G.H. Manjunatha vs The State of Karnataka

N. Ananda, J.—The appellant (hereinafter referred as "accused") was tried and convicted for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 506 IPC. Therefore, he is before this Court.

We have heard Sri. Dineshkumar K. Rao, learned counsel for accused (appointed by High Court Legal Services Committee) and Sri. Vijayakumar Majage, learned Government Pleader for the State.

The accused namely G.H. Manjunatha and deceased namely Shankarappa, as also P.W.1 to P.W.5 are natives of Ganjigere Village, Nuggehalli Hobli, Chennarayapattana Taluk. The accused was having certain extent of coconut garden in a land bearing Sy. No. 49/2A. The deceased was having certain extent of coconut garden in a land bearing Sy. No. 49/2A. The accused alleged that deceased had encroached a part of coconut garden belonging to accused. The accused had also filed criminal complaint without any success. On 01.11.2008 at 11.30 a.m., when deceased was working in his coconut garden, accused came to the place, he was armed with a knife and he had also possessed Chilli Powder. When deceased refused to leave that place, accused threw Chilli Powder and repeatedly stabbed with a knife causing death of deceased on the spot. When P.W.1-Devaraja G.S. tried to interfere, he chased P.W.1. After arrival of other witnesses, accused left that place. The first information of incident was lodged by P.W.1-Devaraja G.S.

The homicidal death of Shankarappa in his coconut garden at 11.30 a.m. on 01.11.2008 has not been seriously disputed. From medical evidence of P.W.12-Dr. Manjunath B and contents of post mortem examination report marked as Ex. P8, we find that deceased-Shankarappa had suffered injuries on the left side of chest between 6th and 7th rib. This was the fatal injury. The deceased had also suffered following injuries:--

"1. A linear scratch injury from the stab injury, running upwards and laterally towards the left nipple measuring about 4 inches.

Incised wound over the left ear lobe measuring 3 inches extending from helix to condra of the left ear.

Abrasion wound over the right side of the fore head measuring about 1 inch x 1/2 inch.

Small abrasion over the left rod of the nose (Nexion), just below the fore head measuring about 1/4 inch.

Chilli powder smell over the eyes and face, sclera and conjuctive are plae and congested."

Thus, we find that prosecution has proved that death of deceased-Shankarappa was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of stab injury.

The prosecution has relied upon the eye witness account of P.W.1 to P.W.4. P.W.1-Devaraja G.S. has deposed that at the time of incident, he was working in coconut garden of deceased, he heard hue and cry raised by deceased and came near the place. The accused threw Chilli Powder to the eyes of deceased and repeatedly stabbed with a knife. When P.W. 1 tried to interfere, he was chased by accused. During cross-examination, he has reiterated the incident of assault on deceased by accused. The accused had also chased P.W.1. P.W.1 had lodged first information after incident at 3.00 p.m. on the date of incident (01.11.2008). We have no reasons to suspect evidence of P.W.1-Devaraja G.S.

P.W.2-Somashekara @ Sathish, P.W.3-Krishna and P.W.4-G.B. Jayanna, who were working in adjoining lands had also reached place of incident after hearing hue and cry raised by deceased. They have given consistent version of incident of assault. They have deposed that accused threw Chilli Powder into the eyes of deceased and repeatedly stabbed him and when P.W.1-Devaraja G.S. intervened, accused chased him. After arrival of these witnesses accused left that place.

As per evidence of Investigating Officer, the accused gave voluntary statement which led to recovery of a knife and Chilli Powder and also blood stained clothes from his house. P.W.5-Doddaiah Shetty and P.W.9-S.S. Harisha were present when aforestated incriminating articles were recovered by Investigating Officer from the house of accused on the information volunteered by accused. The Forensic Science Laboratory report marked as Ex. P19 would reveal that clothes of deceased, clothes of accused and weapon of offence (knife) were stained with human blood of ''O'' Group. Thus, the scientific evidence would also lend corroboration to eye witness account of P.W. 1 to P.W.4.

The learned counsel for accused would submit that there was bonafide civil dispute between accused and deceased. The deceased was encroached a part of land bearing Sy. No. 49/2A belonging to accused and accused had lodged complaint before jurisdictional Police Station much before the date of incident. The learned counsel would also submit that accused had also suffered abrasion in the incident of assault. From the evidence of P.W. 1 to P.W.4, it is established that P.W. 1 to P.W.4 and deceased were on one side and accused alone was on other side. P.W.1 to P.W.4 and deceased were aggressors. Even, if it is held that prosecution has proved that accused had stabbed deceased, offence committed by accused is not punishable under Section 302 IPC.

The accused after his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has filed written statement of defence along with two documents (Mutation entry and RTC Extract). In these documents, it is not shown that accused was the owner in possession of land bearing Sy. No. 49/2A of Ganjigere village, Nuggehalli Hobli, Channarayapattana Taluk. At this juncture, it is relevant to recall the incident of assault on deceased by accused took place in the land bearing Sy. No. 49/2A. The Investigating Officer has produced RTC Extract (Ex. P18) to show that mother of deceased-Ningavva was the owner in possession of land bearing Sy. No. 49. The RTC extract produced by accused along with statement of defence does not relate to land bearing Sy. No. 49/2A. Even if accused had any grievance against deceased, he should have taken recourse of law. From the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4, it is not possible to hold that P.W.1 to P.W.4 and deceased had ganged up to attack accused. The superficial abrasion found on the accused cannot be held as an injury suffered by him at the hands of deceased. It is not the case of deceased that there was mutual fight between accused and deceased. It is not a case of accused exercising right of private defence. It is not a case where accused assaulting deceased in a sudden quarrel in the heat of fashion and in a sudden fight. Therefore, acts committed by accused would squarely attract an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.

The learned Sessions Judge on proper appreciation of evidence has convicted accused. There are no reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction. The appeal is dismissed.