MALLAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA.

Advertisements

Spread the love

Post Views: 27

CITATION	CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1993 OF 2010
DATE OF JUDGEMENT	MAY 07, 2021
COURT	THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
APPELLANT	MALLAPPA
RESPONDENT	STATE OF KARNATAKA
BENCH	JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JUSTCE SURYA KANT AND JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA

INTRODUCTION

The present criminal case pertains that the appellant, Mallappa was accused and his son Veeresh was the co accused in committing fratricide, murder of his brother Earappa which is punishable under section 302 of IPC. This case focuses on the Supreme Court’s judgement on the challenge to the order of conviction passed by the High Court, reversing the order of acquittal passed by the Trail Court. The deceased, Earappa was sleeping in the front yard of his house along with his wife and children. He was attacked at midnight on 19^th April, 1999. This case majorly relies on circumstantial evidence that is the eyewitness and testimonies given by the people who saw the accused running away.

Circumstantial Evidence is indirect evidence which is not drawn from observation of a fact or issue. The eyewitness and testimonies of the appellant running away are circumstantial evidence.

FACTS:

On April 19, 1999, in midnight the appellant committed fratricide, murdered his brother Earappa, along with his son Veeresh the co accused. There was a prior conflict between the appellant and the deceased victim over some immovable property and canal water which can be considered as a reason to murder.
According to the testimony of prosecution’s witness, the deceased was sleeping in the front yard of his house in village of Sidrampur, Taluka Sidhanur of Karnataka (known as the place of occurrence, PO), at a little distance away from his wife Bassamma (P.W.5) and with his two daughters. Upon hearing the screams of the deceased’s wife and daughter, Shivarayappa (P.W.3), another brother of the deceased woke up to the sound and saw the two accused fleeing the scene.
When Shivarayappa saw the deceased, he immediately rushed to his sister’s husband, whose name is also Earappa. From there they went to fetch a local doctor, Mallikarjuna, to the PO and later on the deceased was declared dead. Around 4 am, on 20^th April, 1999 an FIR complaint was filed at the Sindhanur police station.
According to autopsy surgeon Dr. Veketesh Y, Earappa’s death was caused by intracranial haemorrhage and shock. He discovered an external damage on the right occipital protuberance 3 12′′, which was lacerated. According to his examination chief, he believed that such injuries can be caused by iron rod or lathi. Later on during cross examination he stated that this injury can happen if a person fell downwards on a hard surface.
The case was primarily built up on the evidence, the eyewitnesses and the deposition, Shivarayappa and Bhogaappa who gave their witness as post occurrence witness. They testify that they saw the appellant fleeing the place where they saw him in front of Jeeral Devendrappa’s house. Bassamma testified that she saw the appellant beating her husband’s head with a club. However in her cross examination she gave a different statement that she saw the appellant near Devendrappa’s house.
There were recovery of weapons from the appellant’s house, in the mahazar this was mirrored that police seized a small piece of wooden club from the site of the occurrence, together with barkha, pillow, jamkhana, blood stained mud and sample mud. In the house of appellant the police seized the club consisting of bloodstains which was near the oven in the kitchen.
When the case went to trial court, the trial court was not convinced about the prosecution’s story of assault and murder of the victim Earappa. Hence the trial court passed the order of acquittal of the appellant. Aggrieved by the decision, the state appealed before the High Court.
It is irrelevant and of no consequence whether the houses of PW3 and PW6 can see the residence of Jeeral Devendrappa. The aforementioned information cannot be taken to mean that PW5’s house cannot see Jeeral Devendrappa’s house. Consequently, there’s no reason to discount PW5’s testimony that she witnessed the accused individuals leaving the vicinity of Jeeral Devendrappa’s residence.
Aggrieved by the decision given by the high court, the appellant Mallappa appealed before the Supreme Court of India.

ISSUE:

Whether the High Court erred in overturning the Trial Court’s ruling of acquittal and finding the accused parties guilty in accordance with Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code?

CONTENTIONS RAISED BY APPELLANT:

Learned Counsel for the appellant contented that the trial court gave the correct decision of acquittal and the High Court erred in its decision to reverse the trial court’s ruling and issue an order of conviction.
Learned Counsel for the appellant contented that the eyewitness P.W.5 and testimony given by P.W.3 are inconsistent. The court cannot depend on the eyewitness P.W.5 as she gave a different statement during cross examination.
As stated by the appellant that he was told by the police P.S.I. to sign the panchanamas, he was not aware of what was written in it.
Moreover the Club found at the appellant was not handed over to the autopsy surgeon Dr. Venketesh for forensics, so there is no clear evidence of the appellant being the murderer.

CONTENTIONS RAISED BY RESPONDENT:

Learned Counsel for the respondent contented that The High Court’s decision to uphold the conviction and overturn the trial court’s order of acquittal was correct.
Learned Counsel for the respondent has established a motive, in, crime intentions plays an important role. Hence the appellant is credible to commit the murder under section 302 of IPC.
Learned Counsel for the respondent contented that there is a clear eyewitness (the wife of the deceased P.W.5) of seeing the appellant killing the deceased with a club and testimonies of post occurrence of the event given by brother Shivarayappa P.W.3 and Bhogappa P.W.6 that the appellant and the co accused was seen fleeing the place of occurrence and were spotted near Devendrappa’s house.
The fact can’t be denied that the murder of weapon was found at the appellant’s house, which is the club consisting of blood stains along with blood stained mud.

JUDGEMENT:

In this case the hon’ble Supreme Court held that considering the findings by the courts, Trial Court and High court, the court upheld the decision given by the trial court of acquittal and dismissed the decision given by the High Court of conviction. The court stated that the case heavily relied on the prosecution’s witness of eyewitness testimony. Later on during cross examination the eyewitness P.W.5 gave a different statement.

The testimony given by the P.W.3 and P.W.6 that they saw appellant and his son running away and spotted near Devendrappa’s house is unreliable. The Trial Court found that from Earappa’s house, Devendrappa’s house is not visible. Hence the trial Court found the testimonies to be exaggeration and unreliable. Apart from that the club which was found at the appellant’s house was not produced before the autopsy surgeon or any other expert to match the form of the murder weapon club.

In this regard the High Court stated that Evidence of whether the location is visible from the locations where PW Nos. 3 and 6 were at the relevant time can be dismissed as it is insignificant and unimportant.

The Supreme Court held that the co accused was seen running away which can’t be interpreted to attribute sharing of common intention of murder. Moreover the evidence of spotting both the appellant and the co accused running away is a thin evidence to convict them under section 302 of IPC.

ANALYSIS:

In this case the hon’ble Supreme Court held the decision of the trial court of acquittal of the appellant and dismissed the decision given by the High Court of conviction. The Supreme Court found that Bassamma’s testimony was inconsistent and unreliable because she gave different statements during her cross examination that she was the appellant running away and not saw that the appellant was killing the deceased. The prosecution’s story, which aimed to establish the commission of the offence by circumstantial evidence of discovering the weapon of assault, fails in the absence of convincing evidence that the club, which is a common implement found at random in rural households across this country, was used to assault the deceased, there was no cogent evidence to prove the appellant’s guilt. The Court held that the prosecution’s case was based on circumstantial evidence and lacked direct proof of appellant’s involvement in crime. The Supreme Court held that whether the house of Devendrappa is visible from that of Earappa’s house is significant, and even if the house was visible, the court can’t order conviction under section 302 of IPC, which is based only on the testimony that the appellant and co accused was spotted running away and no direct proof was established.

The case highlights the importance of careful evaluation of eyewitness testimony, particularly in cases where the testimony is the sole basis for conviction

CONCLUSION:

In this case there were certain loopholes in the evidence presented before the case. The questions lie as to why the club was not presented before the autopsy surgeon, the different statement given by the wife during cross examination and the visibility of Devendrappa’s house from the deceased’s house. The prosecution’s case was undermined since they only used circumstantial evidence. The judgement emphasises the need for comprehensive analysis of circumstantial evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

REFERENCE:

Written by

Name: Purva Kamlesh Todankar

College: VES College of Law

Course: B.A. LLB

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.