Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 517 (KAR)

STATE OF KARNATAKA v. NARASANNA

2003-07-01

M.F.SALDANHA, M.S.RAJENDRA PRASAD

body2003
SALDANHA, J. ( 1 ) WE have heard the learned Addl. SPP at length and on merits in both these appeals. The principal grievance is that even though the trial Court has convicted the accused under Sec. 304, Part I, i. P. C. and awarded a sentence of 7 years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default S. I. for 6 months, that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case that the acquittal under Sec. 302, I. P. C. was unjustified. The second submission is that the facts of this case are rather gross and even if for any reason the court were to convict under a lesser charge that the sentence awarded is inadequate and requires to be enhanced. In one of these appeals earlier the learned Single judge had issued notice to the respondentaccused but that notice has not so far been served and consequently, we dispense with the service of notice in view of the order that has been passed by this Court. ( 2 ) IT is well settled law that in a case where the trial Court exercises judicial discretion, where the trial Court has adduced valid reasons and where those reasons meet with the approval of the appeal Court, that no interference is warranted. ( 3 ) IN this case, undoubtedly as a result of the injuries that were inflicted, the deceased has met with a homicidal death. That would not ipso facto justify a conviction under Sec. 302, I. P. C. It is true that by virtue of the death the original charge was one under Sec. 302, I. P. C. , but it is the duty of the trial Court to very carefully examine the facts and circumstances and if the record so justifies then the conviction will have to be under a lesser offence. In the present case despite what has been pointed out by the learned Addl. SPP we do find that the trial court has given very valid reasons both factually and legally for justifying conviction under Sec. 304, I. P. C. and for not convicting under Sec. 302, I. P. C. No fault can be found with regard to those conclusions. In the present case despite what has been pointed out by the learned Addl. SPP we do find that the trial court has given very valid reasons both factually and legally for justifying conviction under Sec. 304, I. P. C. and for not convicting under Sec. 302, I. P. C. No fault can be found with regard to those conclusions. ( 4 ) ON the question of sentence, the Supreme court as also this Court in the course of the recent past been adopting a radical change with regard to the punishment awarded. The doctrine relating to the philosophy of sentencing not only requires that every relevant aspect of the case needs to be taken into account but also the predominant question is the age of the accused, the situation of the accused and the sociological aspects. In many of the cases, the Courts have been very much in favour of a lower jail sentence and imposition of a fine so that the money could be awarded as compensation to. the relations of the deceased or to the injured person and the sentence awarded in the present case has taken cognisance of all these factors and in our considered view, it is not open to revision. We have undoubtedly applied our minds to every aspect of the submissions canvassed by the learned Addl. SPP including the question as to whether, where a life has been lost a sentence of the present type would be adequate. We have already adduced our reasons in support of our decision not to interfere with the discretion exercised by the trial Court. Having regard to this position, both the appeals fail on. merits and stand dismissed. ( 5 ) WE need to however clarify that the observations made in this order are for the limited purpose of enhancing that has been asked for under both heads by the State in both the appeals. These observations shall not in any way come in the way of or influence the court hearing the appeal preferred by the accused. Whether the conviction is justified, whether the conviction under Sec. 304, Part I, I. P. C. is correct in law and whether the sentence awarded deserves to be confirmed, set aside or reduced, are all factors which the Court before which the conviction appeal will be to decide de hors anything that has been observed in this judgment. Whether the conviction is justified, whether the conviction under Sec. 304, Part I, I. P. C. is correct in law and whether the sentence awarded deserves to be confirmed, set aside or reduced, are all factors which the Court before which the conviction appeal will be to decide de hors anything that has been observed in this judgment. We need to clarify this as the learned Addl. SPP has very rightly submitted that the disposal of these appeals should not cause prejudice to either party at the hearing of the conviction appeal. ( 6 ) WITH these observations both the appeals to stand dismissed on merits. Appeals dismissed. --- *** --- .