STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. SIDDAPPA BASANAGOUDA PATIL
LAWS(SC)-1990-3-13
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: KARNATAKA)
Decided on March 15,1990

STATE OF KARNATAKA Appellant
VERSUS
SIDDAPPA BASANAGOUDA PATIL Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

AMARSINGH VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-1990-10-3] [FOLLOWED ON]
SANU BINDHANI VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-1994-11-34] [REFERRED TO]
NARESH JANIMAL LOHANA SINDHI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-1998-2-49] [REFERRED TO]
RAJA ALIAS SURESH S KODWANI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-1999-3-26] [REFERRED TO]
KANTIJI CHANDUJI THAKORE VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2000-1-2] [REFERRED TO]
NETRA PAL VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2009-4-133] [REFERRED TO]
PATEL RASIKBHAI BHAGWANDAS VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-1998-8-65] [REFERRED TO]
K P RAJAN ALIAS ANTONY VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-1991-2-8] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA V KAMBLE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-1994-3-54] [REFERRED TO]
ETICAN VS. NALLATHAMBY [LAWS(MAD)-2006-2-319] [REFERRED TO]
ETICAN VS. NALLATHAMBY [LAWS(MAD)-2006-3-277] [REFERRED TO]
MANOJ KUMAR AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2015-7-81] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

S. Ratnavel Pandian, J. - (1.)This appeal by the State of Karnataka is directed against the Judgment dated 27-7-1987 rendered in Criminal Appeal No. 55 of 1986 by the High Court of Karnataka by altering the conviction recorded by the trial Court under Section 302, I.P.C. into one under Section 304, Part II, I.P.C. and the sentence of imprisonment for life to imprisonment for a period of 4 years. The gravamen of the charges against the respondent may be stated as follows:
(2.)The first respondent is the father of the second respondent. Balawwa (witness No. 15 in the charge-sheet) is the wife of the first respondent and mother of the second respondent. They were all agricultural coolies. The deceased lived in the same village cultivating his own land. According to the prosecution, the deceased had surplus. manure of about four cart-loads of cow-dung in his manure pit. The first respondent purchased the said manure and paid a sum of Rs. 40/- towards the part of the price of the manure and promising to pay the remaining amount, removed two cart-loads of the manure. But later on, the first respondent refused to carry the remaining manure stating that it was not of good quality. The deceased was insisting upon the first respondent to remove the remaining manure and pay him, the balance amount as promised. The first respondent had refused to do so. About three days prior to the incident in question, when the first respondent and his wife Balawwa were in the bazar, the deceased met the first respondent and insisted him to remove the manure and pay the balance amount. This resulted in a, verbal altercation between the deceased and the first respondent. During the altercation, Balawwa is stated to have pulled out the dhoti of the deceased. The deceased got enraged and abused Balawwa.
(3.)On 14-8-1984 i.e. the day 'Of the occurrence, PW-2, the newphew of the deceased wanted to go to Sambra, where he was working. PW-1, the son of the deceased and others went along with him up to the bus stand. It was then 6.00 p.m. While PWs,. 1, 2 and others were chit-chatting sitting on a culvert near the bus stand, the deceased Was found going towards the land of Kulkarni (PW-7). Within a short time, Balawwa came hurriedly from her house and told PWs. 1, 2 and others that the deceased was quarrelling with her husband and son. So saying, she went back. Immediately, PWs. 1, 2 and others followed Balawwa and on reaching near the house of the respondents found respondents 1 and 2 attacking the deceased by a sickle and knife respectively. On seeing the witnesses, both the respondents went inside their house carrying their respective weapons. PW-1 held the victim and tried to take him towards his house but the deceased on account of the injuries sustained by him, was unable to move and fell flat on the road, and breathed his last. Thereafter, PW-1 went to the Post Office and informed the Police about the incident over phone. Then he went to the Police Station where he gave a written complaint Ex.P-1 to PW-14, the Sub-Inspector of Police. On the basis of the said report, PW-14 registered a case in Crime No. 170 of 1980. PW-14 sent the First Information Report Ex.P-19 to the Court and took up investigation. Further investigation was taken up by PW-15, the C. P. 1. of Bailhongal Circle. After holding the inquest over the dead-body of the deceased, PW-15 sent the dead body to the Medical Officer for post-mortem examination with his Report Ex.P-3. DW-4, the Medical Officer who conducted the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased has noted as many as 11 incised wounds which he has described in the post-mortem certificate Ex.P-4. In the opinion of PW 4 the external injuries 1 to 7 might have been caused with a sickle (MO 1) and the rest by a knife (MO 2) and that the external injury No. 5 which is described as an incised wound across the abdomen starting from Rt. hypochondriac area to Lt., was the fatal one.
;


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