Huchappa @ Hucharayappa and Ors. v. State of Karnataka

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat
P. Sathasivam
Judgment Date: 2008-04-01
Court Decision / Holding: Matter remitted to High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law, with a request for expeditious disposal (preferably by end-October 2008).
Final Disposition: Matter remitted to High Court for fresh disposal.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Huchappa @ Hucharayappa and Ors.

Respondents

State of Karnataka

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• N. D. B. Raju
• Bharathi Raju
• N. Ganpathy

Counsels for Respondents

• Anitha Shenoy

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Supreme Court appeal challenges a conviction under Section 326 IPC arising from an assault by a group described as an unlawful assembly that led to grievous injuries and the death of CW-1. The Trial Court convicted three appellants under Section 326 IPC while 11 others were acquitted; the High Court upheld these convictions, and the appellants challenged the High Court’s reasoning. The High Court had also addressed proceedings under Section 149 IPC, suggesting vicarious liability for the acts of A1–A3 by A4–A14, and upheld the conviction with a finding that the injury was to a non-vital part and there was no evident knowledge of death. The Supreme Court found the High Court’s judgment to be a “bundle of confusion” and not properly addressing the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants. It set aside the High Court’s decision and remitted the matter to the High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law, with a request for expedition (preferably by October 2008). The Court noted that applications for suspension of sentence and bail would be dealt with in due course, and left open the possibility of related remedial steps. The overall outcome is a procedural remand to ensure proper consideration of the issues.

Provisions of Law Cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 326Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 149Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 143Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 144Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 147Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 148Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 109Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 504Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 324Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 323Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 506Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 235(1)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants contended that the High Court’s judgment was unreasoned and casual, failing to address the substantial contentions raised on their behalf. They argued that the High Court did not properly apply law to the questions of liability under Section 149 IPC and the relationship between A1–A3 (principal actors) and A4–A14 (benefactors or participants) and did not adequately analyse the circumstances surrounding alleged injuries that were non-fatal and the absence of clear knowledge of such injuries causing death. They urged that the conviction under Section 326 IPC should not be sustained without proper consideration of the evidence regarding intent or knowledge and the proportionality of punishment, and called for a fresh disposal consistent with due process.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents supported the High Court’s judgment, arguing that the evidence showed a conspiracy/und vicarious liability under Section 149 IPC and that the injuries were part of a grievous assault resulting in death. They maintained that the trial court’s findings, the circuitous chain of causation, and the High Court’s interpretation of the evidence were consistent with the record and law, and that no interference was warranted.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

,- ## [2008) 5 S.C.R. 988 A # HUCHAPPA @ HUCHARAYAPPA AND ORS. _v._ STATE OF KARNATAKA (Criminal Appeal No. 577 of 2008) B ## APRIL 1, 2008 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.) - - - _Penal Code, 1860 s. 326 Conviction under_ - _Appeal by accused- Dismissal of, by High Court Challenge[Held: ][Approach ][of ][High ][Court ][was ][casual ]_[-] _[It ][did ][not ][apply ]_ c _[to ]_[-] _its mind to various contentions raised on behalf of accused-_ - - _appellant Hence, matter remitted to High Court Practice_ - - _and Procedure Criminal appeal Manner of disposal._ According to the prosecution, the 14 accused D persons formed themselves into members of an unlawful assembly and assaulted a person with deadly weapons causing grievous injuries to him and his consequent death. The Trial Court acquitted 11 accused but convicted the other three accused i.e. Appellants under s.326 IPC. E[The ][conviction ][of ][Appellants was upheld by the High ] Court. Hence the present appeal. Remitting the matter to High Court for fresh disposal, the Court F HELD: The High Court's judgment is a bundle of confusion. Since the High Court has not applied its mind to various contentions raised on behalf of the appellant and has in a casual manner disposed of the appeal, the matter is remitted to High Court for fresh disposal in G[accordance with law. [Paras ][7, ][9) ][[990-F, ][G; ][991-B, ][CJ ] ·- CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 577 of 2008. From the Judgment dated 27.7.2006 of the High Court of H 988 HUCHAPPA@ HUCHARAYAPPA AND ORS. _v._ STATE 989 OF KARNATAKA [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] -, ... Karnataka at Bangalore in Crl. A. No. 346/2001 (SJ) A N.D.B. Raju, Bharathi Raju and N. Ganpathy for the Appellants. Anitha Shenoy for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B **DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.** 1. Leave granted. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned single judge of the High Court upholding the judgment c of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Shimoga in SC No.37 of 1995 convicting the three appellants for offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and sentence each one of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each with default stipulation. There were originally 14 accused D persons. The trial court found the present appellants.guilty and others were found not to be guilty under Section 235(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Cr.P.C.'). Originally all the accused persons were charged for having committed offence under Sections 143,144, 147, 148, 109, 504, E 324, 323 and 506 read with Section 149 IPC. In view of death of Mahadevappa (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') on 28.11.1994, Section 302 IPC was added. 3. The prosecution version as unfolded during trial was as follows: F -, The accused persons 1 to 14 forming themselves into members of unlawful assembly, with deadly weapons assaulted CW-1 and caused fracture of his left leg. CW-1 consequent to the injuries and septicemia died after five days while under G treatment. The F.l.R. is lodged by the deceased. The contents of the F.l.R. implicated all the accused persons. PWs. 2 and 5 are the eye witnesses to the incident. They also implicate A 1 to A-14 as assailants who caused grievous injuries on CW-1, ultimately resulting in his death. H SUPREME COURT REPORTS 990 [2008] 5 S.C.R. A 4. As noted above, after the death of the deceased, another complaint was filed and the case was registered as one in relation to the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The trial court as noted above found accused 4 to 14 to be not guilty. An appeal was preferred by the appellants which, as noted B above was dismissed. The High Court disposed of the appeal observing as follows: A c "The trial court has grossly erred in acquitting A4 to A 14. Since Section 149 is invoked and acquitted accused would be equally and vicariously liable for the acts of A 1 to A3 as they have shared common object and they had also participated in the assault. The State has not filed an appeal against illegal acquittal. D E The trial court convicted A 1 to A3 for committing offence under Section 326 l.P.C. The injury was caused on the non-vital part, no intention to cause the injury which is likely to cause death and no knowledge of causing death could be inferred from the overt acts. Therefore conviction u/s 326 IPC is sound and proper. Looking into the consequence and ghastly act, the sentence imposed is also sound and proper and do not call for interference. The appeal is dismissed." 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the High Court's judgment is clearly unsustainable being F unreasoned. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent-State supported the judgment. 7. To say the least the High Court's judgment is a bundle G of confusion. The High Court held that the trial court has erred in acquitting A4 to A 14, sihce Section 149 was invoked and acquitted accused persons should be equally and vicariously liable as they shared common object of A 1 to A3 and also participated in the assault. H 8. The High Court noted that the State has not filed an HUCHAPPA@ HUCHARAYAPPA AND ORS. _v._ STATE 991 OF KARNATAKA [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] appeal against the "illegal acquittal". The High Court upheld the conviction holding that injury was caused on the non-vital part which was likely to cause the injury which is likely to cause death and no knowledge of causing death could be inferred from the overt acts. Therefore the conviction was maintained and the appeal was dismissed. A B 9. Since the High Court has not applied its mind to various contentions raised on behalf of the appellant and has in a casual manner disposed of the appeal, we have no hesitation in setting aside the impugned Judgment. We remit the matter to the High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. Since the C Criminal Appeal is to the year 2001, we request the High Court to dispose of the appeal as early as practicable preferably by the end of October, 2008. 10. It is stated that an application for suspension of the sentence of the accused persons and grant of bail is shall be moved in the High Court. If the same is filed, it shall be dealt with in accordance with law. 0 B.B.B. Matter remitted to High Court.