Delay In Lodging Complaint No Ground To Grant Acquittal: Karnataka High Court Upholds Order Convicting Man For Son-In-Law's Murder

The Karnataka High Court has recently observed that mere delay in lodging the complaint by the complainant cannot be a ground to acquit the accused in a murder case, as the immediate concern of the victim's family would be save the injured instead of approaching the police. In doing so the court upheld a trial court order convicting a man for murder and sentencing him to life, who had been booked for assaulting the deceased with with a wooden log on his, pursuant to which he succumbed to his injuries during treatment in the hospital. The Amicus Curiae who appeared for the appellant-convict argued that the complaint was not lodged immediately after the incident. It was argued that the complaint was lodged only after the death of deceased and this delay has not been properly explained. To this a division bench of Justice HP Sandesh and Justice Venkatesh Naik T in its order observed:"However, the Court has to take note of the fact that the accused is none other than the father of PW3 and the husband of PW7. The first priority of the family members was to shift the injured to the hospital. Immediately after the incident, the injured was taken to Mc.Gann Hospital, Shivamogga, and thereafter shifted to Wenlock Hospital, Mangaluru. The complaint was lodged immediately after the death of Shivakumar. The mere delay in lodging the complaint, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, cannot be a ground to acquit the accused. Normally, when an incident takes place among family members, the immediate concern would be to save the injured rather than to approach the police station". The accused was the father-in-law of the deceased who had entered into a love marriage with the accused's daughter. The prosecution contended that the accused used to quarrel with the deceased every day by demanding money. On 06.08.2017, at about 10.00 p.m., when the deceased and his wife were sleeping in their house along with their children, the accused went to their house and assaulted the deceased with a wooden log on his abdomen, as a result of which he sustained a blunt injury. The wife of the deceased, an eye witness, immediately shifted her husband to Mc.Gann Hospital, where he was treated, and thereafter he was shifted to Wenlock Hospital for further treatment. The court also noted that the wife of the accused, had deposed that upon hearing the screaming, she rushed to the spot and noticed the accused moving away from the place of occurrence. On enquiry, she came to know from the deceased that the accused had assaulted him. The court said that her evidence appears to be natural and is corroborated by the testimony of her daughter."It is important to note that PW3 is none other than the daughter of the accused and PW7 is none other than his wife, and they are also neighbours. No reasons are assigned by the accused for their deposing against him. Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of these two material witnesses, namely PW3 and PW7. The trial Judge has also considered the evidence of PW1, who is the complainant and brother of the deceased. He has stated in his evidence that, after receiving information from PW3, he went to Wenlock Hospital, where he found his brother, who had undergone surgery to his abdomen. On enquiry, PW3 disclosed the entire incident to him. Thus, he came to know about the occurrence only through PW3, and his evidence is hearsay in nature. However, PW7 is a circumstantial witness who rushed to the spot and saw the accused running out of the house of PW3. PW2, an independent witness, is a signatory to the inquest," the court said.It noted that the witnesses evidence had been duly taken note of by the trial court and nothing was elicited in the cross examination the deceased's wife and the accused's wife that they had any any enmity against the accused so as to falsely implicate him. The bench also noted that the medical evidence also clearly established that it is a case of homicidal death. "In view of the above material on record, we do not find any grounds to reverse the findings of the trial Court. Even to reverse such findings, there must be cogent evidence to arrive at a different conclusion, which is absent in the present case...None of the witnesses has any animosity against the appellant so as to falsely depose against him," the bench added.The appeal was dismissed.Case title: MANJAPPA v/s STATE OF KARNATAKA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.968 OF 2021Click Here To Read/Download OrderCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 91

Delay In Lodging Complaint No Ground To Grant Acquittal: Karnataka High Court Upholds Order Convicting Man For Son-In-Law's Murder

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags