Sri Muniraju Vs. State Of Karnataka - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1234041
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided OnJul-04-2022
Case NumberCRL.A 1335/2018
JudgeK.SOMASHEKAR AND SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
AppellantSri Muniraju
RespondentState Of Karnataka
Excerpt:
r1in the high court of karnataka at bengaluru dated this the4h day of july, 2022 present the hon’ble mr.justice k.somashekar and the hon’ble mr. justice shivashankar amarannavar criminal appeal no.1335 of2018between: sri. muniraju s/o narayanappa aged about 40 years r/o araluru village bengaluru permanent address: pakarahalli village taluk: bangarpet kolar district – 563101. ...appellant (by sri. n.s. sampangiramaiah - advocate) and: state of karnataka rep. by sub-inspector of police bangarpet police station bangarpet, kolar district rep. by the state public prosecutor high court of karnataka bengaluru – 560 001. ...respondent (by smt. rashmi jadhav - hcgp) 2 this criminal appeal filed under sec.374(2) of criminal procedure code, praying to allow the appeal by setting aside the.....
Judgment:

R1IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE4H DAY OF JULY, 2022 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1335 OF2018BETWEEN: Sri. Muniraju S/o Narayanappa Aged about 40 years R/o Araluru Village Bengaluru Permanent Address: Pakarahalli Village Taluk: Bangarpet Kolar District – 563101. ...Appellant (By Sri. N.S. Sampangiramaiah - Advocate) AND: State of Karnataka Rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police Bangarpet Police Station Bangarpet, Kolar District Rep. by the State Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka Bengaluru – 560 001. ...Respondent (By Smt. Rashmi Jadhav - HCGP) 2 This Criminal Appeal filed under Sec.374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, praying to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.04.2018 in Sessions Case No.147/2016 passed by the learned III-Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Kolar (sitting at K.G.F.) and by acquitting him of the charges levelled against him. This criminal appeal coming on for dictating judgment this day, K. Somashekar .J delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Court of III Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Kolar (sitting at KGF) in S.C.No.147/2016 dated 13.04.2018 whereby held conviction against the accused for the offences under Sections 302 and 324 of IPC, 1860 and held that accused shall undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and he shall undergo imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 324 of IPC and shall pay fine of Rs.3,000/- with default clause. 3

2. In this appeal the appellant is seeking intervention of the impugned judgment of conviction by consideration of grounds as urged in this appeal and consequently, set- aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the trial Court in respect of the aforesaid offences and to acquit the accused for the charges levelled against him.

3. Heard learned counsel Sri N.S.Sampangiramaiah for appellant/accused and Smt.Rashmi Jadhav, learned HCGP for State. Perused the judgment of conviction rendered by the trial Court.

4. The factual matrix of the appeal are as under: It is transpired in the case of the prosecution that on 08.07.2016 at around 4.00 p.m. at Pakarahalli Village, Bangarpet Taluk whereby the deceased Narayanappa died due to injuries caused to him with means of knives like sword in the assault said to have been caused by his son namely Muniraju who is arraigned as accused. It is 4 further stated that CW.1 and 2 have also sustained injuries due to assault made by the accused person. CWs.1 and 2 were sent to Government Hospital, Bangarpet for treatment by securing the ambulance by the villagers. CW.22 namely Sri Ravikumar who was working as Sub- inspector and CW.21 namely Sri Madhusudhan who was working as Head Constable No.18 of Bangarpet Police Station in Kolar District had gone to the Government Hospital at Bangarpet and as per the instruction and also dictation of CW.22, CW.21 recorded first information statement at Ex.P1 at around 7.30 p.m. on 08.07.2016 of Cw.1 – Rathnamma who is none other than second wife of deceased Narayanappa.

5. In the first information statement at Ex.P1 it is alleged that Smt.Rathnamma is the second wife of deceased. One late Smt.Jayamma was first wife of deceased and she had one son and a daughter by name Muniraju who is the accused and Smt.Venkatarathna. 5 The said Smt.Venkatarathna died and the accused was residing at Araluru Village, near Bengaluru with his wife and children and he was running Auto Rickshaw. Smt.Rathnamma gave birth to three sons and one daughter and among them her sons died and her daughter Smt.Saraswathi who is CW.8 was given in marriage to a person of Malaganahalli of Srinivasapura Taluk and since the husband of said Smt.Saraswathi was murdered about 5 to 6 years back, said Smt.Saraswathi and her two sons by name Kum.Charan – CW.2 and Kum.Dhanush – CW.3 returned back to the house of Smt.Rathnamma and her husband Sri Narayanappa at Pakarahalli village, Bangarpet Taluk. That about one week back prior to 8.7.2016 the accused – Muniraju came to Pakarahalli Village, Bangarpet Taluk and stayed in the house of Smt.Lakshmidevamma – CW.4 who is the sister of deceased Narayanappa. The accused – Muniraju used to demand his father deceased Narayanappa to effect partition and to allot share to him. In this regard 6 panchayath was held on 08.07.2016 at about 9.00 a.m. near Hudukula Gate and in the said panchayath village leader by name Sri Nagarajappa and others were present. Subsequently, on the same day i.e. on 08.07.2016 at about 4.00 p.m. when Smt.Rathnamma and her grand sons Kum.charan and Kum. Dhanush and deceased – Narayanappa were in the house of Pakarahalli village, Bangarpet Taluk, accused came to said the place and abused deceased – Narayanappa saying that he would kill said Narayanappa since he refused to give share in the property. At that time CWs.2 and 3 were studying in the house. By hearing the abusive words of accused – Muniraju, CW.1 came outside of the house and at that time accused suddenly entered inside the house and stabbed Narayanappa 2 to 3 with means of knife. Smt.Rathnamma and Kum.Charan and Dhanush were screaming. Suddenly CW.4 namely Lakshmidevamma and her son Manikanta – CW.7 rushed to the spot and by that time accused committed murder of deceased – 7 Narayanappa by stabbing with means of knives by choosing vital parts of his neck and thereby cutting his neck with means of knife. At the time of assault made on his father – deceased Narayanappa, the accused stabbed twice with knife on the left buttock of Smt.Rathnamma. He also assaulted with knife on the left hand part of Kum.Charan and took heel from there along with knives on seeing of arrival of villagers. Subsequently, Chandrappa – CW.11 secured 108 ambulance and sent Smt.Rathnamma and Kum.Charan to the hospital for treatment.

6. On the first information at Ex.P1 in writing that CW.22 by name Ravikumar registered the case in Crime No.159/2016 at around 7.45 p.m. on 08.07.2016 and by recording the FIR at Ex.P17 sent the same to the jurisdictional Magistrate as according to the relevant provisions of Cr.P.C stating that accused has committed 8 offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 324 of IPC, 1860.

7. Subsequent to registering the crime, CW.23 namely Venkatachalapathy who was working as Circle Inspector of Bangarpet Circle took up the case for investigation in further because of the heinous offence under Section 302 of IPC inclusive of offence under Section 307 and 324 whereby the aforesaid investigating officer who visited the scene of crime i.e., the house of deceased – Narayanappa and drew the inquest mahazar over the dead body of the deceased as per Ex.P6 in the presence of panch witnesses. During the inquest held over the dead body, he recorded statement of Kum.Dhanush, Smt.Sarashwathi, Chandranna and Manjunath being CWs.3, 8, 11 and 12 respectively. He also drew seizure mahazar at Ex.P4 at around 8.15 p.m. to 9.15 p.m. and recovered blood and blood swab from the spot and sealed it in plastic boxes which was marked in P.F.No.76/2016 and sent the dead 9 body of deceased to the Government Hospital at Bangarpet for post mortem.

8. Further, on 08.07.2016 at 11.00 p.m. accused voluntarily surrendered to police with his auto Rickshaw bearing Regn.No.KA-01/AF-7318 and he produced two blood stained knives by saying that he committed murder of his father Narayanappa and also assaulted and caused injuries to Smt.Rathnamma and Kum.Charan with an intention to commit their murder. Accordingly, CW.23 being the investigating officer recorded voluntary statement at Ex.P23 of accused and subsequently, on 08.07.2016 at around 11.35 p.m. he recovered two knives like sword as per MOs.1 and 2 and also auto rickshaw as per M.O.7 and drew recovery mahazar as per Ex.P12 and subjected in PF No.77/2016. There was an injury on the left forearm part and there was blood stains on the right forearm and right foot of accused. CW.23 sent accused for medical examination on 09.07.2016. On 09.07.2016 CW.23 and panch witnesses had been to the shop at Kolar 10 Town at 8.30. a.m. where the accused had shown the said shop and told that on the previous day he had purchased two knives like sword from the said shop. Accordingly, CW.23 drew mahazar on 09.07.2016 at 8.30 a.m. to 9.00 a.m. as per Ex.P16. On 09.07.2016 CW.23 received blood stained cloths of deceased which were forwarded by the Medical Officer who conducted post-mortem. Subsequently, CW.24 namely Dinesh Patil took up the case for further investigation and on 20.07.2016 he recorded statements of CWs.2 to 6. Medical Officer who conducted examination of accused collected blood stain scarping which was on his body and handed over it to WPC No.30 who in turn produced it before CW.24 on 28.07.2016 and accordingly, CW.24 reported its recovery in PF No.86/2016. CW.24 being the investigating officer after completion of investigation laid the charge sheet against the accused before the committal Court. Subsequent to laying of charge sheet, as according to Section 209 of Cr.P.C. by compliance of Section 207 of 11 Cr.P.C., the case in C.C.No.793/2016 was committed to the Court of Sessions and thereafter the case in S.C.No.147/2016 came to be registered.

9. Subsequently, the accused was secured and he was in judicial custody and was facing trial. The trial Court having heard the case of prosecution and so also, defence in respect of framing of charge found prima-facie materials against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 324 of IPC, 1860. The charges were read over to the accused in the language known to him but he did not pleaded guilty but claimed to be tried. Accordingly, the plea of the accused was recorded separately.

10. Subsequent to framing of charge against the accused the prosecution let in evidence to prove the guilt of the accused. Accordingly, PWs.1 to 23 were examined and got marked Exs.P1 to P25 and M.Os.1 to 7. Subsequent to closure of the evidence on the part of the prosecution 12 whereby subjected to examination of the accused as contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. relating to evidence appeared against the accused, but the accused denied the truth of the evidence of the prosecution adduced so far. Accordingly, it was recorded. Subsequently, the accused was called upon to enter into defence evidence but he did not come forward to adduce any defence evidence. Subsequently, the trial Court heard the arguments advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor and so also, the counter arguments advanced by the learned defence counsel and had gone through the evidence of PW.1 – Smt.Rathnamma who is none other than the wife of deceased – Narayanappa and also the evidence of PW.17 namely Saraswathi who is none other than the daughter of deceased and Smt.Rathnamma and inclusive of evidence of other material witnesses whereby the accused assaulted deceased – Narayanappa by stabbing on the chest part and also cutting throat with means of knives due to which deceased died at the scene of 13 crime. PW.21 – Venkatachalapathy who is the investigating officer who conducted the inquest over the dead body of Narayanappa as per Ex.P6 noticed the stabbed injuries on the chest and cut injury in the throat of the deceased. Ex.P18 is the post mortem report issued by PW.20 – Dr.Anitha who is the medical officer who conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased and found the following injuries on the body of deceased: (1) cut throat injury extending from left ear lobe upto 3 cms to right ear about 3 cm length, (2) penetrating stab wound present elliptical shape present (3) penetrating stab wound 3 cm length x 1 cm width x 3 cm deep found 5 cm above and 3 cm lateral to left nipple (4) Wedge shaped penetrating wound found below the cut throat wound (5) in sized wound 6 cm length x 2 cm width x 2 cm depth (6) three injuries as mentioned in the picture 4 cm length 2 cm width and 2 cm depth present and (7) Blood clotted from the blood clots found around the heart. These are all the injuries noted in the post-mortem report at Ex.P18 which 14 indicates that death was due to haemorrhage and shock due to injury to major arteries in the neck and penetrating injury to the heart which is the vital organ. Accused – Muniraju who stabbed to the gluteus (buttock) of PW.1 with means of knife used for cutting vegetables and suddenly PW.1 became angry and grabbed said knife from the hands of deceased and then she assaulted to the deceased with said knife and caused injuries on his chest, throat and other parts of the body and caused his death. This is the contention taken by the defence counsel relating to infliction of injuries and so also taken the contention relating to the cross-examination of PW.1, PW.2, 17 and 21. PW.23 – Mrs.Radha is the FSL witness having been subjected to examination and issued report at Ex.P24 and with sheet of sample seal at Ex.P25 relating to M.O.1, 4 and 5 i.e., blood swab, one iron kathi and blood scarping. She was subjected to examination of those material objects but the blood stains on the above noted material object No.3 but it was not sufficient for serology 15 examination. Blood stain on above noted MO.2 was fully disintegrated. These are all the evidence appreciated by the trial Court inclusive of evidence of PWs.4 to 6 and they have been subjected to examination relating to the panchayath convened in the matter of dispute between accused and deceased relating to property. They are also cited as eye witnesses. Though PWs. 4 to 6 have turned hostile relating to the fact as to who committed murder of deceased, but it is their evidence in examination in chief that on 08.07.2016 in the morning they participated in the panchayath held in the place called Hudukula Gate and in the said panchayath deceased agreed to give 0.05 guntas of land to the share of accused person out of total extent 0.10 guntas of land. It is clearly proved by the prosecution that there was dispute of property between deceased and accused and due to this reason panchayath was convened on 08.07.2016 at 9.00 a.m. at Hudukula Gate. On the same day itself death of deceased was caused at about 4.00 p.m. to 5.00 p.m. Therefore, it cannot be said that 16 accused had no dispute with deceased. This evidence was also appreciated by the trial Court by referring to ratio of reliance in AIR2017SC5413(Karabhai vs. State of Gujarat) and similarly in the reliance of AIR2017All 1487 (Narain Mishra Vs. State of UP) whereby it is held that motive looses important when there is a direct evidence from the eye witnesses. Therefore, the trial Court held that the prosecution has proved its case that the dispute relating to property between deceased and accused was the motive for the accused to proceed to commit murder of his father – Narayanappa.

11. The trial Court had appreciated the evidence of PW.9 and 10 that by hearing screaming sound coming from the house of deceased, they rushed to the house of deceased and at that time accused person also came to the spot. This contention is made by the defence counsel. But PWs.4 and 5 have deposed on the part of the prosecution that there was panchayath held at Hudukula Gate relating 17 to property dispute of accused and deceased, but it is their further evidence that they do not know how deceased died and they do not know who assaulted deceased and caused injuries. But there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW.21 who is the investigating officer relating to seizure mahazar at Ex.P4 conducted in the presence of panch witnesses and there is no dispute about PW.1 had also sustained injuries due to stabbing with means of knife and there is no dispute about her grand son Dhanush sustaining some injuries. But the domain it is vested with the prosecution to prove the guilt against accused with beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused has committed murder of the deceased by causing stab injuries on the vital part of chest also cut injury on the throat with means of knife. This evidence has come on the part of the prosecution but PW.2 – Kum.Charan in the history of assault and found bleeding incised wound on left wrist measuring 1 x 0.5 cm and said wound was simple in nature and accordingly, the wound certificate was issued 18 at Ex.P14. In the wound certificate at Ex.P13 it is shown that there were two injuries on the left gluteus of PW.1 measuring 1 inch x 2.5 cm (L shaped) and another one measuring 1 inch x 2 cm and there was incised wound on the left forearm. As per the wound certificates at Exs.P13 and P14, injuries of PWs.1 and 2 are simple in nature. It is the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 that on 08.07.2016 at around 4.00 p.m. when accused stabbed on the chest of deceased with means knives, suddenly PW.1 screamed out and that time accused stabbed on her left buttock two times and caused injuries. Admittedly, injuries caused to PWs.1 and 2 are simple in nature and those were not caused to the vital part of their body. By considering these simple injuries caused to PWs.1 and 2 it cannot be said that accused attempted to commit murder of PWs.1 and 2 and intended to assault and commit murder of deceased by stabbing on the vital part of chest of deceased several times and cut his throat with knives. Therefore, the trial Court had appreciated the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 and 19 also evidence of PW.21 the investigating officer who thoroughly investigated the case. On the basis of these evidence, the trial Court had arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has proved the guilt against the accused with beyond all reasonable doubt and convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324 of IPC. It is this judgment which is challenged under this appeal by urging various grounds.

12. Learned counsel Sri N.S.Sampangiramaiah for appellant / accused has taken us through the evidence of PW.1 – Rathnamma and also evidence of PW.2 – Charan, PW.17 – Saraswathi who are the relatives of deceased – Narayanappa. PW.1 – Rathnamma is no other than the second wife of deceased. PW.2 – Charan is none other than the grand son of deceased – Narayanappa. But they are the relatives of deceased and so also, interested witnesses and unless there is any other independent witnesses, it cannot be arrival at a conclusion that the 20 accused had committed the murder of his father – Narayanappa and also inflicting the injuries over the person of PW.1 and PW.2. Therefore, in this appeal it requires for re-appreciation of the evidence and also revisiting the judgment of conviction rendered by the trial Court by referring to the evidence of PW.1 – Rathnamma, PW.2 – Charan and PW.17 – Saraswathi who are the interested witnesses to securing the conviction against the accused who is none other than the son of Smt.Jayamma who is the first wife of deceased – Narayanappa. PWs.3 to 16 are the independent witnesses and they have not supported the case of prosecution and their evidence is contrary to the evidence of PW.1 – Rathnamma, PW.2 – Charan and PW.17 – Saraswathi. But this vital evidence has not been appreciated by the trial Court in a proper perspective. Therefore, it requires to re-appreciation of the evidence, if not, certainly the accused would be the gravamen of accusation and also he would be sufferer and there shall be substantial miscarriage of justice. 21

13. Though the trial Court had analysed the evidence of PW.1, 2 and 17 inclusive of the evidence of PW.21 who is the investigating officer but failure to consider the medical evidence which is the clinching evidence relating to prove the guilt of the accused and also trial Court has failed to see that the death of deceased was not homicidal death.

14. The second limb of the argument advanced by the counsel for appellant is that the trial Court has failed to see that there is inordinate delay in filing the complaint and the delay has not been properly explained and also despatching to the Court having jurisdiction in a serious offence of 302, 307 and 324 of IPC is concerned that too be the murder of father committed by the son and also it is the house murder. But the trial Court has failed to see that the prosecution witnesses have exaggerated their version just to secure conviction against the appellant/accused. But this accused was staying in the house of Lakshmidevamma who is the sister of deceased 22 Narayanappa and on hearing the screaming sound coming out from the house of deceased that Lakshmidevamma and also accused rushed to the house and saw the dead body was lying in the pool of blood in his house. Merely because accused was present in the house of his paternal aunt and also insisting to give a share in the property of his father – Narayanappa and also panchayath had been constituted in the presence of elderly persons, but the voluntary statement has been given by the accused and also accused voluntarily surrendered before the police in auto rickshaw bearing regn.No.KA-01/AF7318and so also, produced blood stained knives, it cannot be the ground on the part of the prosecution to arrive at a conclusion by the trial Court by rendering the conviction judgment. These are all the contentions made by learned counsel for the appellant and seeking for intervention, if not, there shall be substantial miscarriage of justice. On all these premises seeking to set-aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the trial Court and consequently, 23 to acquit the accused for the offences under Sections 302 and 324 of IPC.

15. Per contra, learned HCGP for respondent – State namely Smt.Rashmi Jadhav has taken us through the evidence of PW.1 – Smt.Rathnamma who is no other than the wife of deceased – Narayanappa and she is also one of the injured and her grand son namely Charan was also injured whereby sustained injuries from the accused – Muniraju by assault with means of knives and the same has been indicated as per wound certificates at Exs.P13 and P14. The accused had stabbed the deceased – Narayanappa with means of knife by chosing the vital part of chest and also cutting throat of the deceased with means of knife and then only to commit murder of his father and also stabbed to the buttock part of PW.1 with means of knife and while she was screaming and hearing the screaming sound that one Chandranna and Manjunath rushed to the scene of crime i.e., the house of the 24 deceased. It is the evidence of PW.1 that in the morning hours on the date of incident panchath was constituted in the place at Hudukula Gate about 1 k.m. away. One Dairy Chandrappa and Manjappa who secured 108 ambulance and sent PW.1 and her grandson to the hospital for treatment. PW.2 who had been subjected to examination and also given an evidence stating that while himself, PW.3 and PW.1 and deceased – Narayanappa were present in the house at Pakarahalli village at that time accused came to the said place and picked up quarrel with deceased and then stabbed with knife on the chest of deceased and as such deceased fell down. Suddenly, PW.1 rushed to the said place and at that time accused stabbed with knife on the left buttock of PW.1. Accused cut the throat of deceased with knives. Further he has stated that accused stabbed on the chest of deceased, he pushed accused person to save deceased and at that time the knives which were in the hands of accused caused injuries to his left palm and upper lip and then accused went away in his 25 auto rickshaw. On hearing the screaming sound Smt.Lakshmidevamma, Subramani and other villagers rushed to the spot and those villagers secured one ambulance and send him and PW.1 to Government Hospital at Bangarpet for treatment. He has identified knives at M.Os.1 and 2 by saying that accused used those knives to stab to his grandfather and grandmother. He identified the blood stained cloths at MOs.3 to 5 of deceased. These are all the evidence which facilitated by the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused. There is no dispute that the death of deceased – Narayanappa in his house on the fateful day of 08.07.2016 at around 4 p.m. The counsel for the appellant has taken contention that accused was not present in the house of deceased – Narayanappa but he was present at Pakarahalli village in the house of Lakshmidevamma who is no other than the sister of deceased – Narayanappa who has examined as PW.3 but she did not support the case of prosecution. Mere because she has not supported the case of 26 prosecution it cannot be the ground to brush aside the evidence of PW.1 – Rathnamma who has supported the case of prosecution and so also, she had filed complaint as per Ex.P1 and based upon her complaint criminal law was set into motion. But PW.2 – Charan is none other than the grand son of deceased Narayanappa. PW.20 – Dr.Anitha Badan had issued wound certificates at Exs.P13 and P14. PW.20 – Dr.Anitha who conducted autopsy over the dead body and issued PM report as per Ex.P18. M.Os.1 and 2 are two knives said to have been identified by PW.2 and also identified the blood stained cloths of his grand father – Narayanappa which are marked at MOs.3 to 6. These are all the evidence that has been facilitated by the prosecution and whereby rendering the conviction judgment. There is no perversity or any absurdity for intervention of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the trial Court. Therefore, in this appeal it does not call for interference of the impugned judgment as there is no substance in the grounds urged in 27 the appeal. The murder is a house murder. Accused was intended to assault and commit murder of deceased and it was relating to property dispute in respect of share of the property which belonged to the deceased. The medical evidence also corroborates with the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 relating to the injuries on the body of the deceased – Narayanappa. These are all the vital evidence on the part of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. Therefore, learned HCGP contends that in this appeal there are no warranting circumstances to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction rendered by the trial Court and the appeal being devoid of merits, is required to be dismissed.

16. In the context of contentions taken by the learned counsel for the appellant and so also stoutly addressed by the learned HCGP for the State by referring to the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and so also the evidence of PW-17 inclusive of PW-21, the I.O. who conducted the inquest mahazar, 28 spot mahazar and also seized MO-1 and MO-2 knives said to have been used by the accused Muniraju who is none other than the son of the deceased Narayanappa.

17. Insofar as the concept of proved and also disproved and also not proved, it is relevant to refer to Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. Whereas, keeping in view the provision of Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, it is relevant to refer to the said provisions as well as refer to the evidence of PW-1 / Rathnamma, PW-2 / Charan and so also PW-17 / Saraswathi inclusive of PW-21 the I.O. But the concept of last seen theory requires corroboration. The accused Muniraju is none other than the son of the deceased Narayanappa. On hearing the screaming sound 29 from the house of Narayanappa on the fateful day, PW-3 / Lakshmidevamma and PW-6 / Manikanta had rushed to the scene of crime, that is the house of the deceased Narayanappa.. Lakshmidevamma is none other than the sister of the deceased Narayanappa and Manikanta is the son of Lakshmidevamma. It is stated that on the fateful day, a panchayath had been constituted wherein elderly persons had participated and had decided relating to the share to be allotted in respect of the property belonging to Muniraju’s father Shri Narayanappa. The panchayath was constituted at Pakarahalli village, Bangarpet Taluk on 8.7.2016 at around 9.00 a.m. The said panchayath was held at Hudukula gate wherein the accused Muniraju had demanded the deceased Narayanappa for partition and allotment of his share in the property. However, he was not happy with the offer made by the deceased to give him 0-05 guntas of land out of the total extent of 0-10 guntas of land, in the panchayath held at Hudukula Gate. Subsequent to the panchayath held, the deceased 30 Narayanappa returned to his house. But on the same day at around 4.00 p.m., the accused had gone to the house of the deceased Narayanappa and picked up a quarrel with him and thereafter stabbed him with MO-1 and MO-2 knives on the vital part of his chest and also cut the throat of the deceased. In view of the said assault made by the accused Muniraju, the deceased fell on the ground in his house and was lying in a pool of blood. When the wife of the deceased Smt. Rathnamma / PW-1 had come forward to rescue her husband from the hands of Muniraju, he had also stabbed her with means of knife on her gluteus, that is on her buttock part and also attempted to commit her murder. When one Charan / PW-2 who is the grandson of the deceased had come there during the course of the blow dealt by the accused, accused had assaulted PW-2 on the left hand part. Thus, accused had caused injuries to PW-1 and PW-2. 31

18. PW-20 is the Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body and issued PM report as per Exhibit P18. The injuries 1 to 6 indicated in the PM report have been referred during the course of arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and so also referred during the course of arguments advanced by the learned HCGP for the State. The nature of injuries are penetrating stab wound and cut throat injury. The said cut throat injury is extending from left ear lobe upto 3 cm to right ear about 23 cm length, left side deeper than right side. Left stemocleido mastoid muscle cut along with major arteries and nerves, centrally the trachea is cut through and through and hyoid bone exposed. Right side tissue depth is less than left side. Surrounding skin is blood stained upto upper chest and cervical vertibra are intact. Out of these injuries, Injury No.7 indicates as blood clotted from the blood clots found around the heart. PM report at Exhibit P18 was issued by the Doctor / PW-20 who opined that the death was due to haemmoragic shock due to 32 injury to major arteries in neck and penetrating injury to the heart, the vital organ. It is the evidence of the Medical Officer who was subjected to examination as PW-20 and also issued the PM report at Exhibit P18 indicating injuries reflected over the person of the deceased.

19. There are said to be minor contradictions in the evidence of the eye-witnesses. However, minor contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimony of injured eye-witness does not make him untrustworthy and unreliable witness, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MUKESH VS. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI (AIR2017SC2161.

20. As regards the scope of reliability of hostile witnesses, it is settled position of law that evidence of hostile witnesses can also be relied upon to the extent of which it supports the prosecution version. The evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as washed off the record. It remains admissible in the trial and there is no legal bar 33 to base his conviction upon his testimony, if corroborated by other reliable evidence. The said point was addressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of KOLI LAKHMANBHAI CHANABHAI vs. STATE OF GUJARAT (AIR2000SC210.

21. The entire evidence of a prosecution witness, who turns hostile and is cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor with the leave of the court, is not to be discarded altogether as a matter of law; The said proposition is held in the case of PANDAPPA HANUMAPPA NANAMAR V. STATE OF KARNATAKA, (1997) 3 SUPREME TODAY63 Cross-examination of a hostile witness does not completely efface his evidence. The evidence remains admissible in the trial and there is no legal bar to base a conviction upon his testimony if corroborated by other reliable evidence.

22. Insofar as the evidentiary value of the hostile witnesses, the statement of hostile witnesses can be 34 examined to the extent that it supports the case of the prosecution. It was rendered in a judgment by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MOHAN LAL & ANOTHER VS. STATE OF PUNJAB (AIR2013SC2408.

23. Further, it is relevant to refer to Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 relating to appreciation of evidence and so also the concept of quality of evidence as well as the plurality of the witnesses. It is not number of witnesses but quality of their evidence which is important, as there is no requirement in law of evidence that any particular number of witnesses are to be examined to prove / disprove a fact. It was also extensively addressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of LAXMIBAI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS V. BHAGWANTBURA (DEAD), THROUGH LRS (AIR2013SC1204.

24. Whereas in the instant case, the prosecution has facilitated worthwhile evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-17 and PW-21 and they are material witnesses relating to proving 35 the guilt of the accused relating to the death of the deceased Narayanappa who is none other than the father of the accused Muniraju. There is no dispute about the homicidal death where the dead body of Narayanappa was found lying in a pool of blood in his house and also about he being inflicted with injuries over his person on the vital part of his chest and also cut injuries on his neck. The same is indicated in the PM report at Exhibit P18 issued by PW-20 Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body. Even as regards PW-1 / Ratnamma and PW-2 / Charan, who are the injured, the Doctor who had subjected them to examination had issued Wound Certificates at Exhibit P13 and P14. At a cursory glance of the evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-17 and PW-21, it is seen that the prosecution has facilitated the evidence even relating to the death of Narayanappa which is a homicidal one by sustaining injuries on his vital part of the chest and also cut injuries on other parts of his body and also as regards sustaining injuries over the person of PW-1 36 Rathnamma and also Charan PW-2. Narayanappa’s death took place due to shock and hemorrhage due to injuries inflicted on the major arteries in the neck and chest, namely vital organs. Accused namely Muniraju is none other than the son of deceased Narayanappa. On the fateful day, a panchayath had been constituted wherein elderly persons had participated and had decided relating to the share of the property belonging to his father Shri Narayanappa. The accused had demanded the deceased Narayanappa for partition and allotment of share in the property but was not happy with the offer made by the deceased to give him 0 to 0.5 guntas in the panchayath held at Hudukula Gate. Subsequent to the panchayath held, the deceased Narayanappa went to his house. It is said that Narayanappa was addicted to bad vices and had an extra-marital affair with the sister of PW-1 Rathnamma. These are the contentions taken by the counsel for the appellant herein. But PW-1 Rathnamma was of an immoral character, due to this the death of the natural 37 mother of accused namely Smt. Jayamma took place. This was within the knowledge of the deceased Narayanappa.

25. It is contended on behalf of the appellant / accused that Narayanappa who is the father of the accused Muniraju, had returned to his house by consuming alcohol. But after some time there was a quarrel between Narayanappa and his wife PW-1 Rathnamma. At that time, the deceased is alleged to have assaulted PW-1 by means of knife on the buttock of PW-1 and suddenly, PW-1 had grabbed the knife from the hands of the deceased and stabbed him on his chest and other parts of the body and then had cut his throat with the same knife. It is the further contention that accused was not at all in the house when the said incident took place. Further, that accused Muniraju was in the house of one Lakshmidevamma who is none other than the sister of the deceased Narayanappa whereby she was examined as PW- 3. On hearing the screaming coming from the house of the 38 deceased Narayanappa, PW-3 Lakshmidevamma and her son PW-6 / Manikanta had rushed to the scene of crime and saw the dead body of Narayanappa lying in a pool of blood whereby the accused was also present at the scene of crime. But on that day, he was very much present at Pakarahalli village and also he was very much present and participated in the panchayath constituted at Hudukula Gate, Bangarpet Taluk with regard to the dispute of the property of the accused Muniraju and also deceased Narayanappa.

26. But on the fateful day at around 4 to 5 p.m., the accused Muniraju had gone to the house of Narayanappa and stabbed Narayanappa with means of MO-1 and MO-2 by choosing the vital part of his chest and also choosing the vital part of his neck by cutting the throat. As a result, the deceased fell on the floor and in the meanwhile, PW-1 Rathnamma who was the step-mother of Muniraju had come to rescue Narayanappa whereby this accused 39 assaulted her as well with means of a knife and also caused injuries to PW-2 Charan who had come forward to rescue his grandfather Narayanappa from the hands of the accused. The same indicates in the evidence on the part of the prosecution and also in the complaint given at Exhibit P1 by PW-1 Rathnamma.

27. PW-1 Rathnamma had admitted in her evidence in the form of suggestion that one Sarojamma who is her sister had an illicit relationship with deceased Narayanappa. The said Sarojamma was living with them for about 15 years. But she had denied the suggestion made that she used to quarrel with deceased Narayanappa due to his illicit relationship with her sister by name Sarojamma. Further Smt. Venkatarathna was the sister of Muniraju and both of them were born to Smt. Jayamma who is the first wife of the deceased but after her death, the accused had married PW-1 / Rathnamma who is his second wife. But PW-1 has been subjected to examination 40 thoroughly and also was subjected to cross-examination on the part of the defence.

28. Even at a cursory glance of the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 injured in respect of Injury Certificates Exhibits P13 and P14 and even at a cursory glance of the evidence of PW-20 Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body and issued PM report at Exhibit P18, even though the evidence of PW-21 being an I.O. who conducted mahazar inclusive of laying a charge-sheet against the accused by drawing the seizure mahazar and also spot mahazar and also secured the FSL report as per Exhibit P24 whereby subjected to examination material objects which were secured such as blood swab, blood, blood stained iron kathi and another iron kathi and blood scarping with blade which were sent for chemical analysis. Accordingly they were subjected to examination by RFSL Centre and FSL report is at Exhibit P24. But MO-1 and MO-2 knives used by accused to commit the murder of his father 41 Narayanappa by infliction of injuries on the vital part of his chest and also cut of the throat, is indicated specifically in Injury No.1 at Exhibit P18 of the PM report. But PW-1 Rathnamma is said to have screamed out. At that time, accused stabbed on her left side gluteus that is buttock and assaulted twice and caused injuries on her. PW-2 Charan who had come in the way of rescuing his grandfather whereby assaulted PW-2 with means of knife and inflicted injuries which is indicated at Exhibit P14. The Trial Court had arrived at a conviction relating to the charges levelled against the accused under Sections 302 and so also Section 324 of the IPC, 1860. But rendered acquittal insofar as the offence under Section 307 IPC by assigning reasons and answered in the negative in respect of Point No.4 formulated But Point No.5 formulated was answered in the affirmative by assigning reasons.

29. In the instant case, keeping in view the provision of Section 304 Part I and Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 42 1860 insofar as Part I of the said provision, whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment which may extend to 10 years and shall also be liable to pay fine if the act by which death is caused is done with intention of causing death or causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, thereby meaning Section 304 Part I of IPC, death is caused due to the intention of causing death.

30. In the instant case, accused Muniraju is none other than the son of the deceased Narayanappa who committed the murder of his father by assaulting him with means of MO-1 and MO-2 on the vital part of his chest and also on the vital part of the neck by cutting the throat and causing the injuries indicated at Exhibit P18 of the PM report. The same can be seen in the evidence of PW-20 Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body. As per Section 304 Part II the act must be done with the 43 knowledge that it is likely to cause death but without any intention to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. But in the instant case, death of Narayanappa was in his house and his body was lying in a pool of blood by sustaining with injuries on the vital part of his chest and throat with means of MO-1 and MO-2 knife. The accused had inflicted fatal injury on the vital part of deceased Narayanappa which caused his death. In his house, his body was found lying in a pool of blood. Therefore, it cannot come under the purview of either Section 304 Part I or even under Part II of the said provision. Of course, there are witnesses who are not supporting the case of the prosecution, but it cannot be a ground for seeking lenience to the murder, especially for the murder committed by the son of his own father due to the dissatisfaction in the allotment of share in the property. But on the fateful day, the accused had entered into the house of Narayanappa and committed the murder by inflicting injuries on the vital parts which were likely to 44 cause death. That means to say, the accused Muniraju had an intention to eliminate his father Narayanappa. The reason is that he did not allot the entire share relating to the landed property to the extent of 10 guntas of land. Therefore, the evidence on the part of the prosecution reveals that accused had killed his father not being satisfied with the allotment of share in the property. Therefore, a prudent man can infer that the accused Muniraju who is none other than the son of the deceased had committed the murder by entering into his house by holding deadly weapons of MO-1 and MO-2 knives. Therefore, it is said that the essential ingredients of Sections 302 and 324 of the IPC, 1860 has been established by the prosecution by facilitating the evidence of PW-1 / Rathnamma who is the injured as well as the wife of deceased Narayanappa and so also the evidence of PW-2 / Charan who is the grandson of Narayanappa, who had also sustained with injuries from the hands of the accused. Same can be seen in their evidence itself and 45 from the injuries inflicted as per Exhibits P13 and P14. The prosecution has facilitated cogent, consistent, corroborative and positive evidence to probabilise that the accused had committed the murder of the deceased Narayanappa who is none other than the father of this accused Muniraju. He committed the murder in his house and the dead body of Narayanappa was found lying in a pool of blood. The involvement of the deceased Narayanappa in other activities such as illicit relationship with the sister of Rathnamma, cannot be a ground for interference of the judgment of conviction or order of sentence rendered by the Trial Court.

31. In the instant case, even on re-appreciation of the evidence and also re-visiting the impugned judgment of conviction, we do not find any perversity or absurdity relating to appreciation of evidence by the Trial Court. Consequently, the appeal deserves to be rejected for the 46 aforesaid reasons. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The appeal preferred by the appellant / accused under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected. Consequently, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the Trial Court in S.C.No.147/2016 dated 13.04.2018 is hereby confirmed. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE DKB/KS