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 = PUNDAPPA YANKAPPA PUJARI … APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA … RESPONDENT = 2014 – July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41735

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 = 

 By  the

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

imprisonment.=

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.

He

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

sudden fight. 

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.

2014 – July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41735 – for full text – LAW FOR ALL