Cricket ball breaks window pane, leads to murder: HC acquits accused on the benefit of doubt

S Shyam Prasad | NT

Bengaluru: The High Court of Karnataka acquitted the accused on the benefit of the doubt after a game of cricket led to an alleged murder. A quarrel that started after children playing cricket broke the window pane of a house nearby led to the death of the house owner.

However, the prosecution failed to prove the murder. The division bench of Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar and Justice TG Shivashankare Gowda acquitted the accused Yellappa, M Nagaraju and Krishnappa for the murder of one Diwakar.

Two other accused had died during the trial, and the case against them was abated. The children of the accused were playing cricket on December 31, 2009, in front of Diwakar’s house in Anekal. A ball damaged the glass on the window. The house owners questioned this with M Nagaraju, which allegedly led to ill-will between them.

On January 14, 2010, Diwakar returned home, and the accused picked up a quarrel with him on the Bandenallasandra tank bund and inflicted injuries on him. Later, Diwakar, his wife Rathnamma and his son Sudhakar confronted Nagaraju for assaulting Diwakar. Nagaraju and the other accused allegedly attacked them with knives, axe, clubs and stones. Diwakar succumbed to his injuries.

After the trail, all the accused were acquitted by the trial court. The State filed an appeal in the high court challenging the acquittal. The judgement was delivered recently. The HC noted that though more than 20 persons had witnessed the incident, the prosecution had not examined them. Diwakar and his family members were charged as the aggressors in a counter-complaint filed by the accused.

It came to light that Diwakar and his family members had attacked one of the accused. Seeing this aggression, around 40–50 villagers chased them away. The advocate for the accused argued in the high court that Diwakar and his family members were assaulting the accused and a mob chased them away.

“Though 20 neighbours witnessed the incident, none found a place in the witness list. Therefore, to avoid their prosecution, the complainant and his family member tagged the death of the deceased against the accused,” the court was told.

Dismissing the appeal, the HC upheld the acquittal and said, “We are of the opinion that the trial court has rightly concluded that the evidence of important witnesses cannot be believed and it has exercised its judicial discretion in accepting the version of the defence and in extending the benefit of the doubt in favour of accused.”