Sec.302 I.P.C- the trial court acquitted the accused under sec.302 IPC – on appeal the high court convicted the accused under sec.302 IPC – Surveyor fixed boundary stone – Accused removed it – deceased when try to refix it – the accused attacked on him with axe on his head and on back resulted in death at Hospital – No sudden provocation, No exemption – intentionally attacked on him to kill as he know the consequences of his acts – not entitled for relief – Apex court held that High court rightly convicted the accused and as such dismissed the appeal =
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
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.
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 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
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.