GEEJAGANDA SOMAIAH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA
LAWS(SC)-2007-3-30
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: KARNATAKA)
Decided on
March 12,2007
GEEJAGANDA SOMAIAH
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF KARNATAKA
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
EARABHADRAPPA V. STATE OF KARNATAKA. [REFERRED TO]EARABHABRAPPA ALIAS KRISHNAPPA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
EARABHABRAPPA ALIAS KRISHNAPPA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. ASHOK KUMAR SRIVASTAVA [REFERRED TO]
PULUKURI KOTTAYA VS. EMPEROR [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD YAKUB KHAN VS. EMPEROR [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
SONU @ SONU SINGH @ GOPAL VS. STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2012-9-101] [REFERRED TO]BHIMA @ BHIMRAO BABURAO DESHMUKH VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2020-12-17] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. TALEVAR [LAWS(SC)-2011-6-33] [REFERRED TO]
STATE NCT OF DELHI VS. AMIT SHARMA & ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2018-7-103] [REFERRED TO]
BADARUDHEEN VS. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2015-8-1] [REFERRED TO]
SURATH BARMAN VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2014-6-39] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2008-10-118] [REFERRED TO]
RAM PRATAP PANDEY VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-4-236] [REFERRED TO]
SHAIK KHASIM BASHA VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2024-3-61] [REFERRED TO]
SUCHENDRA DAS VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2021-3-78] [REFERRED TO]
KUSAL TOPPO AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(SC)-2018-8-86] [REFERRED TO]
TRILOK CHAND VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2013-9-271] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. BABU MOLLA [LAWS(CAL)-2015-12-125] [REFERRED TO]
RAM CHARAN AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-4-10] [REFERRED TO]
RATNABHAI DEHURBHAI SATIYA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2016-11-19] [REFERRED TO]
SANOJ KUMAR @ SANOJ YADAV SON OF DEVENDRA YADAV VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2018-1-328] [REFERRED TO]
MD. NIAZUR RAHMAN VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2010-5-53] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH @ SUNIL VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2024-8-9] [REFERRED TO]
PADUM LAL VS. STATE OF C.G. [LAWS(CHH)-2014-9-36] [REFERRED TO]
AVUTHU SIVA REDDY VS. STATE A P [LAWS(APH)-2008-2-89] [REFERRED TO]
SATNAM SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2014-5-183] [REFERRED TO]
SHASHI KANT SINGH VS. STATE [LAWS(ALL)-2011-3-230] [REFERRED TO]
DHARMENDRA VS. STATE OF UP [LAWS(ALL)-2010-8-139] [REFERRED TO]
PANKAJ VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2008-9-2] [REFERRED TO]
VIPIN KUMAR @ NEETU VS. STATE OF RAJ. [LAWS(RAJ)-2013-9-95] [REFERRED TO]
NUR ISLAM VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2018-11-163] [REFERRED TO]
KALADHAR CHAUBEY VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-1-41] [REFERRED TO]
SINGNGAIHSUTA VS. STATE OF MIZORAM [LAWS(GAU)-2024-1-37] [REFERRED TO]
HATTI SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(SC)-2007-4-54] [REFERRED TO]
MUNILAL THAKUR AND INDRAJIT SHOW ALIAS SIKKA VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2007-12-44] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF H P VS. RAJESH SINGH [LAWS(HPH)-2016-10-156] [REFERRED TO]
PRAKASH BHIMASHANKAR BAGLE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2021-12-207] [REFERRED TO]
VIDHYA BHUSHAN VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2022-9-174] [REFERRED TO]
MUKESH AND ANOTHER VS. STATE FOR NCT OF DELHI AND OTHERS. [LAWS(SC)-2017-5-43] [REFERRED TO]
PARAMASIVAM VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2009-4-88] [REFERRED TO]
SURESH CHANDRA TIWARI VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [LAWS(SC)-2024-11-73] [REFERRED TO]
KANUMA GANGADHAR VS. SHO, II TOWN P.S [LAWS(APH)-2023-3-75] [REFERRED TO]
CHEKURI RAJA RAO VS. STATE OF A.P. [LAWS(APH)-2022-11-71] [REFERRED TO]
ASHISH KUMAR VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-1-37] [REFERRED TO]
PAPPU, SON OF MOHAMMAD ISMAEEL AND OTHER VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2017-11-434] [REFERRED TO]
HAKIM KHAN VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2013-2-123] [REFERRED TO]
GILBERT TRIVANDRUM VS. STATE OF KERALA REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [LAWS(KER)-2011-10-55] [REERRED TO]
PARVEEN @ BEENU AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2012-11-476] [REFERRED]
RAM LAKHAN @ RAMJI S/O RAGHUVEER YADAV VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2019-1-134] [REFERRED TO]
P RAJAGOPAL VS. INSPECTOR OF POLICE [LAWS(MAD)-2009-3-61] [REFERRED TO]
RAM NARESH VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-2-178] [REFERRED TO]
ISHWAR YADAV PATIL VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2008-3-301] [REFERRED]
RIJO VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2009-10-79] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA EKNATH APUGADE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2020-10-58] [REFERRED TO]
KANDRA MUNDA VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2016-1-37] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. CHINTOO SINGH ALIAS VIJAY [LAWS(PAT)-2010-10-58] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRAMOHAN SANU VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2008-11-2] [REFERRED TO]
LALITA RABHA NATH VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2012-10-20] [REFERRED TO]
SH. LALROCHHUNGA. VS. STATE OF MIZORAM [LAWS(GAU)-2016-12-62] [REFERRED TO]
MOTTMMAL SHAJI VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2017-2-55] [REFERRED TO]
NATARAJU VS. STATE BY CHELUR POLICE [LAWS(KAR)-2020-4-48] [REFERRED TO]
MAHENDRA RAI VS. LAXMAN PATEL [LAWS(MPH)-2009-4-77] [REFERRED TO]
CHUDAMAN GAMBHIRDAS SHAHU VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2010-2-143] [REFERRED TO]
PRASHANT APPASAHEB ALIAS APPARAO KATE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2012-3-6] [REFERRED TO]
KANCHAN AND ORS. VS. RAVINDRANATH AND ORS. [LAWS(KAR)-2015-9-347] [REFERRED TO]
JAYANTIBHAI SHANKERBHAI PATANWADIA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2013-5-102] [REFERRED TO]
GOURA MOHAN SINGH VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2018-2-67] [REFERRED TO]
KIRITI PAL AND ORS. VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2015-4-102] [REFERRED TO]
CHINNA PILLAI VS. STATE BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE [LAWS(MAD)-2012-8-16] [REFERRED TO]
SALEEM ALIAS NAWAB ALIAS MOTA AND ORS VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2008-4-339] [REFERRED]
BHARAT BHANDARI VS. STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2012-8-14] [REFERRED TO]
BISWAJIT DAS VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(TRIP)-2018-12-5] [REFERRED TO]
SELVARAJ; VANDU ALIAS RAJENDRAN; NAGARAJAN; SHANKAR; LAKSHMI; RETTAIMANDAIYAN @ MURUGAN VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2014-9-481] [REFERRED]
SANYA LAMRA VS. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH AND ANR. [LAWS(GAU)-2016-1-70] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA KUMAR ALIAS PAPPU VS. STATE OF UP [LAWS(ALL)-2010-2-21] [REFERRED TO]
JAFARUDHEEN VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(SC)-2022-4-72] [REFERRED TO]
MANISH KUMAR VS. INDU SINGHAL [LAWS(RAJ)-2014-2-170] [REFERRED TO]
RAKESH SHAH VS. STATE OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2019-7-177] [REFERRED TO]
REMAN ALIAS RAMAN VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2008-9-16] [REFERRED TO]
BABAN VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2010-12-23] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant questioning correctness of the conviction recorded by the Fast Track Court. The said Court found the appellant guilty of offence punishable u/s. 302 of the India Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC ) and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 8,000.00 with default stipulation.
(3.)Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
3.1. One Chengapa (hereinafter referred to as the deceased ), his wife Smt. Baby Chengapa (PW-1), the accused and most of the witnesses are the residents of Garvale village. There is no much dispute that the accused and the deceased were related. According to the prosecution the Geejaganda family to which the accused and the deceased belong owned nearly 348 acres of land. Out of the same, donation of about 48 acres, was made and the remaining area was with the family. There were six sharers in the said Geejaganda family. The said six sharers were in possession of the respective portion of the remaining area. The deceased was claiming equitable partition and share in family land which was opposed by the accused and this resulted in ultimate murder of the deceased Chengapa on 23.9.1995 at 8.00 p.m. It is relevant to note that there is no much dispute that on 21.9.1995 i.e. two days before the incident, the Revenue Inspector had visited and inspected the family lands on the request made by the deceased for having equitable partition. On 23.9.1995 in the morning the deceased left the house informing his wife PW-1, that he is going to Madapura to meet the Revenue Inspector. At that time, he was wearing one HMT Watch, gold ring with inscription "GDC", a gold chain and a sum of Rs. 2,500.00. He informed PW-1 that he may return in the evening and if he does not, he will come back on the next day morning. Since the deceased did not come back even in the morning of 24.9.1995, PW-1 went to the coffee land to attend the work and on the way on Thakeri-Garvale Road, saw the dead body of her husband lying by the side of the road with injuries on his person. On seeing it she went back to the house and informed the incident to her children and all the family members came back to the place. By then the police who had received incomplete information also arrived at the spot and after recording the statement of PW-1 and treating the same as first information report, registered a case in Crime No. 215/1995 for the offence punishable u/s. 302 of the India Penal Code read with Sec. 34 of the India Penal Code against the two accused persons including the appellant-accused no.1 and investigation was takenup.
3.2. After registration of the case the mandatory procedures like holding of mahazar, drawing up of inquest proceedings were conducted. Statements of witnesses were recorded and search for the accused was carried out. On the same day, i.e., on 24.9.1995, accused no. 1 voluntarily appeared before the Investigating Officer and surrendered. He was taken into custody and interrogated and from his voluntary statement, the permissible portion marked as exhibit P-14 was recorded. On the basis of the voluntary statement, gold chain, ring belonging to the deceased and the weapon alleged to have been used in the crime in question were discovered from the house of the accused no. 1. Those were seized along with the bloodstained clothes which were subjected to forensic science examination. On receipt of all the reports including F.S.L., autopsy, serologist and on completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused persons for the offence punishable u/s. 302 read with Sec. 34 of the India Penal Code.
3.3. In order to establish its accusations the prosecution examined 16 witnesses. The accused persons pleaded innocence and stated that because of enmity they have been falsely implicated.
3.4. The Trial Court on consideration of the evidence on record found the appellant guilty. However, the co-accused was given the benefit of doubt and order of acquittal was recorded.
3.5. The entire case of the prosecution revolves around the evidence which is circumstantial in nature, as there were no eye witnesses to the actual assault. The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are : i) Motive;
ii) Last seen together;
iii) Discovery/recovery of the golden ornaments of the deceased and the murder weapon seized from the house of the accused no.1 along with the bloodstained clothes of the accused no. 1; and lastly
iv) absence of any explanation by the accused no.1.
3.6. The High Court found that the circumstances were conclusive to prove guilt of the accused and, therefore, confirmed the conviction and the sentence by dismissing the appeal.
(2.)Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant questioning correctness of the conviction recorded by the Fast Track Court. The said Court found the appellant guilty of offence punishable u/s. 302 of the India Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC ) and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 8,000.00 with default stipulation.
(3.)Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
3.1. One Chengapa (hereinafter referred to as the deceased ), his wife Smt. Baby Chengapa (PW-1), the accused and most of the witnesses are the residents of Garvale village. There is no much dispute that the accused and the deceased were related. According to the prosecution the Geejaganda family to which the accused and the deceased belong owned nearly 348 acres of land. Out of the same, donation of about 48 acres, was made and the remaining area was with the family. There were six sharers in the said Geejaganda family. The said six sharers were in possession of the respective portion of the remaining area. The deceased was claiming equitable partition and share in family land which was opposed by the accused and this resulted in ultimate murder of the deceased Chengapa on 23.9.1995 at 8.00 p.m. It is relevant to note that there is no much dispute that on 21.9.1995 i.e. two days before the incident, the Revenue Inspector had visited and inspected the family lands on the request made by the deceased for having equitable partition. On 23.9.1995 in the morning the deceased left the house informing his wife PW-1, that he is going to Madapura to meet the Revenue Inspector. At that time, he was wearing one HMT Watch, gold ring with inscription "GDC", a gold chain and a sum of Rs. 2,500.00. He informed PW-1 that he may return in the evening and if he does not, he will come back on the next day morning. Since the deceased did not come back even in the morning of 24.9.1995, PW-1 went to the coffee land to attend the work and on the way on Thakeri-Garvale Road, saw the dead body of her husband lying by the side of the road with injuries on his person. On seeing it she went back to the house and informed the incident to her children and all the family members came back to the place. By then the police who had received incomplete information also arrived at the spot and after recording the statement of PW-1 and treating the same as first information report, registered a case in Crime No. 215/1995 for the offence punishable u/s. 302 of the India Penal Code read with Sec. 34 of the India Penal Code against the two accused persons including the appellant-accused no.1 and investigation was takenup.
3.2. After registration of the case the mandatory procedures like holding of mahazar, drawing up of inquest proceedings were conducted. Statements of witnesses were recorded and search for the accused was carried out. On the same day, i.e., on 24.9.1995, accused no. 1 voluntarily appeared before the Investigating Officer and surrendered. He was taken into custody and interrogated and from his voluntary statement, the permissible portion marked as exhibit P-14 was recorded. On the basis of the voluntary statement, gold chain, ring belonging to the deceased and the weapon alleged to have been used in the crime in question were discovered from the house of the accused no. 1. Those were seized along with the bloodstained clothes which were subjected to forensic science examination. On receipt of all the reports including F.S.L., autopsy, serologist and on completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused persons for the offence punishable u/s. 302 read with Sec. 34 of the India Penal Code.
3.3. In order to establish its accusations the prosecution examined 16 witnesses. The accused persons pleaded innocence and stated that because of enmity they have been falsely implicated.
3.4. The Trial Court on consideration of the evidence on record found the appellant guilty. However, the co-accused was given the benefit of doubt and order of acquittal was recorded.
3.5. The entire case of the prosecution revolves around the evidence which is circumstantial in nature, as there were no eye witnesses to the actual assault. The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are : i) Motive;
ii) Last seen together;
iii) Discovery/recovery of the golden ornaments of the deceased and the murder weapon seized from the house of the accused no.1 along with the bloodstained clothes of the accused no. 1; and lastly
iv) absence of any explanation by the accused no.1.
3.6. The High Court found that the circumstances were conclusive to prove guilt of the accused and, therefore, confirmed the conviction and the sentence by dismissing the appeal.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.