ATMENDRA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole appellant, Atmendra, and his father Ganapati, were tried in Sessions Case No. 5 of 1987 for offences punishable under Section 302 read with sections 34, 114, I.P.C. and Section 27 of the the Indian Arms Act by learned Sessions Judge, Karwar and were acquitted by judgment dated 3-9-1987. The State of Karnataka filed Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 1988 against the said judgment. During the pendency of the appeal Ganapati died on 8-1-82. On April 23, 1992, a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court set aside the judgment of the Trial Court and convicted Atmendra under Section 302 and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and under Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act and awarded punishment of undergoing rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for two months:substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. Against that judgment of the High Court Atmendra is in appeal before this Court.

(2.) This case presents a glaring example of how a man getting enraged by trivial things has committed the most heinous crime of murder of the nearest relative. Here plucking coconuts from disputed tree ended up in the death of rival claimant Ashok Hedge, who was no other than the uncle of the appellant and the real brother of Ganapati, a practising advocate. The brothers were living in adjacent houses. But the relations between them were far from cordial and had reached such a stage that a criminal case was filed against Rajendra, the eldest son of Ganapati. At the backyard of their houses on the western side, there is a disputed coconut tree of which both claimed to be the owners. The elders advised the brothers not to pluck coconuts from the tree till their claim of ownership was settled, however, each was permitted to take away the coconuts falling on the side of the backyard of his house. On the fateful day of October 30, 1986 at about 11.00 a.m. Ashok, his wife Vijayalakshmi PW-1 and servants Parameshwar and Ramdas, PWs-2 and 3 respectively were in his house. They noticed that one Vittal Bhandari (CW-7) was plucking the coconuts in clusters and throwing them down, while the appellant and his father were standing on "chadi" (the raised platform) behind their house watching the coconuts. Ashok, his wife and servants came on to the chadi of their house on hearing the noise of falling of the coconuts and questioned Bhandari as to why he was plucking the coconuts. In the course of exchange of words Ganapati instigated the appellant to finish Ashok stating that he had become arrogant and then there followed a shot from the gun, which resulted in instantaneous death of Ashok, the deceased. The appellant and Ganapati were charged and tried for the offences stated above. The defence of the appellant was that the deceased swung the reaper at the appellant and as he was turning to avoid the blow the gun also turned in the same direction on account of which the reaper touched the hammer of the gun which went off and hit the deceased.

(3.) It can be seen the controversy fell in a short compass, namely, as to whether the appellant shot at the deceased and thus killed him or whether the gun got fired due to the strike of the reeper swung by the deceased.