4, 5 and 6 together filed a Criminal Appeal
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/dismissal-of-bail-application-in-money-laundering-case/
No 219 of 2007 before the High Court whereas accused No 7 filed a separate Criminal Appeal
No 229 of 2007.
Accused A-1 to A-3 caught hold of deceased Shivanna and assaulted him with choppers; accused A-4 and A-5 caught hold of his wife Savithramma and assaulted her with choppers; accused A-6 and A-7 assaulted Girija, the daughter of deceased Shivanna with choppers and whereas accused A-8 and A-9 stood at the door of the house keeping a watch and instigating the other accused to kill the deceased Shivanna and his family members. It is not in dispute that the deceased Shivanna had instituted a civil suit against his brother Ramana (A-9) in the Court of Additional Munsif, Bhadravathi for partition and separate possession of his half share in all the properties described in the plaint and for cancellation of relinquishment deed dated 7.6.1969 alleged to have been executed by him in favour of A-9.
The deceased Shivanna in the year 1999 initiated proceedings for preparation of the final decree wherein the executing court directed the revenue authorities to effect partition in terms of Section 54 of CPC.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/criminal/statutory-right-of-default-bail-in-incomplete-chargesheet/
The conviction was based primarily upon the ocular evidence of two injured eyewitnesses PW-3 and PW-4 who were none other than the wife and daughter of the deceased, present in the house.
The other daughter of the deceased Shivanna, PW-7 (Rukmini) corroborated the evidence of PW-3 and PW-4.
It is true that according to the prosecution and the evidence on record only A-1 to A-3 had caught hold of the deceased Shivanna and had assaulted him with choppers. She is the second wife of the deceased Shivanna and that she was living with her husband and one of the daughters, Girija, who was unmarried, together in the house where the incident took place. Similarly, A-6 and A-7 assaulted her daughter, Girija, with choppers and then dragged her.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/illegality-of-arrest-under-pmla/
The daughter of the deceased (PW-4) who was present in the house and was also injured, in her statement repeated the same story and apparently there is no contradiction between the statements of PW-3 and PW-4. No doubt, they are members of the family and may be interested persons but their testimony cannot be discarded simply for the reason that they are family members in the scenario of the case that the incident took place inside the house of the deceased Shivanna, where there could not have been any other eyewitnesses other than the family members.
Case Title: HAALESH @ HALESHI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-001954-001954 / 2012
