Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 604 (KAR)

Krishnappa v. State of Karnataka

2017-03-16

JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA

body2017
JUDGMENT : John Michael Cunha, J. With the consent of both the parties the appeal is heard for final disposal. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 03.07.2015 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore in SC No.245/2012, convicting the appellant/accused under Section 307 of IPC. The accused is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs.10,000/-. Out of the fine amount, a sum of Rs.5,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to PW1. 3. The case of the prosecution is that the accused is the husband of the complainant (PW1), who is the second wife of the accused. The accused and PW1 (complainant) were working in a brick factory of one Sonnegowda-PW7. According to the prosecution, PW1 and her sister PW2 had taken a sum of Rs.50,000/- from PW7 and therefore, they were compelled to work under him. The accused was against the complainant and his sister working under PW7 and therefore, he was insisting them to quit the job and to proceed to his native village. But PW1 the complainant and her sister PW2 declined to heed to the request of the accused. 4. On 16.07.2012 the accused is stated to have picked up quarrel with PW1 and PW2 in a shandy in Hindiganala and during the incident, he took out a knife and assaulted PW1 (complainant) on her thigh and on her chest causing bleeding injuries. Immediately, PW3 and a bystander called the ambulance and took PW1 to M.V.J. Hospital, Hoskote. 5. The statement of PW1-complainant was recorded in the hospital, based on which, PW8 registered the FIR against the accused under Section 307 of IPC. 6. In the course of the investigation, the knife used for the commission of offence was seized and the blood stained clothes of injured - PW1 were recovered and on obtaining medical opinion, PW9 the Investigating officer laid the charge sheet against the accused for the above offence. 7. The accused having denied the charge, the prosecution examined nine witnesses in support of the charges. Amongst them, PW1 is the second wife and the injured witness, who has deposed in conformity with the prosecution case and has identified MO1-Knife. She has deposed in her evidence that on account of her refusal to quit the job with PW7, the accused attempted to cause her death. 8. Amongst them, PW1 is the second wife and the injured witness, who has deposed in conformity with the prosecution case and has identified MO1-Knife. She has deposed in her evidence that on account of her refusal to quit the job with PW7, the accused attempted to cause her death. 8. PW2 is the sister of PW1, who has also deposed in line with the testimony of PW1 and has fully corroborated the testimony of PW1, being an eye witness to the incident. She has also identified MO1. 9. PW3 is an independent witness. This witness has deposed about the incident and has stated that he called the ambulance and sent the injured to the hospital. This witness has supported the prosecution and has narrated the incident as stated by PW1. 10. PW4 is the panch witness to the seizure of blood stained clothes of PW1. But with regard to the seizure of MO1, this witness has turned hostile to the prosecution. 11. PW5, another eye witness examined by the prosecution, is treated as hostile witness. 12. PW6 is the doctor who examined the injured and issued the wound certificate as per Ex.P6 and has also given opinion regarding MO1 as per Ex.P7. As per this witness, the injuries sustained by PW1 are simple in nature. However, during cross-examination, this witness has stated that the said injuries are possible to be caused by a weapon like MO1. PW7 is the independent panch witness to the seizure of MO1. PW9 is the investigating officer. 13. The trial court has appreciated the testimony of the above witnesses, especially the direct evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW3 and has held that on the date of the incident, the accused caused injuries to PW1 with MO1. The trial court has also recorded a finding that the motive for the commission of the offence is the refusal of PW1 to quit her job with PW7. Even on re-appreciating the evidence, I do not find any reason to differ with the findings recorded by the trial Court in this regard. The findings are based on legal evidence and do not call for any interference. 14. Even on re-appreciating the evidence, I do not find any reason to differ with the findings recorded by the trial Court in this regard. The findings are based on legal evidence and do not call for any interference. 14. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused and PW1 are husband and wife; there was no premeditation on the part of the accused to assault his wife; the nature of the injury sustained by PW1, even going by the version of the prosecution would indicate that there were no grievous injuries sustained by PW1. The circumstances brought out in the evidence go to show that there was no intention on the part of the accused either to cause the death or attempt to kill PW1. Therefore, the conviction recorded by the trial Court under Section 307 of IPC cannot be sustained. In other words, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the evidence on record at the most makes out the offence either under Section 319 of IPC or under Section 323 of IPC. 15. Refuting the submission, the learned Additional SPP submits that the circumstances proved in the evidence clearly establish the intention of the accused to cause the death of the complainant. The learned Additional SPP pointed out that the complainant in her statement as well as in her evidence before the Court has unequivocally stated that prior to the assault, the accused proclaimed that he would finish off PW1 and then assaulted her on the vital parts namely on the chest of PW1, which is sufficient to infer that the accused with an intention to kill PW1 inflicted the injury which in the ordinary course of nature, would have been sufficient to cause the death of PW1 and therefore, the trial Court is justified in recording the conviction under Section 307, IPC. 16. On going through the entire material on record, I am unable to accept the argument of the learned Additional SPP. No doubt, it is true that in the complaint as well as in her evidence, PW1 has stated that the accused uttered the words that he would finish PW1. But, in appreciating this evidence, it is necessary to note that the incident has taken place on the spur of the moment. No doubt, it is true that in the complaint as well as in her evidence, PW1 has stated that the accused uttered the words that he would finish PW1. But, in appreciating this evidence, it is necessary to note that the incident has taken place on the spur of the moment. No doubt the accused was carrying the knife with him and assaulted PW1 with the knife MO1. But there is no evidence to suggest that he inflicted the injuries on PW1 with intention to kill her. 17. PW6 who examined PW1 has unequivocally stated before the Court that the injuries sustained by PW1 are simple in nature. Though the learned Additional SPP has argued that the location of the injuries indicate the intention of the petitioner and that the said injuries would in the ordinary course of nature were sufficient to cause the death, yet, on going through the evidence of PW6, I do not find that any such suggestion has been made to PW6 nor has it been elicited from the mouth of PW6 that the injuries inflicted on PW1 were sufficient to cause the death in the ordinary course of nature. The depth of the injuries also suggest that there was no intention to cause the death. Therefore, taking into consideration all these facts and circumstances cumulatively, I am of the view that the evidence on record establishes the guilt of the accused for a lesser offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC. To this extent, the impugned judgment calls for modification. 18. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction recorded by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC is modified and the accused is held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC. 19. Section 324 of IPC prescribes a maximum punishment of imprisonment for three years and fine. It is submitted that the accused has already undergone imprisonment for three years. Hence, the accused is sentenced to the imprisonment for the period already undergone and a fine of Rs.5000/-. As he has already served for three years, he shall set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other cases provided the fine of Rs.5000/- is deposited. If the fine amount of Rs.5000/- is not paid/deposited, the accused shall undergo further imprisonment for a period of nine months.