STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. BHIMAPPA GADIGAPPA GUJJAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is another of the gruesome multi -murder cases - it is a tripple murder case. The incident took place at village Hanashi at about 7. a.m. on 23 -3 -1993. The allegation is that the eight accused were instrumental in attacking the deceased Sangappa somappa and Gadigappa one after the other on the road that runs through the village in furtherance of their common intention to murder the three persons. The incident was undoubtedly a very gory one as the assail ants were armed with sticks and axes both of which category of weapons were used very freely as is evident from the multiple injuries on the bodies that have been detected in the post mortem report. The attack was also both savage and brutal in so far as quite apart from the injuries to other vital areas of the bodies, special attention was directed towards the limbs as a result of which the arms and legs were amputated. Undoubtedly the incident which took place in broad day -light attracted a lot of attention and must have been seen by several of the villagers because the map of the area clearly indicates to us that the incident took place in the proximity of several of the houses and huts. The matter was reported to the Police who came to the scene of offence and commenced their investigation. The eight accused were arrested on 10 -4 -1993 and the prosecution contends that their clothes were required to be seized as they were blood -stained. The Prosecution also alleges that pursuant to certain statements made by the accused that they recovered some of the weapons M.Os. 7 to 13 even though there is a parallel version which indicates that M.Os. 1 to 6 were found at the scene of offence and were taken charge of by the police. As far as M.Os. 14 to 15 which are the axes there is no clear indication as to how and when these weapons came to be seized by the police. On completion of the investigation the eight accused were charge -sheeted for a host of offences from the formation of an unlawful assembly to the main charge of murder. At the trial as many as 14 out of 23 witnesses virtually resiled from their earlier statements and their evidence was therefore not of much value. The learned trial Judge carefully assessed the remaining evidence particularly the evidence of P.Ws. 7. 8 and 10 who claim to be eye witnesses and for a variety of reasons held that this evidence was not good enough to sustain conviction. All the accused were accordingly acquitted. The State of Karnataka has assailed that correctness of the decision and has preferred the present appeal against acquittal to the High Court. The appeal having been listed for hearing, we have heard the learned Addl. S.P.P. in support of the State who is the appellant as also Mr. Tomy Sebastian learned counsel who represents the respondents -accused. We have also penised the record of the case with a degree of meticulousness because as we shall presently indicate the learned Addl. S.P.P. Mr. Koti very vehemently submitted that this' is a triple murder case where the accused have been acquitted and that this Court must reverse that decision as there is sufficient evidence to uphold such a course of action.

(2.) THERE are certain special features involved in this case and we shall have occasion to highlight one of the most distressing but one of the most serious aspects particularly since it needs to serve as a warning to society. The inter -relationship needs to be set out because they effectively belong to the same family or clan that the deceased 2 and 3 being brothers -and D 1Sangappa being the nephew of D 2 and D 3. Effectively therefore they are not only closely related but virtually belong to the same family. On the other side of the picture. the accused Nos. 1 to 5 are brothers. A 6 and A,7 are the sons of A 4 and A 8 is the son of the sister of A 1 to A 4. Again, the accused effectively belong to more or less the same family. Having said this much we need to clarify that the prosecution does not allege that the incident was the outcome of any long standing family feud which is often the case in rural India. There is a suggestion that a quarrel had taken place between the parties some four years ago which resulted in some litigation and that the present incident is the aftermath to that hostility. We find that this so called motive is too remote in point of time and further more that there is nothing that has been brought on record by the prosecution to, connect the four year old dispute with the present incident or for that matter, neither has the prosecution brought un record any material to indicate that the old hostility was rekindled or triggered off. Mr. Koti did submit that the old incident was the starting point of the trouble and that it was getting slightly aggravated over the years and further more that it finally reached a flash -point on the date of the incident because something took place on the previous night which aggravated the situation. Relying on the evidence of P.W. 19, Mr. Koti pointed out that at a meeting on the previous night presided over by P. W. 20 Nagappa that a Violent argument had taken place between P.Ws. 8 and 15 at which time A 2 had intervened. Mr. Koti states that this was the incident which got ignited on the morning of 23 -3 -1993 when it was conveyed to D 1 and D 3 and that the incident was the violent aftermath. We have carefully examined this material and we find that even if some argument had taken place on the previous night that it was not a matter of any consequence nor was it of such seriousness that it would virtually provoke two families to kill each other. We are unable to accept that this was either the motive or provocation for the incident and we shall presently point out, that there is an entirely different dimension to the whole case which in our considered view was the real cause of the incident.

(3.) APART from these aspects of the matter, the learned trial Judge has analysed this evidence and has come to the conclusion that it would be unsafe to rely on it because of the series of infirmities that have been noted by him we have re -examined each of these heads one by one and even though Mr. Koti has valiantly contended that they are not of much consequence, we find it impossible to find fault with either the reasonings or the conclusions recorded by the learned trial Judge. The learned Addl. S.P.P. was conscious of the fact that if the reasoning appears to be good enough and the conclusions appear to be plausible that this Court would not entertain any appeal against the acquittal His contention was that the assessment by the learned trial Judge has been over rigorous and that the substratum of the evidence has remained unshaken. He does not dispute the fact that the deceased obviously had a very deplorable and rather unpleasant track record. He submits that this does not in any way detract from the position that the accused were the ones who ultimately committed the offence.