Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Fatal Family Dispute Case: Munishamappa & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka (24 January 2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 24 January 2019

Citation: (2019) INSC 24

Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and Vineet Saran, J

Can a High Court overturn a Trial Court’s acquittal in a criminal case? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case involving a violent family dispute. The core issue was whether the High Court was justified in reversing the Trial Court’s decision and convicting the accused of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. This case highlights the complexities of evaluating evidence and the principles governing appeals against acquittals. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and Vineet Saran, J.

Case Background

The case originated from a long-standing property dispute between two brothers, Gopalappa and Bachappa. On 15 March 1995, survey officials visited Nallappanahalli village to survey properties. A verbal altercation occurred between Bachappa and Krishnappa (Gopalappa’s son) when the officials surveyed Gopalappa’s house. The survey was halted. Later, the accused, including Bachappa’s sons and their family members, allegedly attacked the family of Gopalappa with weapons, resulting in the deaths of Krishnappa and Kenchappa (Gopalappa’s sons).

The prosecution’s case was that the accused came armed with deadly weapons, including a baku, knife, cycle chain, and explosives. Accused No. 1 assaulted Krishnappa with a dagger, and Accused No. 6 assaulted him with a cycle chain. Accused No. 3 assaulted Kenchappa with a knife. Accused No. 2 threw an explosive, injuring Sriramappa. During his escape, another explosive in Accused No. 2’s pocket detonated, injuring him. The complainant, PW1 Rani, filed the First Information Report (FIR).

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court acquitted all the accused, citing reasons such as the prosecution’s failure to explain the injuries on the accused, inconsistencies in witness testimonies, and the absence of bloodstained earth for analysis. The High Court, however, reversed the acquittal of ten accused, finding that the Trial Court’s appreciation of evidence was flawed. The High Court convicted them under Section 304 Part I read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 324 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of Section 149 and Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, deals with the concept of “unlawful assembly” and states:

“Section 149. Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object —If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.”

This section implies that if a crime is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in furtherance of their shared objective, then every member of that assembly is guilty of that offense.

Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, pertains to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, stating:

“Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death;”

This section defines the punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, where the act is done with the intention of causing death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.

Arguments

The appellants (accused) argued that the High Court did not find the Trial Court’s judgment to be perverse or resulting in a miscarriage of justice, and that the presumption of innocence was fortified by the Trial Court’s acquittal. They contended that the High Court had transgressed the settled principles governing appeals against acquittal. They also argued that the prosecution failed to explain the injuries sustained by several of the accused, which cast doubt on the prosecution’s theory, relying on the decision in Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar [ (1976) 4 SCC 394 ].

The respondent (State) argued that the Trial Court’s judgment was primarily based on the hypothesis that the injuries sustained by the accused were not explained. They contended that the evidence explained the injury sustained by accused No. 2 and that the injuries sustained by the other accused were minor. The respondent also argued that the prosecution is not bound to explain every injury sustained by the accused. They cited subsequent judgments of the Supreme Court that clarified that the prosecution is not bound to explain every injury sustained by the accused, and that the decision must turn on the facts and circumstances, including the nature of the weapons carried by the accused. The respondent argued that the Trial Court failed to correctly assess the clear and cogent accounts of the injured eye-witnesses.

The complainant argued that the Trial Court did not correctly evaluate the nine eye-witnesses, including the four injured witnesses. The complainant also argued that the subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court have clarified the position in law, and it is now well settled that the question of whether there was a failure on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries sustained by the accused must be evaluated in the context of the nature of the injuries, the weapons wielded by the accused, and all relevant facts and circumstances. The complainant also argued that the High Court correctly applied the provisions of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and that a common object emerged from the evidence on record.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in reversing the acquittal order of the Trial Court.
2. Whether the High Court correctly applied the principles governing appeals against acquittal.
3. Whether the High Court correctly convicted the accused under Section 304 Part I read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court analyzed the submissions made by both the appellants and the respondent, and the authorities cited by them. The Court found that the High Court was correct in reversing the acquittal order of the Trial Court. The Court held that the Trial Court’s judgment was perverse and based on surmises. The Court also held that the High Court correctly applied the principles governing appeals against acquittal.

The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s decision to convict the accused under Section 304 Part I read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court found that the accused formed an unlawful assembly with a common object, and their actions resulted in the deaths of the victims.

The Supreme Court enhanced the sentence imposed by the High Court to ten years rigorous imprisonment.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the perversity of the Trial Court’s judgment, the clear and consistent evidence of the injured eye-witnesses, and the fact that the accused came armed with weapons while the victims were unarmed. The Court emphasized that the Trial Court had ignored vital aspects of the medical evidence and had based its decision on surmises. The Court also highlighted the fact that the accused returned to the scene of the incident armed with lethal weapons after the initial altercation, indicating a common objective.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was based on a combination of factual analysis and legal interpretation. The Court carefully examined the factual matrix of the case, including the sequence of events, the nature of the injuries, and the conduct of the parties. The Court also relied on legal principles, such as the principles governing appeals against acquittal, the concept of unlawful assembly, and the interpretation of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The Supreme Court considered the alternative interpretation that the injuries sustained by the accused indicated a free fight and that the prosecution had suppressed the truth. However, the Court rejected this interpretation, stating that the injuries sustained by the accused were either explained or were of a minor nature. The Court also held that the evidence of the injured eye-witnesses was clear and consistent.

The Court’s decision was clear and accessible. The Court held that the High Court was correct in reversing the acquittal order of the Trial Court and convicting the accused under Section 304 Part I read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court also enhanced the sentence imposed by the High Court to ten years rigorous imprisonment.

The reasons for the decision were:

• The Trial Court’s judgment was perverse and based on surmises.
• The High Court correctly applied the principles governing appeals against acquittal.
• The accused formed an unlawful assembly with a common object.
• The actions of the accused resulted in the deaths of the victims.
• The injuries sustained by the accused were either explained or were of a minor nature.

The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“The High Court, in other words, should not interfere with an order of acquittal merely because two views are possible. The interference of the High Court in such cases is governed by well established principles. According to these principles, it is only where the appreciation of evidence by the Trial Court is capricious or its conclusions are without evidence that the High Court may reverse an order of acquittal.”

“The common object is ascertained from considering the acts of its members and on the basis of all surrounding circumstances. In Sikandar Singh v State of Bihar, this Court held thus: A “common object” does not require a prior concert and a common meeting of minds before the attack. It is enough if each member of the unlawful assembly has the same object in view and their number is five or more and that they act as an assembly to achieve that object.”

“In the present case, applying the same rationale, we are of the view that the common object within the meaning of Section 149 is evident from the genesis of theincident, the manner in which the incident occurred and the nature of weapons carried by the accused. The accused came armed to the spot; the victims were unarmed. The accused returned to the scene of the incident after the initial altercation with weapons. This indicates a common objective.”

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Munishamappa & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka serves as a significant precedent on several aspects of criminal law, particularly regarding appeals against acquittal and the application of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court’s decision underscores that a High Court can reverse an acquittal order if the Trial Court’s judgment is perverse, based on surmises, or ignores crucial evidence. The judgment also clarifies that the prosecution is not obligated to explain every injury sustained by the accused, especially if the evidence is clear and cogent.

The case also provides valuable insights into the concept of unlawful assembly. The Court reiterated that a common object does not require prior concert and can form on the spur of the moment. The Court’s emphasis on the circumstances of the incident, the nature of the weapons, and the conduct of the accused highlights the importance of a holistic approach to evaluating evidence in criminal cases.

This judgment reinforces the principle that appellate courts can and should intervene when lower courts fail to properly appreciate the evidence, and that the ultimate goal of the justice system is to ensure that the guilty are punished and the innocent are protected.