01Facts
The prosecution alleged that, following prior disputes, accused Nos. 1 and 2 assaulted the deceased at Pichanakere Village on 5 November 2018: accused No. 1 with an iron chopper and accused No. 2 with a club. The deceased died from his injuries.
¶ 3–5 · pp. 3–6The Sessions Court convicted accused Nos. 1 and 2 of murder under Section 302 IPC; accused No. 3 was acquitted, and that acquittal was not challenged.
¶ 3–5 · pp. 3–6On appeal, the appellants argued, among other things, that the deceased was the aggressor and that the evidence was unreliable.
¶ 6 · pp. 6–702Issues
i.Whether the appellants had established grounds to interfere with their convictions and sentences under Section 302 IPC.
¶ 8 · p. 8ii.Whether the evidence established that the appellants committed the assault, and whether the defence claim that the deceased was the aggressor justified the assault as an exercise of private defence.
¶ 26–29 · pp. 22–2403Law Applied
The Court considered the offence of murder under Section 302 IPC and assessed whether the prosecution proved the appellants’ guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
¶ 30–32 · pp. 24–27Credible direct eyewitness testimony may establish guilt; minor discrepancies that do not affect the prosecution case’s substance do not, by themselves, make that testimony unreliable; and medical evidence may corroborate ocular evidence.
¶ 19, 21–23 · pp. 17–21Private defence is defensive in nature and lasts only while a reasonable apprehension of danger continues.
¶ 28–29 · pp. 23–24Provisions in the judgment · 5 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 374Section 313
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 415
Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 302Section 34
04Reasoning
The Court treated PW.1 as a non-eyewitness and assessed the occurrence principally on the evidence of PWs. 2, 3 and 20, finding their accounts of the appellants’ participation consistent on material particulars and not undermined by cross-examination.
¶ 17–19 · pp. 16–18It found their testimony corroborated by the post-mortem evidence of multiple grievous injuries and the medical opinion on cause of death.
¶ 22–23 · pp. 19–21The Court rejected the aggressor theory as unsupported by the eyewitness evidence; it further held that, even if the deceased had initially been armed, the alleged weapon had fallen and no continuing threat was shown, so the subsequent assault was not justified by private defence.
¶ 26–29 · pp. 22–24Considering the weapons used, the injuries to vital parts, and the medical evidence, it concluded that the prosecution had proved the appellants’ guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
¶ 30–33 · pp. 24–2805Holding
The Court answered the appeal’s point for consideration in the negative, found no illegality, perversity or material infirmity in the Sessions Court’s decision, and dismissed the criminal appeal.
¶ 32–33 · pp. 26–28 · Order · p. 28The convictions and sentences were left undisturbed.
¶ 32–33 · pp. 26–28 · Order · p. 28Original Court PDF
MR CHIKKEGOWDAvsSTATE OF KARNATAKA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
