VITHAL VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA 

CITATION	2024 INSC 79
DATE OF JUDGEMENT	30th January 2024
COURT	Supreme Court of India
APPELLANT	Vithal
RESPONDENT	The State of Karnataka
BENCH	Justice Vikram Nath & Justice Rajesh Bindal.

INTRODUCTION:

The case of Vithal vs. The State of Karnataka raises a substantial question of travesty of justice where the total four accused individuals filed appeals against the conviction verdict by the trial court in the Hon’ble High Court, where three out of the four accused were acquitted by the Hon’ble High Court for the offence mentioned in the IPC and instead they were convicted under the ambit of a slightly different sub-section of offence in IPC which was not as grave in nature, than the one left out accused who was charged with a more critical provision . This also changed the modus operandi of the conviction of the four accused. The major issue in this case is to decide whether if each accused should be given the same sentence under same provision or the shall the Hon’ble Supreme Court uphold the judgement given by the Hon’ble High Court or strike it down and uphold the judgement of the trial court where all the accused were convicted with the same sentence under the same provision.This case primarily focuses on the aspect of common intentions among the accused during the crime per se and the ambit of provisions under which they should be rightfully convicted. The bench constituted for this case under the direction of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Rajesh Bindal stands to be an impressive bench with the effective ability to deliver speedy and fair judgements which can be seen from their past judgements records. 

FACTS OF THE CASE:

1. A group of four individuals committed the heinous offence of murder, wherein as per submission of prosecution, the deceased was held by the accused no.s 4,3,2 whereas the deceased was assaulted by the Appellant wherein he struck a sickle to the neck and head of the deceased which proved to be fatal in nature.
2. The four accused relevant to this case, were chargesheeted upon for their collective felony as per various sections of IPC i.e section 506, 341 and 302 followed by section 34 of the IPC vide Judgement, were the sentences were awarded by the trial court.
3. Following the conviction, two appeals were filed with the intention to challenge the trial court judgement before the Hon’ble High Court where accused no.s 1 and 3 collaborated for one appeal and accused no.s 2 and 4 collaborated for the other
4.  Both the appeals were decided by the Hon’ble High Court with a common judgement on the same day,wherein accused no.s 3,2,4 were absolved from being held liable under the provision of section 302 which exists in the IPC and instead held them guilty under section 304 part II of the IPC further issuing a rigorous imprisonment sentence for 10 years along with a fine of Five Thousand Rupees/-  while convicting the accused no.1 under the same sentence set as per the trial court without any further changes.
5. In the context of the present case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Appellant stands to be accused no.1. of the Trial court.

  ISSUES RAISED:

1. Whether the appellant will be considered under the ambit of the same punishment given to the other accused persons in the case?
2. Whether other accused persons shall be held liable under the same provisions which the appellant is held liable currently under upholding the verdict of the trial court?
3. Whether the Hon’ble High Court’s decision with respect to the Appellant and other accused persons  was arbitrary in nature? 

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT:

1. As per the contentions of the learned senior counsel, under the same identical provision each accused individual should have been awarded the same sentence if the ambit of section IPC was considered.
2. Since accused no.s 1,2 and 3 were held guilty under the ambit of section  304 part-II of IPC and were awarded a fine of Rs.5000/- with 10 years of rigorous imprisonment for each then the accused No.1 shall be awarded the same punishment or it will amount further to travesty of justice.
3. As per the learned senior counsel, either all the four accused individuals with the ambit of section 34 IPC were liable to be held guilty and sentenced under the ambit of section 302 or under section 304 part-II IPC.

CONTENTIONS BY RESPONDENT(PROSECUTION):

1. As per the contentions of the prosecution,the deceased was held by accused no.s 2,3,4 while the appellant(accused no.1) assaulted the decease on his head and neck whose injuries proved to be fatal.

 JUDGEMENT:

1. Although there were other arguments advanced by Mr. S. Nagamuthu, the senior learned counsel,with respect to innocence of the appellant and self defence,the court wasn’t inclined to such arguments and further rejected the same.
2. The only argument which appealed the Hon’ble Supreme Court was the one with the ambit of section 34 of the IPC.
3. Considering the hearing’s limited question which was to be considered, the court expedited the hearing.
4. The next hearing was listed on 13.03.2024.

 ANALYSIS:

In the following case, intellectual arguments were raised by the senior learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant,the question of violation of principles of natural justice arises evidently as per contentions of the senior learned counsel wherein the violation of it’s third rule seems to be a major probe i.e “reasoned decision” where it was unfair for the appellant to get the same sentence as he was awarded from the trial court however the other accused persons were freed from the shackles of the grave disciplinary provision of section 302 of IPC and sentenced to a comparatively lesser significant provision i.e under section 304 of IPC by the Hon’ble High Court.The contentions by the prosecution also stand as a concrete argument as to why the other accused shouldn’t be awarded the same sentence and punishment ,wherein the other accused just held the deceased whereas the Appellant was the only one who used the sickle to strike the decease which further caused him fatal injuries.

CONCLUSION:

The case of Vithal vs. The State of Karnataka is an appalling tragedy where it is yet to be determined whether the other accused persons should be tried under the ambit of section 302 IPC where the appellant condemns this decision to be an act of travesty of justice or the Hon’ble High Court’s decision to instead apply section 304 IPC for the other accused persons i.e Accused No 2,3 and 4 be upheld. Either way a formidable challenge arises in front of the bench, whose decision will affect not only 4 lives of the accused but also lives of the people around them, further no matter what judgement will be given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the coming days, this case will definitely be referred by the lower courts while giving it’s decisions with respect to cases involved in to the ambit of the provisions referred in this case. Further a broad spectrum might be interpreted with a better understanding in context of these provisions by the Hon’ble High Courts and lower courts in the coming times.

REFERENCES:

1. https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2023/38148/38148_2023_8_1503_49942_Judgement_30-Jan-2024.pdf  
2. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/105954112/ 

This Article is written by Krishav Dwivedi, student of Vivekanand Education Society’s College of Law; Intern at Legal Vidhiya.

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.