Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 325 (KAR)

Madaiah v. State

2022-03-07

MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is preferred by the accused aggrieved by the Judgment and order passed by the Fast Track Court, Srirangapatna in S.C.No.146/2009 dtd. 20/9/2011 convicting and sentencing him for an offence punishable under Sec. 307 of IPC. 2. Heard the learned counsel for appellant and the learned HCGP for respondent-State. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the victim by name Manjula was given in marriage to one Pavankumar. In their wedlock, they have two children. Since one year, Manjula had deserted her husband and she was residing in her parental home along with her children. PW.1 is her sister and PW.2 is her mother. One Rudresha son of the accused was visiting the said house and he had developed close intimacy with Manjula, in spite of PWs.1 and 2 advising him not to visit their house. The accused was under the impression that PW.1 was supporting her sister Manjula to have relationship with his son-Rudresha. In this background, on 20/5/2008, at about 12 noon, when the victim/PW.1 and PW.2 were returning to their house after washing clothes in Shambhulingaiahna Katte (stream water), the accused all of a sudden came near PW.1 and saying that she has spoiled the life of his son, stabbed on her abdomen with a knife with an intention to do away with her life. 4. The victim/PW.1 was got admitted by PW.2 to General Hospital, Srirangapatna wherein she was treated by PW.3-Doctor. She was then shifted to K.R.Hospital, Mysuru, for further treatment. When the victim was taking treatment at General Hospital, Srirangapatna, S.H.O. of Srirangapatna Police Station on receiving the intimation from the said Hospital visited the Hospital to record the statement of the victim. Since, the victim was shifted to the K.R.Hospital, Mysuru, he went to the said Hospital and recorded the statement of the victim as per Ex.P1. Further, PSI-PW8 on taking over investigation from PW.4-SHO visited the spot and drew panchanama as per Ex.P2. Blood stained nighty and knife produced by PW.2 was seized under Ex.P2. 5. To establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has got examined nine witnesses and got marked Exs.P1 to P9(a) and MOs.1 and 2. Further, PSI-PW8 on taking over investigation from PW.4-SHO visited the spot and drew panchanama as per Ex.P2. Blood stained nighty and knife produced by PW.2 was seized under Ex.P2. 5. To establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has got examined nine witnesses and got marked Exs.P1 to P9(a) and MOs.1 and 2. The defence taken by the accused as per cross-examination of PWs.1 and 2 is that since PW1's sister was having illicit relationship with one Rudresha i.e., son of the accused, there was quarrel between PW.1 and her sister Manjula and on the date of incident, PW.1 sustained injury on coming into contact with glass pieces. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that there are serious contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses which go to the root of the prosecution case. According to PW.1, immediately after the incident she went to the police station and from there she went to General Hospital, Srirangapatna, whereas in her evidence she has not stated that she has gone to the police station. Further, according to her, her statement was recorded by the police at the General Hospital, Srirangapatna whereas PW.4-SHO has stated that her statement was recorded at K.R.Hospital, Mysuru. She would further contend that there is discrepancy with regard to seizure of MO.2-knife. She contends that even according to prosecution, knife was not recovered at the instance of the accused. PW2 has stated that the said knife was given to the police in the Hospital which is contrary to Ex.P2 and the spot mahazar wherein it is shown that the knife was recovered at the time of drawing the spot mahazar on the next day of the incident. She therefore, contends that in view of these discrepancies in the prosecution case, benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused. 7. Per contra, learned HCGP has contended that the victim-PW.1 has clearly stated that the accused stabbed on her abdomen with a knife. PW.2 is an eye witness to the incident who was along with PW.1 and both the witnesses have identified MO.2. He contends that Doctor-PW.3 who has treated the victim has issued Wound Certificate-Ex.P3 and according to which, the injuries sustained are grievous in nature. PW.2 is an eye witness to the incident who was along with PW.1 and both the witnesses have identified MO.2. He contends that Doctor-PW.3 who has treated the victim has issued Wound Certificate-Ex.P3 and according to which, the injuries sustained are grievous in nature. He further contends that the accused has stabbed on the vital part of the body (abdomen) of the victim with an intention to commit murder and therefore, the Trial Court is justified in convicting and sentencing the accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 307 of IPC. 8. It is no doubt true that there are certain discrepancies in the prosecution case. PW.1/victim, in her evidence, has stated that after the accused stabbed her, she was taken to General Hospital, Srirangapatna and from there she was shifted to K.R.Hospital, Mysuru, wherein she was an in-patient for about 14 days. She has stated that the police visited General Hospital at Srirangapatna and recorded her statement. However, according to PW.4, on receiving the intimation regarding the incident, he visited the General Hospital, Srirangapatna and he was informed that the injured was already shifted to K.R.Hospital, Mysuru and therefore, he reported the same to the PSI who directed him to record the statement of the injured at K.R.Hospital, Mysuru. Thereafter, he visited the said hospital and after confirming from the Doctor that the injured is in a fit condition, recorded her statement as per Ex.P1 on the same day between 5.30/6/0 p.m. 9. Another aspect is that PW.1/victim in her cross-examination has stated that immediately after she was stabbed by the accused, she went to the Police Station by walk and from there she was taken to the hospital in an autorickshaw brought by the police. She has stated that she went to the police station along with her mother and informed the police that she was stabbed by the accused, which was written down by the police. 10. Though PW1 has deposed that her statement was recorded at General Hospital, Srirangapatna and prior to that she went to the police station and informed the police about the incident, the fact remains that even at the first instance she has informed the police that she was stabbed by the accused on her abdomen. 10. Though PW1 has deposed that her statement was recorded at General Hospital, Srirangapatna and prior to that she went to the police station and informed the police about the incident, the fact remains that even at the first instance she has informed the police that she was stabbed by the accused on her abdomen. Obviously, PW1 had sustained injury on her abdomen and therefore, the police might have immediately sent her to the Hospital for treatment which cannot be found fault with. Insofar as recovery of weapon-MO.2 (knife) is concerned, admittedly the said knife is not recovered at the instance of the accused. However, both PWs.1 and 2 have identified the knife as the one from which the accused inflicted the injury. Inflicting injury to PW.1 with a knife cannot be doubted in view of the evidence of PW.1, which is corroborated by the evidence of PW.2. Therefore, even if the independent witness namely PW.6 has turned hostile, the case of the prosecution cannot be doubted. 11. Accused was charged for an offence punishable under Sec. 307 of IPC. It is the specific case of the prosecution that the accused with an intention to do away with the life of PW.1 stabbed on her abdomen. In Ex.P1, PW.1 has stated that when she started screaming, one Rangaswamy (PW.6) and her mother (PW.2) held the accused and snatched the knife from his hand. Thereafter, the accused stating that he will commit her murder some other day, fled away from the scene. 12. PW.1, in her evidence, has nowhere stated that the accused was held by her mother-PW.2 and Rangaswamy (PW.6) and knife was snatched from his hand. If that is so, the accused had an ample opportunity to stab PW.1 more number of times if really he had an intention to commit her murder. PW.6 has denied that he snatched the knife from the accused. He has been treated hostile. Admittedly, there is one injury sustained by PW.1. In her cross-examination, PW.1 has stated that after the incident she went to the police station, which is about 3/4th of a furlong, by walk. 13. PW.3 is the Doctor, who treated PW.1 and issued Wound Certificate marked as Ex.P3. Perusal of the same goes to show that PW.1 sustained an incised wound over the gastric region 2" x 1 1/2 " deep to abdomen. 13. PW.3 is the Doctor, who treated PW.1 and issued Wound Certificate marked as Ex.P3. Perusal of the same goes to show that PW.1 sustained an incised wound over the gastric region 2" x 1 1/2 " deep to abdomen. In his cross-examination, PW.3 has specifically stated that the Investigating Officer has not shown MO.2-knife before issuance of Ex.P3-Wound certificate. Further, he has stated that the depth of the injury cannot be measured. 14. It is relevant to see that according to prosecution, PW.1 after taking First Aid treatment at the General Hospital, Srirangapatna, was shifted to K.R.Hospital, Mysuru, for higher treatment. PW.1 has stated that she was admitted at K.R.Hospital, Mysuru, for a period of 14 days. PW.3-Doctor has stated that PW.1 was referred to higher treatment after providing First Aid. However, the prosecution has not placed any medical records or documents in respect of the treatment given to PW.1 at K.R.Hospital, Mysuru. There is no material to show that PW.1 took treatment at K.R.Hospital, Mysuru, for a long period as deposed by her in her evidence. 15. It is further relevant to mention that PW.1 in her evidence has stated that when the accused stabbed on her abdomen, the intestine came out. However, the same is not stated in Ex.P1. Even PW.3-Doctor who has given the First Aid treatment to PW.1 has not stated about the same. On the other hand, he has only stated that PW.1 has sustained incised wound measuring 2" x 1 1/2 " deep to abdomen. PW.2-mother who went along with PW.1 to the hospital has stated that her daughter sustained bleeding injuries and her nighty was blood stained. As already observed, PW.1 in her cross-examination has stated that immediately after she was stabbed by the accused, she went to police station by walk, which is at a distance of 3/4th furlong. 16. On a careful perusal of the entire evidence on record, it cannot be said that the prosecution has been able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had an intention to commit murder of PW.1 or that he has caused grievous injury to her. 17. For the forgoing reasons, the conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court that the accused has committed an offence under Sec. 307 of IPC is liable to be set aside. The accused is liable to be convicted under Sec. 324 of IPC. 18. 17. For the forgoing reasons, the conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court that the accused has committed an offence under Sec. 307 of IPC is liable to be set aside. The accused is liable to be convicted under Sec. 324 of IPC. 18. At this juncture, Smt. Archana Murthy, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the incident has taken place in the year 2008. At the time of incident the accused was aged about 65 years and now he is more than 78 years. He is literally on death bed and suffering from paralysis. Therefore, she prays to take a lenient view. In the facts and circumstances and for the foregoing reasons, the following: ORDER i) The appeal is partly allowed. ii) The conviction and sentence dated 30/9/2011, passed against the accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 307 of IPC, in SC No.146/2009 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Srirangapatna, is hereby set aside. iii) The accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 324 of IPC. He is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.10,000.00 and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months.