case study- state of karnataka v devaramaiah

8/10/2019 Case Study- State of Karnataka v Devaramaiah

1/13

STATE OF KARNATAKA VS

VENKATARAMAIAH


2/13

Contents

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .....................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

MATERIAL FACTS ................................................................................................................. 3

ISSUES ...................................................................................................................................... 3

ARGUMENTS ........................................................................................................................... 4

ARGUMENTS FOR THE PROSECUTION ......................................................................... 5

ARGUMENTS FOR THE DEFENCE .................................................................................. 5

JUDGEMENT............................................................................................................................ 7

Case Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 8

Opinion .................................................................................................................................... 12

BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................... 13


3/13

MATERIAL FACTS

Accused No.1, No. 2, No. 3, No.4, No.5 were charged for the offences punishable

under Section 147 read with 149, 302 read with 149, 307 read with 149, 114 readwith 149 of IPC.

The aforementioned accused and the deceased were involved in a domestic dispute

pertaining to the misuse of certain property by the deceaseds son.

The dispute led to a scuffle consequently leading to the death of the deceased.

Subsequently the accused were charged under the aforementioned sections of theIndian Penal Code.

Accused No. 1 used the defence of private defence which was allowed by the Court.

No sufficient evidence surfaced as to the involvement of any kind by Accused Nos.

2,3,4 and 5.

Consequently, the accused were acquitted of the aforementioned charges for lack of

proof of the alleged charges beyond reasonable doubt.


4/13

ISSUES

1. THAT ACCUSED NOS. 1-3 WERE PHYSICALLY INVOLVED IN THE

SCUFFLE WITH THE DECEASED THAT LED TO THE DECEASEDS DEATH.

2. THAT ACCUSED NO.1, WHO ALLEGES THE RIGHT OF PRIVATE DEFENCE,

EXCEEDED THE PRESCRIBED LIMITATIONS ON THE SAID RIGHT.

3. THAT ACCUSED NOS. 4-5 INSITGATED THE ASSAULT ON THE DECEASED

WHICH LED TO HIS DEATH.

4. THAT THE CONDUCT OF ALL THE ACCUSED SATISFY THE CONDITIONS

OF THE SECTIONS OF THE IPC UNDER WHICH THEY ARE BEING

CHARGED.


5/13


6/13

aggression was started by the deceased and had the accused no done so, the deceased

would have killed him.

The witnesses for the defence give a bystander account according to which it was the

deceased that carried the deadly weapons. The deceased injured accused no.2 andbefore any further harm was caused. the weapons were snatched away by the accused

no. 1 . Thereafter, the deceased went inside his house to arm himself again and came

back with another weapon in an attempt to kill accused no. 1 in response to which the

said accused stabbed the deceased fatally.

The testimony of the eyewitness of the prosecution was registered a month after the

alleged incident and contains inconsistencies.


7/13

JUDGEMENT

In light of the evidence, the Court ruled that the prosecution failed to establish the liability of

the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Moreover, the Court found the procedure of thepolice incongruous and biased towards the prosecution. The testimony of the witnesses of the

prosecution during the examination-in chief as well as the cross examination was found to be

favouring the arguments of the defence. Lastly, the court applied the various sections of the

IPC regarding private defence and found that the accused did indeed exercise his right of

private defence and did not exceed the boundaries contingent to such a right.

Therefore, the Court acquitted all the accused of all the charges.

The application and analysis of the Court regarding the arguments, evidence, and statutory

provisions to the facts will be further discussed hereinafter.


8/13

Case Analysis

The failure of the prosecutions case was determined by the prosecutions witnesses

themselves.

Firstly, the Court found that the presence of P.Ws. 2 and 7 who were claiming to be

eyewitnesses near the scene is highly doubtful.

The evidence of the Investigation Officer as well as Sub-Inspector of Police, i.e., P.Ws. 25

and P.W. 26 totally destroyed the case of the prosecution.

In the cross-examination, P.W. 25 admits that at about 00-30 hours i.e., midnight

intervening between 04-05-2003 and 05-05-2003, he received the information regarding

the incident and at about 1-15 or 1-30 A.M. on 05-05-2003, he reached Gorgatta village;

there were persons present in the spot; he questioned the people as to what has happenedand he came to know that it was the quarrel between the brothers; however, the details

were not specified. Thus it is clear that P.W. 25 came to the spot at about 1 A.M. itself on

05.05.2003 and started the investigation into the matter. He had even directed the Head

Constable to guard the dead body. Thus, investigation has virtually started at about 1 A.M.

itself on 05.05.2003. Though P.W. 25 enquired with various persons who were standing at

the scene of the offence; according to him, he did not try to record their statements and

register the case. He would have suo-moto registered the case also, but such procedure is

not adopted.

The evidence of P.W. 25 that he had reached the spot at about 1 A.M. on being informed

by Sub-Inspector of Police (P.W. 26) is further corroborated by the evidence of P.W.26/Sub-Inspector of Police. P.W. 26-Sub-Inspector of Police admits in his cross-

examination that he has informed to P.W. 25 at about 1 A.M. on 05-05-2003 about murder

at the Village. He visited the scene of the offence at Gorgatta village after sending a

message to the Inspector of Police. Body was lying on the road from Gorgatta village to the

house of Govindappa in a halla i.e., adjoining the pathway leading to the house of

Govindappa. When he reached the spot, there was no person present near the dead body.

According to him, after staying for 20 minutes near the dead body, he went to the village

and it was about 3-30 A.M.; he enquired with the villagers about the incident but he did not

remember the names of those witnesses. He did not record the statement of any of the

witnesses and he was searching for the complainant as he wanted to receive the complaint

from P.W. 1. From the aforementioned, it is amply clear that the earlier information as

received by P.Ws. 25 and 26, on 05-05-2003 at about 1 A.M. is suppressed by the Police.

There is no reason as to why the police did not record statement of any of the persons who

were present on the spot at 1 A.M. and register the case. Without even registering the case,

strongly the investigation has been started by P.Ws. 25 and 26.

Wherefore, The Court was of the view that origin and genesis of the crime is suppressed by

the prosecution. Since the origin and genesis of the crime is shrouded with mystery, it may

be difficult for the Court to believe the version of the prosecution including the version of

the eye-witnesses.

The Court therefore turned to the evidence of D.W.s 1 and 2 on the question of incident.D.W. 2 is the independent eye-witness to the incident and he is a tailor by profession. He is


9/13


10/13

The accused did not exceed the limitations of private defence under section 99 of the IPC.

The violence used to defend oneself must not be unduly disproportionate to the injury that is

sought to be averted and should not exceed its legitimate purpose.

Section 100 of IPC testifies as to when the right of private defence of the body extends to

causing death. The right of private defence of the body extends subject to the restrictions

mentioned supra and to the voluntary causing of death or of any other harm to the assailant, if

the offence which occasions the exercise of the right be of any of the descriptions mentioned

below:

a. Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that death will otherwise be the

consequence of such assault;

b. Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that grievous hurt will otherwisebe the consequence of such assault;

c. An assault with the intention of committing rape;

d. An assault with the intention of gratifying unnatural lust;

e. An assault with the intention of kidnapping or abducting;

f. An assault with the intention of wrongfully confining a person, under circumstances which

may reasonably cause him to apprehend that he will be unable to have recourse to the public

authorities for his release.

The provisions of Section 100 of IPC are squarely applicable to the facts of this case. The

attempts were made to take away the life of Accused No. 1 by the deceased on three

occasions i.e., one in temple and at the second time on the way to the house by wielding the

knife and thirdly at the scene of offence when the deceased tried to assault with the chopper.

At the first instance, the attempt was made with the chopper, but the same was snatched by

the public. In the second attempt by the deceased, the knife was snatched by Accused No. 1

in order to save his life. Being dissatisfied with the said two attempts, the deceased once

again went back to his house and brought the chopper in order to take away the life of

Accused No. 1. At that point of time, suddenly without premeditation, the Accused No. 1 in

order to save his life, stabbed three times on the stomach of the deceased. Therefore the threat

to accused nos 1 was real and grave.

In Wassan Singh vs The State Of Punjab2, and Puran Singh vs the State of Punjab3, the

Supreme court held that that there must be reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt

or hurt to the person or damage to the property concerned.

The facts of the case satisfy such a condition.

21996 SCC (1) 458

3MANU/SC/0184/1975


11/13

As to the question of liability of all the accused under section 149 of the IPC, the ingredients

of the said section are not met. Under section 149 the unlawful assembly must be as

contemplated under section 141 of the IPC.

Section 141 of the IPC states that if thecommon object of persons composing that assembly

is..... To commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offences4.

There is no evidence of such an assembly and the element of common object cannot be

established.

The abetment of accused nos. 4-5 also cannot be established.

Therefore the case for the prosecution fails and the accused stand acquitted.

4http://www.shareyouressays.com/115849/legal-provisions-regarding-common-object-in-india-section-149-of-

ipc


12/13

Opinion

The judgement and reasoning of the Court receives my concurrence. The prosecution fails to

satisfy any of the ingredients under which it charges the accused.

However, the Court does not thoroughly investigate the aspect of the violence upon the wifeof the deceased. The fact that the testimony for such violence was given belatedly and the

procedure adopted by the police in registering the complaint was contrary to procedure was

not sufficient reason to dismiss this element altogether.


13/13

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Manupatra.com

Indian Penal Code Bare Act http://www.shareyouressays.com/115849/legal-provisions-regarding-common-object-

in-india-section-149-of-ipc

http://likemindness.blogspot.in/2010/11/right-of-private-defense-under-indian.html

case study- state of karnataka v devaramaiah

Documents