Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 254 (KAR)

Shakunthalamma v. State

2011-03-03

B.V.PINTO

body2011
Judgment : 1. This Appeal has been filed by the accused challenging the judgment dated 4.11.04 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court (Sessions) Judge III Bangalore city in S.C.No. 546/03 convicting her for the offence under Sec, 307, IPC and sentencing her to undergo for rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for 15 months. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 13.8.02 at about 2.15 p.m., at House No.14, Cholanayakanahalli, Sunrise colony, Bangalore, within the limits of Hebbal Police Station, the accused with an intention to commit the murder of CW-2 Rathna called her to her house on the pretext of untying the rice bag and when the injured went inside the house of the accused, latter poured the boiling oil on her back and caused severe burn injuries with an intention or knowledge that if by that act, she has caused the murder of CW-2, she would have been guilty of murder thereby she is alleged to have committed an offence under Sec. 307, IPC. 3. The prosecution in order to prove the case has examined in all eight witnesses and got marked Exs.P1 to P12 and produced MOs. 1 to 5. The defence of the accused was one of total denial. However, by the impugned judgment, the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to hold the accused guilty and convicted and sentenced her as herein before mentioned. The convicted accused has filed this appeal. 4. Heard Sri. Shivarudra, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Vijayakumar Majage, learned HCGP for the State. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the accused and the victim are co-sisters being the wives of direct brothers. That the incident has happened because of mis-understanding regarding receipt of telephone calls by the victim from her husband who was working in military and also regarding extraction of water in the common well situated between the house of the accused and the victim. That the incident has happened because of mis-understanding regarding receipt of telephone calls by the victim from her husband who was working in military and also regarding extraction of water in the common well situated between the house of the accused and the victim. He has further submitted that the accused and the victim being close relatives, now they have patched up their differences between them and in order to live harmonious life for the welfare of their families, they have compromised the issue between themselves and therefore, they have filed a joint memo before this Court submitting that the accused and the injured have settled their differences. 6. The learned H.C.G.P. on the other hand submits that the appellant has not made out any ground to dislodge the well considered judgment of conviction or to reduce the sentence imposed on her. He submits that the appeal is devoid of merits and the same may be dismissed. 7. On the basis of the complaint filed by one Muniyappa, Hebbal Police have registered a case in their Crime No.232/02 on 14.8.02 for the offence under Sec. 307, IPC. In the complaint of Muniyappa, it is stated that his sister by name Rathna has been married to one Nagaraj about 11 years back and they have begotten two male children. Nagaraj is in the army and he was working at Bihar during the relevant period. He used to make telephone calls to his wife Rathna to the house of the accused who was the wife of relative Chandrappa. Whenever telephone call is to be received by Shakuntalamma, she used to grumble regarding the receipt of telephone and therefore, in this connection, there was mis-understanding between the co-sisters. It is further stated that regarding extraction of water situated near the house of the accused and the victim, there was quarrel between womenfolk. It is stated that on 13.8.02 at about 3p.m, he was informed that accused had poured boiling oil on the victim Rathna and that she has been admitted to Commando Hospital. When he went to the hospital and saw his sister, Rathna had suffered burn injuries on her back, abdomen and other parts of the body. It is stated that on 13.8.02 at about 3p.m, he was informed that accused had poured boiling oil on the victim Rathna and that she has been admitted to Commando Hospital. When he went to the hospital and saw his sister, Rathna had suffered burn injuries on her back, abdomen and other parts of the body. When enquired, she has stated that the accused called her inside the house on the pretext of opening the rice bug and when she went inside the house of the accused, the accused poured boiling oil on her back which caused grievous injuries. Such act of the accused is done with an intention to commit her murder. Therefore, he prayed for action against the accused. The police after registration of the case for offence u/S, 307, IPC and after investigation filed charge-sheet for the offence under Sec. 307, IPC. 8. PW-1 Muniyappa has reiterated the version in the complaint and has stated that the accused and the victim are residing in the same locality and the husband of the victim is working in military. P-2 is the victim Rathna. She has stated that the accused is her husband’s brother’s wife and they are residing in the neighbourhood. Her husband is working in the military and he was telephoning to the house of the accused, but the accused was not informing her about the telephone call received from her husband. In this connection, there was quarrel between her and the accused. On the date of the incident, the accused called her to her house since the relationship between them was good,. When she was untying the rice bag, accused poured the boiling oil on her back which has resulted in burning injuries on her hands and thigh. She raised cries. At that time, people came there and they removed her to the hospital. She has stated that she was in the hospital for one month 6 days and that the skin on her back had gone and plastic surgery has been conducted. She has informed the fact to PW-1 in the hospital. In the cross-examination it is suggested that the incident has happened accidentally by slip of vessel containing boiling oil. It is also suggested to PW-2 that the incident as narrated by her has not happened but the said suggestion have been denied by PW2. 9. PW-3 is the mother of PW-2 the injured. In the cross-examination it is suggested that the incident has happened accidentally by slip of vessel containing boiling oil. It is also suggested to PW-2 that the incident as narrated by her has not happened but the said suggestion have been denied by PW2. 9. PW-3 is the mother of PW-2 the injured. She has stated that she came to know by the cries of her daughter that the incident has happened. Thereafter, she went and saw her daughter having sustained burn injuries in the house of the accused. PW-4 Vinod is the son of PW-1. He has also stated regarding his coming to know of pouring boiling oil on the body of PW-2. PW-5 is a neighbor who came to the scene of occurrence after the incident, PW-6 Shambaiah is the witness to Ex. P-2 which is a spot mahazar and Ex.P-4 under which the Police have seized the aluminum vessel alleged to have contained boiling oil. He has also signed Ex.P-3 mahazar under which the clothes of the injured MOs. 2 and 3 were seized by the Police. 10. PW-7 is the Inspector of Police who has registered the case and conducted Investigation in this case, arrested the accused and recorded the statement of the accused. PW-8 is doctor who has stated that PW-2 has suffered serious injuries on her body as per Ex.P-11 which is the wound certificate issued by Dr. Arun Behl. Ex.P-12 is the case-sheet maintained by him in Commando hospital. Bangalore. He has further stated that he has not treated the injured in this case and since Dr. Arun Behl has gone abroad he is giving evidence on the basis of the documents available in the Hospital. In the cross-examination he has admitted that he has no personal knowledge about the injuries caused to PW-2. 11. It is from the above evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the learned Sessions Judge has found the accused guilty and has convicted and sentenced her. 12. It is seen that the incident has taken place between two women who are wives of two direct brothers. The motive alleged in this case is a silly one i.e., for not giving telephone calls of her husband by the accused. The accused has planned to get the victim inside her house and has poured boiling oil. 12. It is seen that the incident has taken place between two women who are wives of two direct brothers. The motive alleged in this case is a silly one i.e., for not giving telephone calls of her husband by the accused. The accused has planned to get the victim inside her house and has poured boiling oil. The learned Sessions Judge has found that the incident has happened in the manner alleged and has found the accused guilty of the offence under Sec. 307, IPC. However, the evidence of PW-8 Dr. Jaiswal stated that the injuries suffered by PW-2 is serious in nature and nowhere he has stated that the injuries are grievous in nature. Ex.P-11 is not issued by him and he has not treated the injuries suffered by Rathna. Further the case sheet produced as per Ex.P-12 indicates that the victim has suffered 35% of burns and skin grafting has been done and she is fit for discharge as on 19.9.02 the date of insurance of discharge slip. However PW-8 has not personally treated PW-2. Hence it cannot be stated that PW2 has suffered grievous injuries in the absence of the evidence of the doctor who has examined and treated her. However on a careful scrutiny of Exs.P.9, P.11 and P.12 and also the photo Ex.P.10 I am of the opinion that PW2 has suffered simple injures and therefore, I find that the offence committed by the accused falls under Sec. 324, I.P.C. 13. The memo filed by the parties is placed on record. Having regard to the manner in which PW2 was called inside the house and made to bend down to untie the rice bag and the accused pored boiling oil on her co-sister I do not find any ground to permit them to compound the offence. On the other hand, under the circumstances, I hold that the accused is guilty of the offence under Sec.324, IPC. So far as sentence is concerned, the accused was in custody for 5 days at post conviction stage. Hence, I am of the opinion that the period already undergone with a fine of Rs.5,000/-would meet the ends of justice. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed in part. So far as sentence is concerned, the accused was in custody for 5 days at post conviction stage. Hence, I am of the opinion that the period already undergone with a fine of Rs.5,000/-would meet the ends of justice. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed in part. The order of conviction for offence under Sec. 307, IPC is altered to one under Sec, 324, IPC and the sentence of imprisonment is modified to the period already undergone and the appellant is directed to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. The appellant is directed to deposit the amount within four weeks from today. The entire fine amount of Rs.5,000/-shall be paid to PW-2, the injured as compensation. The bail bonds executed shall be cancelled. Appeal partly allowed.