{"id":1492,"date":"2024-02-16T13:59:06","date_gmt":"2024-02-16T08:29:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/?p=1492"},"modified":"2024-02-16T13:59:06","modified_gmt":"2024-02-16T08:29:06","slug":"supreme-court-dismisses-appeal-against-murder-conviction-merely-because-of-mismatch-between-doctors-evidence-and-ocular-evidence","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/supreme-court-dismisses-appeal-against-murder-conviction-merely-because-of-mismatch-between-doctors-evidence-and-ocular-evidence\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme court dismisses appeal against murder conviction merely because of mismatch between doctor\u2019s evidence and ocular evidence"},"content":{"rendered":"<h1><strong>HAALESH @ HALESHI @ KURUBARA HALESHI\u00a0 \u00a0[<\/strong>APPELLANT(S)]\u00a0 <strong>Vs.\u00a0 \u00a0<\/strong><strong>STATE OF KARNATAKA\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0[<\/strong>RESPONDENT(S)]<\/h1>\n<p>CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1954 OF 2012<\/p>\n<p>(2JB, ABHAY S. OKA and PANKAJ MITHAL JJ., delivered by <strong>PANKAJ MITHAL, J<\/strong>.)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong><u>Facts:<\/u><\/strong> In Sessions Case No. 25 of 2000 out of the nine accused, seven accused persons (A-1 to A-7) were convicted for various offences and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for different period with a maximum of life imprisonment for an offence under Section 302 in aid with Section 149 IPC and remaining two accused persons i.e. (A-8 and A-9) were acquitted. Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 accepted the judgment of the Trial Court and did not file any appeal against it. Accused Nos. 4, 5 and 6 together filed a Criminal Appeal No. 219 of 2007 before the High Court whereas accused No. 7 filed a separate Criminal Appeal No. 229 of 2007. The High Court by a common judgment passed in both the appeals upheld the conviction and sentence awarded to all of them i.e. A-4, A-5, A-6 and A-7 and dismissed the appeals. It is against the aforesaid conviction and sentence that the accused A-7 has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1954 of 2012 before this Court. Accused Nos. A-4 and A-5 together have preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1955 of 2012 whereas accused No. A-6 has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1303 of 2014. All three appeals were clubbed and heard together. They are being disposed of by this common judgment.<\/p>\n<p><strong><u>Issue:<\/u><\/strong> Whether the present appeal is maintainable in the present circumstances of the case?<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong><u>Arguments on behalf of counsel for appellant:<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The first contention of the counsel appearing for the appellants is that according to the case of the prosecution itself, A-1 to A-3 alone assaulted the deceased Shivanna and, therefore, the other accused persons cannot be convicted for an offence under Section 302 IPC. It is further submitted that the appellants are not guilty of unlawful assembly and, therefore, Section 149 IPC could not have been invoked in the present case. The argument was opposed from the side of the defence on the ground that all the accused persons have unlawfully assembled with clear intention to eliminate the entire family of the deceased Shivanna. Therefore, even if any of them had not been assigned the specific role of assaulting the deceased Shivanna, they all would be guilty for an offence of murder and are liable to be convicted for life imprisonment. The second contention advanced on behalf of the appellants that the medical evidence or the medical report on record does not substantiate the stand taken by the prosecution has no merit at all for the simple reason that the doctor (PW-18) who conducted the postmortem had proved the injuries. However, she suggested the possibility of use of different weapons in causing those injuries.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong><u>Held:<\/u><\/strong> The court dismissed the present petition and held that, \u201c<em>It goes without saying that this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction is always slow in interfering with the concurrent findings of the courts below recorded on the basis of the evidence until and unless such findings are shown to be perverse. In the case at hand, no perversity of any kind has been pointed out in the findings returned by the two courts below. We are ourself satisfied upon consideration of the entire material evidence on record that none of the findings are in any manner perverse, thus, leaving no scope for this Court to disturb the findings or the judgments and orders of the courts below.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>HAALESH @ HALESHI @ KURUBARA HALESHI\u00a0 \u00a0[APPELLANT(S)]\u00a0 Vs.\u00a0 \u00a0STATE OF KARNATAKA\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0[RESPONDENT(S)] CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1954 OF 2012 (2JB, ABHAY S. OKA and PANKAJ MITHAL JJ., delivered by PANKAJ MITHAL, J.) &nbsp; Facts: In Sessions Case No. 25 of 2000 out of the nine accused, seven accused persons (A-1 to A-7) [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1493,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1492","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-judgement"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1492","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1492"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1492\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1496,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1492\/revisions\/1496"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1493"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1492"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1492"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1492"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}