, the Land Tribunal held that the brothers should be the joint tenants of the land and accordingly granted the occupancy rights in their favour. Thereafter, according to the prosecution case, the two deceased, their brothers and their uncles occupied the land forcibly, erected a hut in the land and started cultivating the same. There was a standing crop in the land. On 25-12-1981 the two deceased and their brothers and some others, in all 10 persons, went to the hut in the land in occupation of A-1 and threatened him not to cut the sugarcane crop or make any changes in the said land and while going away, they also threw away the articles in the hut. A-1 then went to the Police Station at Banahatti and made a complaint before PW 15 Head Constable Shivappa and a case was registered. PW 15 went to the village and apprehended four of the ten persons named in the complaint. Later in the evening sometime before sunset while the deceased Murigeppa and PWS 2 and 4 remained in the field, PW 1 and two others went to the village to bring food for others. At about 9 or 9.30 p.m. they returned to the land with the food. At about midnight when PWs 1 to 3 were still sitting warming themselves near the fire, the two deceased and PW4 were lying down on the ground feeling sleepy in front of the hut erected by them, A-1 to A-4 accompanied with A-5 went there armed with axes and sticks. A-1 and A-2 were armed with axes and A-3 to A-5 were armed with sticks. While A-1 assaulted deceased murigeppa with the butt end of the axe, A-4 and A-5 assaulted PWs 2 and 4 with the sticks in their hands. A-1 and A-2 also assaulted deceased Basappa and PW 3 with the butt end of the axes in their hands. PW 1 managed to run away and stood behind a tree and witnessed the occurrence. After so assaulting, the accused left the place. PW 1 came back to the scene of occurrence and found that the two deceased persons and PWs 2 to 4 had sustained injuries. He went to the village, informed his mother PW 7 and others, went to the Police Station and orally complained to PW 15, the Head Constable who reduced the complaint into writing. On the basis of the same, PW 15 registered the crime and issued the F.I.R. He went to the land and found PWs 2 to 4 lying with injuries. He recorded the statements of Pws 2 and 4 and sent all the three injured to the hospital. He also found the two deceased persons lying dead. He held the inquest over the dead bodies and sent the same for post-mortem and later he handed over the investigation to PW 19, the Circle Inspector.

(3.) On 26-12-1981, PW 11, Dr. Gurappa examined PWs 2 to 4. On PW 2, he found two lacerated wounds on the vertex and left shin and another lacerated wound on the right parietal region and contusions on the hands and shoulders. On PW 3, he found one lacerated wound on the left of vertex and two contusions on the scapular region. On PW 4, hefound one lacerated wound on vertex and another lacerated wound on left shin and two contusions on the little finger and middle finger. The same Doctor conducted the post-mortem examination over the dead body of deceased Murigeppa and found 11 injuries. Injury No. 1 was a contusion with abrasion over left maxilla with depressed fracture with eye ball sunken and cornea torn. The other injuries namely contusions were on the hands and on the back of chest. He opined that the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage. The same Doctor also conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of deceased Basappa and found six injuries and the injury on the head which resulted in the fracture of the skull bone was opined to have caused the death. PW 19 continued with the investigation. On 26-12-1981 A-1 appeared in the Police Station with blood-stained clothes and complained of assault on him by deceased Basappa and PW2. PW 20, Dr. Gurupadappa examined A-1 and found a lacerated wound skull deep over the right parietal eminence and two contusions on the scapular region. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was laid. The plea of the accused was one of denial. However, their defence was that the deceased and PWs 1 to 4 and others came in a body and when A-1 went out to see as to who they were, he was assaulted. In general they denied the prosecution case.