SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

RAGHUNATHA AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Criminal Appeal No ...OF 2024 (Arising out of SLP(Criminal) No 6112 of 2022) On 21 March 2024

Hon'ble Judges: B.R. Gavai, Sandeep Mehta

Case Type: Criminal Appeal

Final Decision: 

Advocates: 

Citations: 
2024 0 CJ(SC) 146

ACTS REFERRED: 
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 34
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 120-B

(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302, Section 34, Section 120-B - Punishment for murder - Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention The prosecution case, in a nutshell, is that complainant and his father-Ramu (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') were running a fertilizer shop and were also involved in agriculture and money lending business.

Judgement Text

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal challenges the judgement dated 14th July, 2021, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Criminal Appeal No. 1389 of 2019, thereby partly allowing the appeal filed by the appellants, namely, Raghunatha (Accused No. 1) and Manjunatha (Accused No. 2) and modifying the order of conviction and sentence awarded to them by the Court of III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kolar (sitting at K.G.F.) (hereinafter referred to as "trial court") in S.C. No. 276 of 2014 on 17th June, 2019.

3. Shorn of details, brief facts leading to present appeal are as under:

3.1. On 7th July 2014, upon complaint being lodged by Sri R. Lokanathan (PW-1), Kaamasamudram police registered Crime No. 44/2014 for offence punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') against unknown persons.

3.2. The prosecution case, in a nutshell, is that complainant and his father-Ramu (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') were running a fertilizer shop and were also involved in agriculture and money lending business. There were misunderstandings in the business run by complainant and accused No.1 on account of which the accused No. 1 bore enmity with the complainant due to loss suffered in the business. Following which, the appellants hatched a conspiracy to murder