Overt Act in Unlawful Assembly Implicates All accused under section 302 read with 149 of IPC: SC
Title: HAALESH @ HALESHI @ KURUBARA HALESHI VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1954 OF 2012
Date of Judgment: FEBRUARY 2, 2024.
CORAM: JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA, JUSTICE PANKAJ MITHAL
Facts of the Case:
The case originated from a property dispute between the deceased, Shivanna, and his real brother, Ramanna (referred to as A-9). A civil suit regarding the property had been decreed in Shivanna’s favor, leading to tension between the parties.
On September 25, 1999, around 9:15 am, all nine accused persons unlawfully assembled in front of Shivanna’s house with the common objective of killing him and his family members. Armed with deadly weapons, primarily choppers, they trespassed into Shivanna’s house. Accused A-1 to A-3 assaulted Shivanna, A-4 and A-5 attacked his wife, Savithramma, and A-6 and A-7 targeted his daughter, Girija. Accused A-8 and A-9 stood at the door, allegedly keeping watch and instigating the assault. Shivanna succumbed to his injuries, while his wife and daughter survived with grievous wounds.
Following the trial, seven out of the nine accused (A-1 to A-7) were convicted of various offenses, including murder under Section 302 IPC aided by Section 149 IPC, and were sentenced to imprisonment, with the maximum penalty being life imprisonment. Accused A-8 and A-9 were acquitted.
Some of the convicted parties accepted the trial court’s judgment, while others appealed. Accused Nos. 1, 2, and 3 did not file appeals. Accused Nos. 4, 5, and 6 jointly filed one appeal, while accused No. 7 filed a separate appeal. The High Court, in a common judgment, upheld the conviction and sentences of A-4 to A-7 and dismissed their appeals.
The convicted individuals then appealed to the Supreme Court. Accused A-7 filed Criminal Appeal No. 1954 of 2012, A-4 and A-5 jointly filed Criminal Appeal No. 1955 of 2012, and A-6 filed Criminal Appeal No. 1303 of 2014. These appeals were consolidated and heard together. The petitioners in the Supreme Court are challenging the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower courts.
Laws Involved:
Section 302 in aid with Section 149 IPC, 1860-
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code deals with the offense of murder, defining it as the intentional killing of a person with the knowledge that such an act is likely to cause death. It prescribes severe punishment, including life imprisonment or death penalty, for those found guilty of this crime.
Section 149, pertains to the principle of common intention. It states that if an offense is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in the prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such offense is a likely consequence of the prosecution of that object, every member of that assembly is deemed to have committed that offense. This section holds individuals accountable for crimes committed collectively within the context of an unlawful assembly.
Issues framed by the court:
Whether or not appellants are guilty for offence under Section 302 in aid with Section 149 IPC?
Courts Judgment and Analysis:
In the appeals before the court, the focus was on the conviction and sentencing of appellants A-4, A-5, A-6, and A-7. The court noted the background of a civil suit initiated by the deceased Shivanna against his brother Ramana (A-9) for partition and the subsequent events leading to the fatal assault. A-9 and his family, allegedly motivated by the ongoing legal dispute, conspired to eliminate Shivanna and his family members with the help of A-4, A-5, and A-7, known for their criminal activities.
The court examined the contention that only A-1 to A-3 were directly involved in the assault on Shivanna and whether Section 149 IPC could be invoked against the other accused. It deliberated on the evidence of unlawful assembly and shared intent to eliminate Shivanna’s family, concluding that all accused had unlawfully assembled and armed themselves, fulfilling the criteria of Section 149 IPC.
Regarding the credibility of eyewitness testimony, the court emphasized the reliability of PW-3 and PW-4, who were injured eyewitnesses present at the scene. Despite their familial relationship with the deceased, their testimony was considered credible and pivotal in establishing the sequence of events and the involvement of the accused.
The court addressed the discrepancy between the medical evidence and the prosecution’s narrative, emphasizing the primacy of ocular evidence provided by the eyewitnesses. While the doctor’s opinion suggested the possibility of different weapons, the court maintained that the consistent testimony of PW-3 and PW-4 prevailed, corroborating the use of choppers in the assault.
In its final analysis, the court reiterated the principle of appellate restraint, emphasizing the absence of perversity in the lower courts’ findings. It concluded that the evidence presented supported the convictions and upheld the judgments and orders of the lower courts, ultimately dismissing the appeals as lacking substance.
Thus, the court held that all accused were guilty of offenses under Section 302 IPC in aid with Section 149 IPC, and dismissed the appeals, ordering the cancellation of bail bonds and directing the appellants to surrender to serve their remaining sentences.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Aditi