Page 1

                                                 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.683 OF 2005

GANGAPPA NINGAPPA UGARKOHOD … APPELLANT  

VERSUS

STATE OF KARNATAKA … RESPONDENT

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1064 OF 2005

AND

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.47 OF 2007

J U D G M E N T  

Aftab Alam, J.

1. These three appeals arise from a common judgment and order passed  

by the Karnataka High Court. By the impugned judgment, the High Court  

1

Page 2

disposed of two appeals, which came to it from a common judgment and  

order passed by the trial court. The High Court allowed the appeals insofar  

as  Smt.  Nagavva  (accused  no.  2)  and  Doddappa  Ningappa  Ugarkhod  

(accused no.  13) are concerned and acquitted them of all  the charges.  In  

regard to the rest of the accused (the present appellants before this Court) the  

appeals were dismissed and their conviction and the sentences given to them  

by the trial court was confirmed by the High Court.

2. Criminal Appeal No. 47 of 2007 (that was the last among the three  

appeals to come to this Court) is at the instance of Sataveer Basappa Hariyal  

(accused no.1: He died on November 10, 2009 during the pendency of the  

appeal), Honnappa Shiddappa Banni (accused no. 3), Beerappa Shiddappa  

Huggi (accused no. 9) and Yallappa Kenchappa Vibhuti (accused no. 16).  

Criminal Appeal No. 1064 of 2005 has been filed by Beerappa Demasheppa  

Deshanur (accused no. 5) and Maruti Demasheppa Deshanur (accused no.  

6). All the six appellants in these two appeals are convicted under section  

302 read with section 149 and some other ancillary sections of the Penal  

Code.  For  committing  murder,  they  are  sentenced  to  undergo  rigorous  

imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each with the default sentence  

of  imprisonment  for  six  months.  They  are  also  given  some  lesser  

2

Page 3

punishments for the various other offences but all the sentences are directed  

to run concurrently.

3. Criminal  Appeal  No.  683 of  2005 (which was the first  among the  

three  to  come  to  this  Court)  is  filed  by  Gangappa  Ningappa  Ugarkhod  

(accused  no.  12).  His  conviction  is  mainly  under  section  326  read  with  

section 149 beside some other ancillary sections of the Penal Code. He is  

sentenced under section 326/149 to rigorous imprisonment for three years  

and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- with the default sentence of imprisonment for six  

months. The relatively lesser sentences for other offences in his case too are  

directed to run concurrently with the main sentence.

4. Both the appellants-accused and the members of the prosecution party  

belong to the same family and live in the same village. According to the  

prosecution, Sataveer (accused no.1: appellant no. 1 in Criminal Appeal No.  

47 of 2007) is the step brother of Siddappa. He carried a grudge against his  

father Basappa and the step brother Siddappa due to his father’s refusal to  

give him land in excess of his step brother. About three months prior to the  

occurrence, giving rise to the present case, there was an incident of assault  

by Sataveer and his mother Nagavva on Basappa. At that time Ningappa (the  

Complainant) had taken Basappa to hospital and had also prevailed upon  

3

Page 4

Basappa to lodge a police report against Sataveer. Sometime later, the starter  

of the electric pump set in the land of Ningappa was stolen. He suspected the  

hand of Sataveer and his men in the theft and had filed a complaint with the  

police against  some of  the accused in  the present  case.  This  had further  

strained the relations between the two sides. Two days before the occurrence  

the complainant’s son Rudrappa had gone to fetch water from the bore-well.  

There the daughter of Beerappa (accused No. 9: appellant no. 3 in Criminal  

Appeal No. 47 of 2007) quarreled with him and abused him. On the same  

evening Beerappa and his people went to the house of the complainant and  

gave threats that they would finish off the complainant’s men.

5. On  October  12,  1991  when  Ningappa,  his  son  Rudrappa  and  his  

younger  brother  Basavanneppa  were  in  the  farm  house,  Basavanneppa’s  

wife Kasturi (PW.3) came there at about 7.00 a.m. and asked them to bring  

the cattle from the house to the farm house. The complainant and his brother  

then  proceeded  from  the  farm  house  for  their  house;  Kasturi  was  also  

coming behind them. On the way, as they passed in front of the Kannada  

School  in  village  Maradi  Nagalapur,  accused  nos.  1  to  28,  armed  with  

sickles and clubs came out from the side of the house of accused no. 9. They  

were shouting at and abusing Ningappa. On hearing their shouts, Kasturi,  

followed  by  Ningappa’s  wife,  Shanthavva  (PW.4),  Basavanneppa’s  third  

4

Page 5

wife, Balavva and Ningappa’s second son, Anand (PW.7), also came there.  

Ningappa’s younger sister, Gangavva (PW.5), also arrived at the spot. The  

accused  began  to  assault  Basavanneppa.  He  was  given  stick  blows  by  

accused nos. 1 to 5 causing grievous injuries. Accused nos. 1, 2, 5, 9 and 16  

assaulted PW.1. Accused nos. 2, 3, 6, 9 and 16 also assaulted Basavanneppa,  

who died as a result of the assault.  PW.1 also received grievous injuries.  

When PWs 3, 4, 5 and 7 tried to save PW.1, they were also assaulted by  

accused nos. 16 to 28.

6. Ningappa (PW.1) lodged a complaint against the accused for offences  

punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 302, 326, 324, 506 and 504 read  

with section 149 of the Penal Code. The injured on the prosecution side were  

sent to the hospital for treatment.

7. In  the  meanwhile,  some of  the  accused  went  to  Belgaum and  got  

themselves  admitted  in  Belgaum  Hospital.  On  intimation,  the  PSI  from  

Belgaum P.S. went to the hospital and took down the statement of Sataveer  

(accused no. 1) in which he made the allegation of assault on him and his  

people by Ningappa and his party. On the basis of his statement a case was  

registered against Ningappa and some of the prosecution witnesses which  

was transferred to Bailhongal P.S. and was investigated along with the FIR  

5

Page 6

of the present case. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was  

filed against the present appellants, accused in the case registered as S.C.  

No. 84/1993. The counter case instituted on the basis of the complaint of  

accused no. 1 was numbered as S.C. No. 71/1993.

8. Both the cases were tried together by the Additional Sessions Judge I,  

Belgaum. In the counter case (S.C. No. 71/1993) there were nine accused  

including PWs 1, 3, 4, 5 and 8 of the present case. All the accused in that  

case were finally acquitted by judgment and order dated September 7, 2001  

passed by the trial court.

9. In the present case, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be  

tried. The prosecution in support of its case examined 28 witnesses; PWs 1  

to  5,  7  and  8  are  eye-witnesses;  PW.6  is  the  doctor  who  medically  

exmanined Ningappa, Ganganvva Nagappa Chandaragi,  Smt.  Shanthavva,  

Balavva  Basappa  Chandaragi,  Anand  Ningappa  Chandaragi  and  Smt.  

Kasturi and proved their injury reports which were marked as Exhibit Nos.  

P.2, P.3, P.4, P.5, P.6 and P.7 respectively. He also examined the two sticks,  

six bamboo sticks and four pieces of stone, seized by the police and gave his  

opinion that  the injuries  caused to  the persons  examined by him,  except  

injury  no.  5  of  Ningappa,  could  be  caused  by  those  articles.;  PW.17  is  

6

Page 7

another doctor who had medically examined Ningappa and who proved his  

injury report Exhibit No. P.15 before the court. PW.25 is the doctor who  

held post-mortem on the deceased. He proved the post-mortem report made  

by him which was marked as Exhibit No. P.27.  PWs 26, 27 and 28 are the  

police officers who investigated the case.

10. In course of the trial, two, among the 28 accused on trial, died.  At the  

conclusion  of  the  trial,  the  trial  court  by  its  judgment  and  order  dated  

September 7, 2001 in Sessions Case No. 84/1993 acquitted 16 of the accused  

but found the remaining 10 guilty of the charges and convicted accused nos.  

1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9 and 16 under section 302/149 of the Penal Code, accused no.  

12 and 13 under section 326/149 of the Penal Code and accused no. 25 under  

section 324/149 of the Penal Code.

11. Out of the 10 convicted accused, 9 went to the High Court in two  

appeals being Appeal Nos. 1490 of 2001 and 1491 of 2001 (accused no. 25  

convicted under section 324/149 of the Penal Code did not file any appeal).

12. The High Court, by its judgment and order dated December 18, 2004,  

acquitted accused nos. 2 and 13 but confirmed the conviction and sentence  

given to the rest of the accused, who are now in appeal before this Court.

7

Page 8

13. The medical evidence fully supports the prosecution case. We have  

also gone through the depositions of the seven eye-witnesses and the ocular  

account of the occurrence is quite unimpeachable.

14. However,  the learned counsel  appearing for  the appellants  strongly  

submitted that some of the accused had received injuries and those remained  

unexplained by the prosecution. He, therefore, contended that the occurrence  

clearly did not take place in the manner presented by the prosecution and for  

that reason alone the prosecution case deserved to be junked.

15. Both the trial court and the High Court have taken this aspect of the  

matter in due consideration. The trial court has pointed out, and in our view  

quite rightly that the defense in this case completely denied the occurrence.  

According to the defense, the occurrence took place in a different manner  

and at a completely different place as alleged in the counter case being S.C.  

No. 71/1993. The trial court further observed that since the accused denied  

the  very  occurrence,  no  reliance  could  be  placed on the  alleged injuries  

suffered by them, insofar  as  the trial  of  S.C.  No.  84/1993 is  concerned.  

Moreover, the defense story, which was the prosecution case in S.C. No.  

71/1993,  was  disbelieved and hence,  the  alleged injuries  suffered  by the  

accused were of no help to them in this case.

8

Page 9

16. We are in agreement with the view taken by the trial court and the  

High Court.

17. However, having regard to the fact that, to start with, there were a  

number of accused and many of them were acquitted by the trial court and  

two  by  the  High  Court,  we  suggested  to  the  counsel  appearing  for  the  

appellants  to  address  the  Court  in  regard  to  the  individual  roles  of  the  

different  appellants  so that  their  individual  culpability  may be separately  

examined.

18. The counsel, however, insisted on challenging the prosecution case in  

its entirety.

19. Nonetheless, we have gone through the records to see the individual  

culpability of the seven appellants but we find that the judgment of the High  

Court is faultless and the conviction of the seven appellants has been arrived  

at correctly and on a proper appreciation of the prosecution evidence.  

20. We,  thus,  find  no  merit  in  these  appeals  which  are  accordingly  

dismissed.  The bail  bond of  Gangappa Ningappa Ugarkhod,  appellant  in  

Criminal Appeal No. 683 of 2005, is cancelled and he is order to surrender  

9

Page 10

within 4 weeks, failing which the trial court is directed to take coercive steps  

to take him in custody and to make him serve out the remaining sentence.   

.…..………………………..J. (Aftab Alam)

.…..………………………..J. (R.M. Lodha)

New Delhi; April 16, 2013

10