UGGAPPA SHETTY Vs. STATE OF MYSORE
LAWS(KAR)-1966-1-8
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Decided on January 07,1966

UGGAPPA SHETTY Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MYSORE Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

RAMACHENDRUDU V. JANAKIRAMANA [REFERRED TO]
SAVLIMIYA BHAI V. EMPEROR [DISTINGUISHED]
NISA STREE VS. STATE OF ORISSA [REFERRED TO]
VADIVELU THEVAR CHINNIAH SERVAI VS. STATE OF MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
KHUSHAL RAO VS. STATE OF BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
HARICHARAN KURMI JOGIA HAJAM VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR VS. INDLA CHINA LINGIAH [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

AHMED ALI KHAN, J. - (1.)The appellants and another Mansa Mera (accused 1 to 3) were prosecuted before the Sessions Judge, South Kanara, for the murder of Krishna Rai, his wife Laxmi, and their son Gangadhara, for voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery, abetment in the commission of the offences of robbery and murder, and for dishonestly receiving stolen property. These offences were committed on the night between 4 and 5 November, 1963, in the village of Nelliyadi, Puttur Taluk, South Kanara. Charges 1, 2 and 3 spoke of the murder of Krishna Rai, Laxmi and Gangadhara respectively by accused 1 and 2 in furtherence of the common intention, punishable under S.302 read with S.34 of the Penal Code. Charge No.4 was against Accused Nos.1 & 2 for voluntarily causing hurt In committing robbery, punishable under S.394. Charge No.5 spoke of abetment in voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery by accused 1 and 2(appellants) under S.394 read with S.109. The sixth charge related to the offence under S.302 read with S.109, IPC., and it was for the abetment of the murders of Krishna Rai, Laxmi and Gangadharan by accused 1 aad 2. The seventh charge was for the offence under S.411, IPC., for dishonestly receiving stolen property knowing them to be stolen. The fifth, sixth and seventh charges were against accused No.3. The Sessions Judge convicted accused 1 and 2 for the murder of Krishna Rai, Laxmi and Gangadhar and sentenced each of them to death under S.302 read with S.34 of the Penal Code, subject to confirmation by this Court. They were also convicted for the offence of voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery, under charge No.4, and were each sentenced to five years R.I. On the remaining charges, namely, charges 5, 6 and 7 which were against accused 3 the Sessions Judge recorded acquittal under all those charges.
(2.)The facts of this case are within a short compass. One Krishna Rai was a resident of Nelliyadi Village in Puttur Taluk. He was living in a locality called Nadugudde in the said village, with his wife Laxmi and their three children, Gangadhara who was aged seven was their eldest son the second son was aged three years and their last child was six months old. It was said that Krishna Rai was in affluent circumstances. Accused 1 and 2 were also residents of the same locality. Accused No.1 was running a coffee hotel situated about one and half furlongs from the house of Krishna Rai. It was said that accused 1 and Krishna Rai were friends and that their friendship had developed into an intimacy. Whenever Krishna Rai had to be away from his house, he used to ask accused No.1 to sleep in his house till his return, obviously to look after his family. Accused No.1, although he was running a hotel, was not above want. It was said that he often used to borrow small loans from Krishna Rai. It is in the evidence that Krishna Rai had married late in life. His marriage with Laxmi had taken place in the year 1956 and he had three children all of them sons.
(3.)It was the prosecution case that about fifteen days prior to the incident the deceased Krishna Rai had to be away from his house on account of some work and he, as usual, requested accused No. 1 to sleep in his house till his return. Accused No.l accordingly went to the house of Krishna Rai and slept. During the night when everybody in the household was asleep, it appears, a devil got into the head of accused No.l and he tried to molest Laxmi. Laxmi, not only took objection and resented the behaviour of accused No. 1 but turned him out of the house immediately.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.