The Supreme Court recently dismissed an appeal challenging the conviction and sentencing of several accused individuals under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), read with Section 149 IPC. The case revolved around a premeditated and violent attack on Shivanna and his family members, resulting in his tragic demise and severe injuries to his wife and daughter.

The court observed that the participation of certain accused in an unlawful assembly, with a shared intent to eliminate Shivanna and cause harm to others, was sufficient to charge all involved under Section 302 IPC in conjunction with Section 149 IPC.

The bench, comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal, highlighted the overt acts of the accused, including their gathering near Shivanna's house, arriving in an autorickshaw, and arming themselves with choppers. These actions pointed towards a collective intention to carry out the unlawful act.

The prosecution's case asserted that the accused unlawfully assembled with the explicit intention of killing Shivanna and his family. Armed with deadly weapons, they forcibly entered Shivanna's residence, leading to a series of targeted attacks on family members. Accused Nos. 1 to 3 assaulted Shivanna, while Accused Nos. 4 and 5 targeted his wife Savithramma. Simultaneously, Accused Nos. 6 and 7 attacked his daughter Girija. Accused Nos. 8 and 9 stood at the door, allegedly instigating the assault.

The court emphasized that the evidence presented clearly demonstrated that all accused individuals gathered unlawfully in front of Shivanna's house, armed with choppers, falling under the purview of Section 149 IPC. The justices noted, "They together armed with weapons (choppers), entered their house, and A-8 and A-9 stood on the door of the house instigating others to kill. This evidence is sufficient in itself to establish that they had assembled in front of the house of the deceased Shivanna sharing a common intention of doing an unlawful act of eliminating the family of the deceased Shivanna."

Addressing the appellants' contentions, the court rejected the argument that medical evidence did not support the prosecution's stance. While the doctor conducting the postmortem acknowledged the injuries, there was a suggestion of the possibility of different weapons being used, conflicting with the prosecution's claim of a single chopper. However, the court highlighted that the same doctor later conceded that all wounds could potentially have been caused by the same weapon, rendering the argument lacking in merit.

In its final decision, the Supreme Court emphasized the reluctance to interfere with concurrent findings of lower courts unless shown to be perverse. The court acknowledged the inherent weakness of opinions based on probability compared to direct eyewitness testimony. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, affirming the conviction and sentencing of the accused individuals involved in the unlawful assembly and subsequent violent attack.

Case: Haalesh @ Haleshi @ Kurubara Haleshi v State Of Karnataka,

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1954 OF 2012.

Click to read/download judgment