PUNDAPPA YANKAPPA PUJARI Vs STATE OF KARNATAKA
Bench: SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA,RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI
Case number: Crl.A. No.-001251-001251 / 2006
Diary number: 24612 / 2006
Advocates: RAJESH MAHALE Vs
Page 1
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1251 OF 2006
PUNDAPPA YANKAPPA PUJARI … APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF KARNATAKA … RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J.
This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16th June,
2006 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in Criminal Appeal
No.9/2000. By the impugned judgment the High Court partly allowed
the appeal preferred by the State of Karnataka, set aside the
judgment of acquittal of the appellant for the offence under
Section 302 IPC, held the appellant guilty for the offence under
Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant –
Giriyavva, her sons, Shivalingappa, Adiveppa, deceased Mahantappa
and Pundappa as well as accused No.1, Pundappa Yankappa Pujari
(appellant herein) and accused No.2 Siddappa Pundappa Pujari are
the resident of Yankanchi village of Bagalkot’s Taluk. The land of
the deceased’s family as well as the land of the accused is
adjacent to one another. The deceased’s land is on the northern
side whereas the accused’s land is on the southern side. In
between there is a band fixed with boundary stone. There was a
dispute regarding fixing of boundary stone between the accused and
the deceased’s father Chandrappa Telagi. On 5th July, 1997 at about
1
Page 2
9 a.m., accused No.1 was in his land and was removing the boundary
stone. The deceased-Mahantappa questioned as to why he was
removing the boundary stone and an altercation took place between
accused No.1 and deceased-Mahantappa. While the deceased was
putting boundary stone to the pit, accused No.1 assaulted him with
an axe on his neck and caused severe fracture and injuries which
resulted in profuse bleeding whereas, accused No.2 assaulted the
deceased with a stick. Laxmavva (PW-7), who was grazing her sheep,
on seeing the incident of assault, shouted. Immediately, Sangappa
(PW-8), Chandrashekar (PW-9) rushed to the spot and witnessed the
incident of assault. Laxmawwa (PW-7) rushed towards the village.
On the way, she met Bhimappa (PW-10) and Ranganagouda (PW-11) and
informed them about the incident, who in turn went to the place of
incident. Further, she proceeded and informed the incident to
complainant-Giriyavva (PW-1), the mother of the deceased.
Immediately, Giriyavva (PW-1) rushed to the place of incident and
noticed the injuries. The deceased-Mahantappa was shifted to the
village by Bhimappa (PW-10) and Ranganagouda (PW-11). From there,
the injured was shifted to Goverdhan Hospital, Bagalkot.
3. The injured was treated by Dr. Hanamant (PW-16) on 5th July,
1997 and immediately, intimation was sent to Sub-Inspector of
Police, Rural Police Station, Bagalkot as per Ex.P-12. The Sub-
Inspector of Police, Sekharapa (PW-14) on receipt of Ex.P-12
proceeded to Hospital and enquired about the condition of the
injured. The Doctor issued an endorsement as per Ex.P-9 stating
that the injured was not in a position to give statement.
Thereafter, Sub-Inspector of Police (PW-14) received a written
2
Page 3
complaint Ex.P-1 from Giriyavva, the mother of injured. A case in
Crime No.95/1997 for the offence under Section 326, 324 and 307
read with Section 34 IPC was registered and an FIR as per Ex.P-13
was prepared and forwarded to the Magistrate. In the meantime, the
Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Gousasab(PW-13) received the
death intimation report of the injured as per Ex.P10. Accordingly,
a requisition was forwarded to the Court as per Ex.P-11 seeking
permission to alter the offence to one under Section 302 IPC. On
the same day, the Sub-Inspector of Police proceeded to the place
of occurrence, prepared a spot panchnama as per Ex.P-2, seized the
blood stained earth and sample earth-Material Objects (hereinafter
referred to as the “MOs”) – 1 and 2 and handed over further
investigation to the Circle Inspector of Police, Pandurang (PW-
17). The Circle Inspector of Police took over further
investigation. He recorded the statement of witnesses and arrested
accused No.1, Pundappa, seized the blood stained shirt under the
mahazar and recorded his voluntary statement as per Ex.P-18. He
sent accused No.1, Pundappa to Hospital for medical examination
and kept him in custody. On 6th July, 1997, he proceeded to General
Hospital, Bagalkot, prepared the inquest panchanama on the dead
body of Mahantappa as per Ex.P-24 and recorded the statement of
the witness. He seized the blood stained towel and chaddar – M.Os
4 and 5 under the panchanama Ex.P-15. At the instance of the
accused No.1, he recovered M.O.10-axe and M.O.11-stick and
prepared panchanama Ex.P-7. The dead body was subjected to
postmortem examination. On the same day accused No.2 was arrested
and produced by the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. The
3
Page 4
chargesheet was filed against both the accused for the offence
under Section 302/34 IPC.
4. Learned Sessions Judge secured the presence of the accused,
framed charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Both
the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. The prosecution in all examined 17 witnesses, marked 24
Exhibits, produced 11 M.Os. The defence, in their turn, got marked
Exs.D-1 to D-6. The statement of the accused was recorded under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the defence is one of total denial. The
accused did not choose to lead any defence evidence.
6. Learned Sessions Judge for the reason recorded in his judgment
dated 15th December, 1998, acquitted both the accused for the
offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC. The said judgment of
acquittal was questioned by the State before the High Court
wherein the High Court passed the impugned judgment setting aside
the order of acquittal with respect to accused No.1-appellant,
convicting him under Section 302 IPC to undergo life imprisonment.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the view
taken by the Trial Court being reasonable, there was no occasion
for Appellate Court to reverse the order of acquittal by
expressing a different view on the same set of evidence. On the
other hand, it was submitted on behalf of the respondent that the
Trial Court had committed an error and had failed to assess the
credibility and trustworthiness of the statements given by the
eye-witnesses.
8. In view of the submissions made by the parties, the point
that arises for determination is : whether the High Court is
4
Page 5
justified in interfering with the order of acquittal by reversing
the judgment of the Trial Court.
9. It is settled that if two views are reasonably possible from
the very same evidence, the Appellate court on re-appreciation of
the same evidence cannot impose its own view. The Appellate Court
may re-appreciate the evidence when it is satisfied that the Trial
Court has committed an error and has failed to consider the
credibility and trustworthiness of the account given by the eye-
witnesses. The evidence on record has to be read as a whole and it
is not proper to reject one or other evidence on the ground of
certain contradictions and omissions which do not go to the roots
of the case. If the testimony of the eye-witnesses are found
trustworthy and remained unchanged, ignorance of such testimony
can be held to be perverse.
10. In Hem Raj and another vs. State of Punjab, (2003) 12 SCC
241, this Court held as follows:
“36. In this state of the evidence on record, we find that the view taken by the trial court is also a possible reasonable view of the evidence on record. The evidence adduced by the prosecution is rather inconsistent and creates a serious doubt about the truthfulness of the prosecution case. Even if it may be possible to take a different view, we cannot say that the view taken by the trial court is not a reasonable view of the evidence on record. It is well settled that if on the basis of the same evidence two views are reasonably possible and the trial court takes the view in favour of the accused, the appellate court, in an appeal against acquittal, will not be justified in reversing the order of acquittal, unless it comes to the conclusion that the view taken by the trial court was wholly unreasonable or perverse and it was not possible to take the view in favour of the accused on the basis of the evidence on record.”
5
Page 6
11. In T. Subramanian vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2006) 1 SCC 401,
this Court observed:
“17...Where two views are reasonably possible from the very same evidence, prosecution cannot be said to have proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.....”
12. In the circumstances where evidence of witness is not found to
be wholly trustworthy the principle of severability can be applied
and that part of the evidence which is reliable may be accepted
and the other part can be discarded. This Court in Haji Khan vs.
State of U.P., (2005) 13 SCC 353, held:
“That part of his evidence which inspires confidence may be accepted and the unreliable part discarded.”
Further it was also observed that:
“9. From the evidence on record the Sessions Court and the High Court have rightly held that the prosecution has failed to establish the conspiracy theory, and that the motive to commit the crime has not been proved, but does this mean that the High Court could not have convicted the accused placing reliance on the statement of the eyewitnesses just because the prosecution failed to prove a particular theory. We do not think so. It is not necessary that if the prosecution theory of the conspiracy or the motive fails, the entire case would crumble to the ground. The High Court has found the version given by the witnesses trustworthy and found support to their statement from the medical evidence and lodging of the prompt FIR, apart from the fact that the appellant was apprehended on the spot or nearabout the spot of crime with the weapon which was used in commission of the crime. When the court finds that the evidence of the eyewitnesses is true and can be relied upon, absence of proof of motive or the conspiracy to commit the crime would not dislodge the prosecution from securing the conviction of the accused on the basis of reliable evidence.”
6
Page 7
13. Laxmawwa (PW-7) in her examination-in-chief stated that she
had gone to the land of Giriyavva (PW-1), for watching the sheep
at 10 a.m. At that time the deceased, Mahantappa had come to the
land. Accused persons were present in the land. Accused No.1-
Pundappa removed boundary stone. Mahantappa asked accused No.1 as
to why he had removed the boundary stone. Accused No.1 told
Mahantappa that boundary stone shall lie there only. Mahantappa
insisted that he will put the boundary stone at the place from
where it was removed. Accused No.1-Pundappa challenged Mahantappa
to put boundary stone in its original place. When Mahantappa was
putting the boundary stone in the pit, accused No.1-Pundappa
assaulted Mahantappa with the axe on the neck. At that time
accused No.2-Siddappa assaulted Mahantappa on his head with the
stick. Accused No.1-Pundappa had assaulted Mahantappa six to seven
times with the axe on the neck and on the head. On seeing the
incident Laxmawwa (PW-7) shouted, hearing his shouting, Charge
Witnesses, CWs.13, 14 and 15 (CWs. 14 and 15 are PW-8 and PW-9
respectively) came there. When she was returning back to the
house, on her way she met CWs.-17 and 19 (PW-10 & PW-11) and she
narrated the incident to them. She proceeded further and informed
the incident to Giriyavva (PW-1), mother of the Mahantappa.
Giriyavva (PW-1) went to see her son Mahantappa, who was brought
to Yankanchi village and from Yankanchi village he was shifted to
Bagalkot. Mahantappa died in the Hospital at Bagalkot at 3 p.m.
Her statement was recorded by the Police.
In her cross-examination she reiterated that she had seen the
alleged incident. She stated that accused No.1 was found sitting
7
Page 8
in his land. Mahantappa came there and took rounds in the land.
Mahantappa came to the boundary by passing through his land. She
was standing in the middle of the road. From there she heard the
exchange of words and saw the incident taking place. She went near
Mahantappa and had seen him. At that time, both the accused
persons were present there. During the cross-examination at one
stage she stated that she had not seen who had removed the
boundary stone but reiterated that when Mahantappa wanted to put
the boundary stone in the pit, accused No.1-Pundappa objected for
it and quarrel took place. When Mahantappa was putting the stone
in the pit, accused No.1 and 2 have assaulted
Mahantappa.Mahantappa fell down on the ground near the boundary
stone. Mahantappa sustained bleeding injuries and the blood had
fallen on the ground and near the boundary stone. When she
enquired from Mahantappa, Mahantappa fell down, she shouted and
when she left the spot, accused persons were still there. There is
no reason to doubt the credibility and trustworthiness of the
account given by this eye-witness.
14. Sangappa (PW-8), in his deposition stated that he along with
CW-13-Pundappa and PW-9, Chandrashekhar had gone to the land of
CW-24 Rangappa Sannappa Gouli for ploughing the land. At about 9
a.m. they heard the shoutings. They had seen Mahantappa being
assaulted with the axe on his neck and head, two to three times.
They had seen another person assaulting Mahantappa with the stick
on his head. When they went there, they were threatened by the
accused persons. He stated that Laxmavva (PW-7) was present there
at that time. Laxmavva (PW-7) went to the village and on the way
8
Page 9
she met Bhimappa (PW-10) and Ranganagouda (PW-11) and narrated
the incident to them. They had given water to Mahantappa and
thereafter Mahantappa was shifted to Vankanchi village and from
Yankanchi village, Mahantappa was shifted to Bagalkot for medical
treatment.
In his cross-examination he stated that he left the village at
7 a.m.He went to the spot on hearing the shouting and at the spot
he saw Mahantappa falling down due to assault. Thereafter, the
accused persons stood there for five minutes. When they enquired
with the accused persons as to why they had assaulted Mahantappa,
accused No.1-Pundappa went towards Sindal village taking the axe
and the stick. Accused No.2-Siddappa went to graze the sheeps.
15. Chandrasekhar (PW-9) in his statement stated that he along
with Sangappa (PW-8) and CW-13 (Pundappa) had gone for ploughing
the land of CW-24 (Rangappa) on that day at about 9 a.m. Accused
No.1 and 2 had assaulted Mahantappa and Mahantappa fell down.
Accused No.1 had assaulted Mahantappa with the axe and Accused
No.2 had assaulted Mahantappa with stick. Laxmavva (PW-7) was
present there at that time. Laxmavva (PW-7) went to the village
and informed about the incident. Giriyavva (PW-1) and the
villagers came there. Injured Mahantappa was shifted to the
Hospital at Bagalkot at 2 p.m. and finally Mahantappa succumbed to
the injuries in the Hospital.
Chandrashekar (PW-9) disputed the suggestion that the land of
Chandrashekar (PW-9) belonged to their ancestors previously. He
also disputed the suggestion that there was any dispute between
their ancestors and the accused persons regarding the land of the
9
Page 10
accused persons. In his cross-examination he reiterated that when
they heard the exchange of words, the distance between them and
those persons was about 10 feet. By the time they went there
Mahantappa was found lying on the ground. After reaching the land,
they have seen accused No.1 assaulting Mahantappa with the axe. He
denied the suggestion that the scene of offence was not visible
from the place where they were ploughing.
16. Giriyavva (PW-1), mother of the deceased, is the complainant.
She stated that on the fateful day her son, Mahantappa had gone to
their land at about 7 a.m. for seeing the crop. The land of the
accused persons is adjoining to their land. At about 10 a.m., she
was present in her house. At that time, Laxmavva (PW-7) came and
informed her that her son Mahantappa was assaulted by accused
No.1-Pundappa and accused No.2-Siddappa. She went to the site of
occurrence. Her son had sustained injuries on the head and on the
back of the neck. Bhimappa (PW-10) and Ranganagouda (PW-11) had
come to her land at that time. Bhimappa (PW-10) had brought her
injured son, Mahantappa to the village Yankanchi. From Yankanchi
village they came to Mugalolli village and then the injured
Mahantappa was brought to Bagalkot and admitted in the Government
Hospital at Bagalkot. Mahantappa died at 3 p.m. in the Hospital at
Bagalkot.
In her cross-examination she stated that on that day at 6 a.m.
her husband left for Bagalkot. Laxmavva (PW-7) came and reported
the incident to her in the house when she alone was present in the
house. At about 9 a,m. Laxmavva reported the incident to her.
Luxmavva(PW-7) did not accompany her to her land. She went to her
10
Page 11
land alone. Bhimappa (PW-10) and Ranganagouda (P-11) of their own
accord came to her land by the time she reached, Bhimappa (PW-10)
and Ranganagouda (P-11) were present in her land. She further
stated that except her. Bhimappa (PW-10) and Ranganagouda (P-11),
none else were present in her land. At that time Mahantappa was in
a position to talk.
17. Bhimappa (PW-10) in his evidence, stated that he knows
Giriyavva (PW-1), deceased Mahantappa, accused persons and also
Ranganagouda (PW-11). He further stated that at about 9.30 a.m.
Mahantappa was found having sustained injuries on his neck and
stated that he covered a towel on the injuries of Mahantappa and
shifted him from that place. The towel and chaddar are M.Os.4 and
5.
18. Coming to the evidence of Sangappa (PW-8) and Chandrasekhar
(PW-9), we find that both of them have deposed that they heard the
shouting when they came near the place of incident, they saw
accused No.1 and accused No.2 assaulting Mahantappa with axe and
with stick. Even though the witnesses were cross-examined at
depth, no much evidence were elicited to discredit the testimony
of Sangappa (PW-8) and Chandrasekhar (PW-9). It is apparent in the
evidence of Bhimappa (PW-10) and Ranganagouda (P-11) that they
came to the land of one Rangappa Gouli for ploughing at about 7 or
7.30 a.m. then they heard the screaming and rushed to the spot
wherein they noticed the presence of Laxmavva (PW-7) who proceeded
to the village side to inform the same to the complainant
Giriyavva (PW-1).
11
Page 12
19. It is true that there are certain discrepancies in mentioning
the time of the incident. Laxmavva (PW-7) stated that the incident
took place at about 11 a.m. whereas, Sangappa(PW-8) and
Chandrasekhar (PW-9) stated that the incident of assault took
place at 9 or 9.30 a.m. Such discrepancies cannot be a ground to
disbelieve the statements of the witnesses if the difference is
about one hour, as the villagers generally suggest the approximate
time.
20. The testimony of Laxmavva (PW-7), clearly indicates that on
the day of the incident, she was grazing her sheep near the land
of Giriyavva (PW-1). According to her evidence, accused No.1-
Pundappa Yankappa Pujari was in his land whereas, accused No.2 was
grazing his sheep near Durgamma Temple. Thereafter, the deceased
Mahantappa came to his land, which is adjacent to the land of
accused persons. The deceased noticed the removal of the boundary
stone, When the deceased went to put the stone in the same pit,
there was some altercation between them regarding fixing of the
boundary stone at the very same place. It is clear from her
evidence that while Mahantappa was putting the stone in the pit,
the accused No.1 assaulted him with axe over his neck and head
three or four times. As a result, he suffered with multiple
fracture injuries and collapsed. On seeing the incident, Laxmavva
(PW-7) shouted. Then Sangappa (PW-8), and Chandrashekhar (PW-9)
who were ploughing the land at a distance of about 10 feet in the
land of one Rangappa, rushed to the spot. The testimony of
Laxmavva (PW-7) clearly indicates that it was accused No.1, who
inflicted blows with the axe on the neck and head of the deceased
12
Page 13
Mahantappa. Apart from that, though Laxmavva (PW-7) has been
lengthily cross-examined, the defence failed to bring out some
evidence that would lead to disbelieve her testimony with respect
to the incident of assault.
21. The testimony of Giriyavva (PW-1), mother of the deceased
Mahantappa shows that she knows the accused persons. She stated
that at about 10 a.m., while she was in the house, Laxmavva (PW-7)
came and informed her that her son Mahantappa was assaulted by
accused No.1 Pundappa and accused No.2 Sidappa with axe and stick
respectively. Further, she stated that then she went to the land
and saw Mahantappa lying on ground with injuries on the head and
back of the neck. She also stated that by that time Bhimappa (PW-
10), Ranganagouda (PW-11) also came to their land. Bhimappa (PW-
10) shifted her son Mahantappa to the village and from there, he
was brought to Bagalkot Hospital and admitted.
In the cross-examination, she clearly stated that on that day
at 6 a.m. her husband had left for Bagalkot. Laxmavva (PW-7) came
and reported the incident when she was alone in the house at about
10 a.m.
From the testimony of the complainant, Giriyavva (PW-1) it is
clear that when she was in the house Laxmavva (PW-7) came about 10
a.m. and informed her about the incident of assault on Mahantapp
by accused No.1 Pundappa. On a careful reading of the deposition
of the complainant, it is clear that Mahantappa left house early
in the morning towards the land to see the crop after taking food.
The fact that the deceased took food in the early morning is
supported by the medical evidence. In the postmortem report, Dr.
13
Page 14
Hanamant (PW-16) has clearly stated that stomach is intact
containing plenty of food particles more of rice. Therefore, the
testimony of Giriyavva (PW-1) is fully corroborated with medical
evidenceof Dr. Hanamant (PW-16) in so far as the deceased
Mahantappa leaving the house early in the morning.
22. The evidence of Dr. Hanamant (PW-16) shows that he examined
Mahantappa on 5th July, 1997 at 1 p.m. and found the following six
incised wounds:
1. “Incised wound of 5x2x2 cms. bone deep in left parietal scalp are with blood clots.
2. Incised wound of in vertex placed long-itudinally of 5x2x2 cms. with fracture of underlying skull bone with blood clots.
3. Incised wound behind the left ear of 7x3x2 cms. with lacerate of muscles underlying.
4. Incised wound in right part of occipital area of 5x3x2 cms with fracture of that bone with blood clots.
5. Incised wound in right part of occipital area of 4x2x2 cms. with blood clots and bone deep.
6. Incised wound in right parietal scalp area of 2x1x1 cms with blood clots.
He issued the wound certificate as per Ex.P16. It is also in evidence that on the death of Mahantappa, he conducted the post mortem and found the following injuries.
Head is completely shaved and there were 7 stitched scalp
wounds are found all were opened and examined.
1. Cut lacerated wound along with midline in vertex of 5x1x1 cms. with depressed fracture of right parietal bone.
2. Cut lacerated wound placed obliquely in right parietal scalp area.
3. Cut lacerated wound of 5x2x1 cms. in upper part of occipital area placed transversely.
4. Cut lacerated wound behind the left ear of 4x1x1 cms. placed obliquely.
5. At the hair line at the hape of neck cut lacerated would placed transversely of 5x2x2 cms. bone deep.
14
Page 15
6. Cut lacerated would in left part of occipital area of 5x2x1 ccms bone deep placed obliquely.
7. Transverse cut lacerated would in right part of occipital region of 5x2x2 cms. with fracture of that bone.
8. Abrasion of 2x2 cms. over right malar region dark brown colour.
9. Abrasion on right forehead of 4x3 cms dark brown colour.”
Thus from the nature of incised injuries found on the scalp,
it is clear that death of Mahantappa was due to injury to the
brain as a result of wounds caused to the head probably by
multiple hits by heavy sharp edged weapon and the same is marked
as Ex.P-17. There is no dispute regarding the cause of death that
the deceased met with homicidal death.
23. The aforesaid medical evidence also corroborates the
statements of Laxmavva (PW-7), Sangappa (PW-8) and Chandrasekhar
(PW-9).
24. Normally, the ploughing of the land is being done in the
morning and in the evening till sun set. This is the normal
practice. Therefore, the presence of Sangappa (PW-8) and
Chandrasekhar (PW-9) witnessing the incident is proved by the
testimony of Laxmavva (PW-7). Merely, due to some discrepancies in
the statements of witnesses as to timings 1 & ½ hour does not go
to the root of the case. The evidence on record, particularly the
testimonies of eye-witnesses -Laxmavva (PW-7), Sangappa (PW-8) and
Chandrasekhaar (PW-9) are consistent, trustworthy and fully
corroborates with one another, without giving any room to doubt
their credibility. Their evidence is also fully supported by the
testimony of Bhimappa (PW-10 and Ranganagouda (PW-11), who went to
15
Page 16
the spot after coming to know of the incident from Laxmavva (PW-
7). All the above facts directly point to the guilt of the accused
No.1.
25. We have noticed that there exists a boundary dispute between
the accused persons as well as the family of the deceased. This is
clear from the testimony of Somappa (PW-2), who has categorically
stated that 10 to 15 days prior to the incident, Chandrappa
(father of the deceased) and accused persons approached them
regarding the boundary dispute of their lands. He himself,
Sonnappa (PW-3),CWs-23 and 24 had advised both the parties and
fixed the boundaries of their lands. Thereafter, accused No.1
Pundappa got his land measured by a private surveyor. The private
surveyor confirmed the boundary fixed by the elderly persons. It
is in the evidence of Laxmavva (PW-7) that while she was grazing
the sheep near the land of Giriyavva (PW-1), there was altercation
between the deceased Mahantappa and accused No.1 regarding fixing
of the boundary stone. It is also seen from her evidence that the
boundary stone was found removed by accused No.1 and deceased
Mahantappa attempted to refix the stone at the same place. On this
the accused No.1 assaulted the deceased Mahantappa with axe over
his head and back of the neck resulting in fracture, which had led
to his death subsequently in the Hospital.
26. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on
careful examination of the act of the accused as proved by
testimony of witnesses, we are of the opinion that the said act of
accused which resulted in death of Mahantappa neither comes within
the ambit of the exceptions under Section 300 IPC nor within the
16
Page 17
scope of Section 304 IPC. It is not an act done under grave and
sudden provocation or in good faith or not an act, which he in
good faith believes to be lawful and necessary for due discharge
in his duty or not an act committed without premeditation in
sudden fight. Therefore, the Appellate Court rightly held that the
act of the accused No.1 thus falls within the ingredients of
Section 300 IPC punishable under Section 302 IPC.
27. We find no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment. In
absence of any merit, the appeal is dismissed.
……………………………………………J.
(SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)
……………………………………………J. (RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI)
NEW DELHI, JULY 2, 2014.
17