Judgment : 1. The appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'accused') was tried, convicted and sentenced for an offence punishable under section 307 IPC on the allegation that on 17.03.2005 at about 10.30 a.m., near back gate of a house bearing No.19/1 in a lane situate on 4th Main Road, Nehru Nagar, near Gopalakrishna Provision Store of South Park Road, within the limits of Sheshadripuram Police Station at Bangalore, accused assaulted his wife (PW2-Varalakshmi) with a chopper with such intention and knowledge by such act if he had caused death of PW2, he would have been held guilty of an offence punishable under section 302 IPC and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 307 IPC. The learned trial Judge has sentenced accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years for an offence punishable under section 307 IPC. 2. In this appeal against judgment of conviction, the following points would arise for determination:- (1) Whether prosecution has proved that on 17.03.2005 at about 10.30 a.m., near back gate of house bearing No.19/1 in a lane situate on 4th Main Road, Nehru Nagar near Gopalakrishna Provision Store of South Park Road, within limits of Sheshadripuram Police Station, accused assaulted his wife (PW2-Varalakshmi) with a chopper with such intention and knowledge by such acts if he had caused death of PW2, he would have been held guilty of an offence punishable under section 302 IPC and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 307 IPC? (2) Whether learned trial Judge has properly appreciated evidence on record? (3) Whether impugned judgment calls for interference? (4) To what order?" 3. I have heard learned State Public Prosecutor for State. The learned counsel for accused absent. 4. Before adverting to appreciation of evidence, it is necessary to state certain facts which are not in dispute:- The accused is the husband of PW2-Varalakshmi. The marriage of accused and PW2 was performed on 15.05.1994. The accused and PW2 had two children by their marriage. 5. It is the case of prosecution; that accused and PW2 were cordial for a period of one year. After one year, accused started ill-treating PW2. Accused used to come home in a drunken state, abuse and assault PW2 and he was demanding PW2 to bring money. PW2 suffered the trauma for a period of 7 years. 5. It is the case of prosecution; that accused and PW2 were cordial for a period of one year. After one year, accused started ill-treating PW2. Accused used to come home in a drunken state, abuse and assault PW2 and he was demanding PW2 to bring money. PW2 suffered the trauma for a period of 7 years. Thereafter, PW2 returned back to her parental house, where she stayed for a period of 4 years. The accused came to parental house of PW2 and pleaded that he would take proper care of PW2 and he would not subject PW2 to cruelty and requested parents of PW2 to send PW2 with him. PW2 and her parents believed the assurance given by accused. PW2 accompanied the accused. PW2 took a house for rent near the house of her mother with an intention to lead a happy life with accused. The accused cordially treated PW2 for a period of one month. Thereafter, accused started ill-treating PW2 in an intoxicated state and he was abusing and assaulting PW2. PW2 was working as a maid servant. On 17.03.2005 at about 10.30 a.m., when PW2 was proceeding to work as a maid servant, accused followed and assaulted PW2 with a chopper near Sheshadripuram College. PW2 was shifted to K.C.General Hospital at Malleshwaram, Bangalore. After preliminary treatment, PW2 was treated in NIMHANS at Bangalore. 6. The first information relating to incident of assault was lodged by PW1-H.T.Hanume Gowda, who was working as a Police Constable attached to Sheshadripuram Police Station. When accused was assaulting PW2, the accused was apprehended by PW1 and other witnesses. PW1 took a blood stained chopper from the place of incident. The accused and blood stained chopper were produced before the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer completed investigation by recording statements of witnesses and sending incriminating articles to Forensic Science Laboratory. Thereafter, Investigating Officer filed final report against accused for an offence punishable under section 307 IPC. 7. The prosecution has relied on the following:- (i) Motive; (ii) Eye-witness account of witnesses viz PW1- H.T.Hanume Gowda, PW2-Varalakshmi, PW3- Ramesh, PW4-M.S.Nagasheshaiah and PW6- Venkatesh. (iii) The medical evidence of PW19-Dr.D.Shivananda. 8. At the outset, it is necessary to state, except PW2- Varalakshmi, other witnesses examined by prosecution are independent eye-witnesses. They did not know either accused or PW2. They did not have grudge or grievance against accused. 9. (iii) The medical evidence of PW19-Dr.D.Shivananda. 8. At the outset, it is necessary to state, except PW2- Varalakshmi, other witnesses examined by prosecution are independent eye-witnesses. They did not know either accused or PW2. They did not have grudge or grievance against accused. 9. PW2-Varalakshmi has given evidence about ill- treatment meted to her by accused. PW2 has deposed; accused was assaulting her and he was demanding money from her; PW2 was working as a maid servant to earn her livelihood. The accused has not disputed that PW2 was assaulted. However, accused has sought to establish that PW2 was assaulted by some unknown assailant and accused has intervened to save PW2 and snatched chopper from unknown assailant and he has been falsely implicated. 10. The evidence of PW2 finds corroboration from medical evidence of PW19-Dr.D.Shivananda. PW19- Dr.D.Shivananda has deposed; at the relevant time, he was working as a Senior Specialist in K.C.General Hospital at Malleswaram, Bangalore. PW19 has deposed; on 17.03.2005 at about 11 a.m., PW7-Govindaiah (Police Constable) had brought PW2-Varalakshmi for treatment of injuries stated to have been caused by assault; PW19 examined PW2 and found following injuries:- I. Incised wound on forehead measuring 7 cms x 2 cms II. Multiple abrasions on neck region III. Lacerated wound on palmar aspect of right middle finger measuring 2 cms x 2 cms x bone deep IV. Lacerated wound on palmar aspect of left index finger measuring 2 cms x 2 cms. V. Lacerated wound on left lateral aspect of left arm measuring 3 cms x 1 cm. PW19 referred PW2 to NIMHANS at Bangalore for suspected head injuries. The CT scan of PW2 revealed compound fracture of left frontal sinus with pneumophalus along left frontal continuity with mild diffuse cerebral edema. PW19 has deposed that injuries suffered by PW2 could be caused by a chopper like M.O.1. 11. Thus, we find evidence of PW2 finds substantial corroboration from evidence of PW19 and medical records such as wound certificate and C.T.Scan report. 12. At the relevant time, PW1-H.T.Hanume Gowda was working as a Police Constable of Sheshadripuram Police Station. PW19 has deposed that injuries suffered by PW2 could be caused by a chopper like M.O.1. 11. Thus, we find evidence of PW2 finds substantial corroboration from evidence of PW19 and medical records such as wound certificate and C.T.Scan report. 12. At the relevant time, PW1-H.T.Hanume Gowda was working as a Police Constable of Sheshadripuram Police Station. PW1 has deposed; on 17.03.2005, PW1 and his colleague PW7-Govindaiah, another police constable were deputed to Sheshadripuram College, wherein SSLC examinations were going on; on that day, at about 10.30 a.m., they were standing near Sheshadripuram College main gate; and heard a lady crying for help "PÁ¥Ár PÁ¥Ár"; they reached place of incident and found accused with a chopper in his hands; they also saw a lady, who had fallen down with bleeding injuries to her hands and her head; they caught hold of that person (accused); they learnt from the injured (PW2) that person (accused) was her husband and he suspecting her fidelity had assaulted her; PW2 stated her name as Varalakshmi; PW1 and other witnesses caught hold of accused and brought accused to Sheshadripuram Police Station; PW1 lodged a complaint as per Ex.P.1; PW1 has identified the accused as the assailant and weapon of assault. During cross-examination, it was suggested to PW1 that PW2 was not staying with accused. PW1 has deposed; as injured (PW2) had suffered multiple injuries, PW1 did not inquire whether that lady (PW2) was willing to stay with her husband. 13. PW1 was an immediate post-occurrence witness. PW1 has reached place of occurrence immediately after hearing cries of PW2. PW1 has deposed that accused was holding a chopper and PW2 had suffered bleeding injuries. 14. At this juncture, it is relevant to state that accused was totally a stranger to PW1. PW1 had no reasons to falsely implicate the accused. PW1 and other eye-witnesses apprehended accused and produced the accused before Station House Officer of Sheshadripuram Police Station along with weapon of offence. 15. PW3-Ramesh was teaching Karate Marshall Arts to students at an auditorium in Nehru Park, Sheshadripuram, Bangalore, opposite Sheshadripuram College. PW1 had no reasons to falsely implicate the accused. PW1 and other eye-witnesses apprehended accused and produced the accused before Station House Officer of Sheshadripuram Police Station along with weapon of offence. 15. PW3-Ramesh was teaching Karate Marshall Arts to students at an auditorium in Nehru Park, Sheshadripuram, Bangalore, opposite Sheshadripuram College. PW3 has deposed; on 17.03.2005 at about 10.30 a.m., PW3 and PW4- M.S.Nagasheshaiah were talking together near the auditorium of park; all of a sudden, they heard some noise and some body was crying; immediately, PW3 & PW4 came to place of incident; other people also rushed there; by the time, PW3 & PW4 reached place of incident, police were present; PW3 saw one lady had fallen down; accused was holding a chopper in his hand; at that time, one amongst public probably a bar bender, gave a blow on hand of accused with an iron rod, chopper fell down from hand of accused; thereafter police caught hold of accused and took him to Sheshadripuram Police Station. During cross-examination, presence of PW3 near place of incident has not been disputed. It has been suggested to PW3 that he had reached place of incident after the incident. Therefore, PW3 was not able to identify real assailant. PW3 has denied this suggestion. 16. Though PW3 had not witnessed incident, his evidence that PW2 had suffered bleeding injuries and accused was standing near place of incident holding a chopper lends substantial corroboration to evidence of PW2. 17. The evidence of PW4-M.S.Nagasheshaiah is more or less similar to the evidence of PW3. 18. PW6-Venkatesh is a Civil engineer. At the relevant time, he had undertaken construction of a building at No.5/1, situate at South Park Road, Sheshadripuram, Bangalore. PW6 has deposed; on 17.03.2005 at about 10.30 a.m, when PW6 was near site attending construction work, he heard noise of a lady crying for help; by the time he reached place of incident, a lady had fallen down with bleeding injuries and police were holding a man (accused) next to that lady (PW2) and PW6 has identified that person as accused before court; lady (PW2) had sustained injuries to her neck, forehead and other parts of her body; a crowd had gathered there. 19. 19. Though PW6 has been declared as a hostile witness, his evidence to the effect that PW2 had suffered bleeding injuries and accused was holding a chopper near place of incident would lend substantial corroboration to evidence of PW2. 20. At the relevant time, PW7-Govindiah was working as a Police Constable of Sheshadripuram Police Station. PW7 has deposed; on 17.03.2005, PW7 and PW1 have been deputed to Sheshadripuram College in connection with SSLC examination. 21. The evidence of PW7 is similar to evidence of PW1. There are no discrepancies in evidence of PW7 regarding injuries suffered by PW2 and incident of assault by accused. 22. The defence of accused that some person had assaulted PW2 and accused had intervened to save PW2, in that process, accused was apprehended by police is far fetched. If PW2 had been assaulted by some one else, PW2 would not have spared real assailant to falsely implicate the accused. As already stated, the witnesses who had reached place of incident, soon after incident had no grudge or grievance against accused. Above all, evidence of PW2 finds substantial corroboration from medical evidence. The narration of incident of assault by PW2 to immediate post occurrence witnesses would form res gestae evidence and her conduct immediately after the incident is consistent with her evidence. Therefore, prosecution has proved that on 17.03.2005 at about 10.30 a.m., near back gate of house bearing No.19/1 in a lane situate on 4th Main Road, Nehru Nagar near Gopalakrishna Provision Store of South Park Road, within limits of Sheshadripuram Police Station, accused assaulted his wife (PW2-Varalakshmi) with a chopper. 23. The next point for determination is:- "Whether acts committed by accused would attract an offence punishable under section 307 IPC?" 24. The facts established from evidence on record would reveal that accused had followed PW2 and he carried a chopper. The accused had chosen place of incident to assault PW2. The accused had assaulted on head and vital parts of PW2. The accused has not offered explanation for carrying a chopper. The assault on PW2 by accused was pre- meditated. Otherwise, there was no reason for accused to carry a chopper. The accused had repeatedly assaulted PW2 with a chopper (a deadly weapon). The accused had assaulted on head and vital parts of PW2. The accused has not offered explanation for carrying a chopper. The assault on PW2 by accused was pre- meditated. Otherwise, there was no reason for accused to carry a chopper. The accused had repeatedly assaulted PW2 with a chopper (a deadly weapon). In the circumstances, it can safely be inferred that accused assaulted his wife (PW2- Varalakshmi) with a chopper with such intention and knowledge by such acts if he had caused death of PW2, he would have been held guilty of an offence punishable under section 302 IPC and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 307 IPC. Therefore, prosecution has proved that accused has committed an offence punishable under section 307 IPC. 25. The accused has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years for an offence punishable under section 307 IPC. There are no mitigating circumstances in favour of accused. In my considered opinion, the learned trial Judge has taken a reasonable view in the matter of sentence. There are no reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment. 26. In the result, I pass the following:- ORDER The appeal is dismissed.