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