KAREPPA RAMAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Accused 1 to 3 have been convicted for an offence u/s. 302 r/w Sec. 34, IPC and were sentenced to imprisonment for life. Accused 4 has been acquitted by the trial Court. Criminal Appeal No. 1116/98 has been preferred by the State against acquittal of accused 4. Criminal Appeal No. 724/98 has been preferred by the accused persons. Both the State Appeal as well as the appeal preferred by the accused were heard together and a common judgment is rendered.

(2.) THE prosecution case in brief is as follows : P. W. 1 is the complainant and the wife of the deceased Kareppa Poojari. P. W. 1 stated that she is the first wife and the deceased had two other wives. All of them were residing jointly. The deceased owned about 10 acres of land. About two years prior to the occurrence the deceased had given the said land for cultivation to the father of the accused Bhimappa Avagodi on the 0. 25 paise share basis. The father of the accused was also entrusted with the construction of the well and certain amounts were paid to the accused and they did not construct the well. There was also certain disputes with regard to the invoice of sugarcane crop. It is stated that the accused had raised a bill in his own name and not in the name of the deceased. It was also mentioned by P. W. 1 that the deceased had secured a loan for the accused and had stood as a guarantor. The accused did not repay the loan. P. W. 1 stated that accused 1 to 3 are brothers and accused 4 was a coolie working in her house. One year prior to the death of her husband, the deceased, accused 4 had come to work. P. W. 1 further stated that accused 1 to 3 had been entrusted with the construction work of well in the land belonging to the deceased for a sum of Rs. 80,000/ -. There was a dispute between accused and the father of accused 1 to 3 with regard to (1) the construction of well; (2) the invoicing of the bills in the name of the accused instead of being in the name of the deceased; and (3) the deceased had stood as guarantor to the accused for loan given to the accused.

(3.) FROM this it is clear that the motive aspect of the case has been established to large extent by the prosecution. The trial Court was right in holding that there is a strong motive on the part of the father of the accused, he may have setup his sons to commit the murder. Unfortunately, the trial Court has failed to make a distinction between motive and the culpability of the accused in the murder. The trial Court failed to see wood from the trees.