Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Manjunatha G L on 16 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:6623-DB
CRL.A No. 1240 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1240 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
State of Karnataka
By Challakere Police,
Rep. By State Public Prosecutor,
High Court Of Karnataka, Bengaluru-01.
...Appellant
(By Sri B.N.Jagadish, Addl. SPP)
AND:
1. Manjunatha G.L.
S/o Lakshmanappa G.T.,
Aged about 62 years,
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYANA 2. Vanajakshmma
MURTHY RAJASHRI
Location: HIGH W/o Manjunatha G.L.,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA Aged about 56 years,
R/o Hiremadure Village,
Challakere Taluk,
Chitradurga District-577 522.
...Respondents
(By Sri. Onkar K.B., Adv.)
This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378(1) and (3)
Cr.P.C. praying to grant leave to file an appeal against the
order of acquittal passed by the I Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Chitradurga in S.C.No.123/2015 dated
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:6623-DB
CRL.A No. 1240 of 2017
07.01.2017 for the offence p/u/s 323, 504 and 302 r/w 34 of
IPC.
This Criminal Appeal, coming on for hearing, this day,
Sreenivas Harish Kumar J., delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
The respondents in this appeal faced trial before the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, for the offences punishable under sections 323, 302, 504 read with section 34 of IPC in relation to incident dated 22.05.2015 which is as follows:
2. The name of the deceased is Hemareddy.
The first accused Manjunath G.L. and PW8 Vishwanatha are brothers. Their houses are situated in the same compound at the village Hiremadure, Taluk Challakere, Chitradurga District. Haystack was stored by Hemareddy in the compound. On 22.05.2015 around 5.00 p.m. there was fast blow of wind as a result of which the hay stack was blown away and fell in front of -3- NC: 2024:KHC:6623-DB CRL.A No. 1240 of 2017 the house of the first accused. Having seen this, accused No.2 picked up quarrel with PW10 - Sundaramma, wife of Hemareddy and in that course pulled her plait and assaulted with hands. Hemareddy interfered for pacification of the situation and at that time accused No.1 brought a sickle from his house and tried to assault Hemareddy. But this sickle was snatched by PW14-Channakeshava. Then accused No.1 took a stone which was there in front of his house and hit on the head of Hemareddy with the stone. As Hemareddy fell down, accused No.1 hit on his left leg. Thereafter Hemareddy was taken to Challakere Government Hospital and from there to S.S Hospital, Davanagere where he died on 23.05.2015. In regard to this incident PW12 made a report to the police as per Ex.P5. Investigation resulted in charge sheeting the accused for the above said offences. The trial court charged the accused for the same offences and after trial -4- NC: 2024:KHC:6623-DB CRL.A No. 1240 of 2017 acquitted them of the offences and hence this appeal by the State.
3. We have heard the arguments of Sri B.N.Jagadish, Additional State Public Prosecutor for the appellant and Sri K.B.Onkar, learned advocate for respondents 1 and 2. We have perused the entire evidence.
4. Sri B.N.Jagadish argued that the trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence of PWs8 and 10 to 14, who were eyewitnesses. Their evidence is consistent and spontaneous, they have not deviated from the prosecution case; they have not been discredited in the cross examination. The defence version is about a motor cycle accident, which has no supporting evidence. There is nothing to show that the incident did not take place at all. Corresponding to the overt act given by the eyewitnesses, there is mention about the injuries in the P.M. report. FSL report also -5- NC: 2024:KHC:6623-DB CRL.A No. 1240 of 2017 supports. If this being the evidence, the trial court has disbelieved the testimonies of the eyewitnesses without any reason. The findings are perverse and cannot be sustained at all. He argues that these accused deserve to be convicted for the charges leveled against them.
5. The argument of Sri K.B.Onkar is that all the eyewitnesses are interested, their interestedness is forthcoming in their oral testimonies. The witnesses have stated that accused No.1 assaulted on Hemareddy's head and leg, but P.M. report shows fracture of two or three ribs. There is no explanation for these fractures. Then the stone was seized on 27.05.2015, this delay is not explained. That means stone was planted at a later stage. Added to this, if the clothes of the deceased were not sent to FSL, it implies that the clothes did not contain blood stains which in turn would rule out assault by -6- NC: 2024:KHC:6623-DB CRL.A No. 1240 of 2017 accused No.1 with a stone. Thus seen the prosecution case is not free from doubts which have not been explained away. Therefore the trial court is justified in acquitting the accused.
6. The oral testimonies of the witnesses are like this :
PW8 and PW10 to PW14 are the eyewitnesses. PW8 is the brother of the deceased Hemareddy and accused No.1. He has stated that at 5.00 p.m on 22.05.2015, the hay stack stored by the deceased was blown away by the wind and fell in front of the house of accused No.1. Accused No.2, the wife of accused No.1 became angry and started scolding the wife of the deceased, held her plait and assaulted her with hands. Seeing this when Hemareddy came out of the house and tried to mollify the situation, accused No.1 brought a sickle and tried to assault Hemareddy. PW14 Chennakeshava stopped accused No.1 from -7- NC: 2024:KHC:6623-DB CRL.A No. 1240 of 2017 assaulting Hemareddy and snatched the sickle from his hand, and threw it away. PW8 has stated he along with Kumara, Chennakeshava and Srinivasa interfered for pacification of the situation. But at that time accused No.1 took a stone and hit hard on the head of Hemareddy. As he fell down, again accused No.1 assaulted on his left leg and then ran away from the spot.
7. PW8 has stated that Hemareddy was taken to Challakere Government hospital, and from there to S.S.Hospital, Davanagere, where he died on the next day i.e., 23.05.2015. PW8 identified the stone marked as MO1.
8. PW10 Sundaramma is the wife of Hemareddy. Her evidence is that accused No.2 pulled her plait and gave blows on her back, ribs, legs and hands seeing the hay fallen in front of her house. And when her husband, Hemareddy interfered for her rescue, accused 1 and 2 kicked -8- NC: 2024:KHC:6623-DB CRL.A No. 1240 of 2017 her husband and then accused No.1 tried to assault her husband with a sickle which was prevented by Chennakeshava, Radha, Vishwanatha and Srinivasa. Chennakeshava snatched the sickle from accused No.1 and threw it away. Then accused No.1 took a stone which was there and hit with it on her husband's head, left leg and ribs. It is her evidence that her husband fell down unconscious and he was immediately taken to Challakere Government Hospital and from there to S.S.Hospital, Davanagere, where he died on the next day. She also identified the stone marked as MO1.
9. PW11 - Radha and PW13 - Rekha are the daughters and PW12 - Srinivasa is the son of Hemareddy and PW10 - Sundaramma. In the examination in chief, they too have stated about the incident. PW12 has also stated that after the death of his father at S.S.Hospital, the police came -9- NC: 2024:KHC:6623-DB CRL.A No. 1240 of 2017 to hospital and obtained his statement as per Ex.P5, upon which FIR was registered as per Ex.P4. All of them identified the stone, MO1 and PW12 also identified the sickle marked MO4.
10. PW14 - Chennakeshava has also given an account of the incident and about his intervention to pacify the situation and his snatching the sickle from accused No.1.
11. PW15 is not an eyewitness, his oral testimony is that he heard the sound of altercation near the house of Hemareddy and accused No.1. He went there and saw Hemareddy having fallen down. He saw bleeding from Hemareddy's head and when he asked Chennakeshava and Srinivasa the reason for bleeding they told him that accused No.1 hit Hemareddy with a stone.
12. PW1, PW6 and PW7 have given evidence about conducting inquest as per Ex.P1, which is not disputable. PW7 has also stated that there
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6623-DB CRL.A No. 1240 of 2017 took place an altercation between accused No.1 and Hemareddy on 22.05.2015, and he went to hospital with Hemareddy.
13. PW2, PW3 and PW12 are examined to prove spot mahazar - Ex.P2 under which blood stained soil and the sickle was seized. PW2 and PW3 have not supported but PW12 testifies drawing of spot mahazar and seizure.
14. PW4 and PW5 are examined to prove seizure of the stone, MO1 under mahazar Ex.P3. PW16 and PW17 are police officials and PW18 is the doctor who conducted post mortem examination.
15. If the evidence of the eyewitnesses is put to analysis, they do not appear to have been impeached in the cross examination. They were all questioned about civil litigations between Hemareddy and accused No.1. They do not deny the pendency of civil cases. It is elicited from PW8
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6623-DB CRL.A No. 1240 of 2017 that he was not so cordial with accused No.1 since 2012. According to defence, the differences between them could be the reason for deposing against the accused. Another aspect elicited from him is that he has two wives, and he was working as a pharmacist in the hospital being run by his nephew Dr.Sureshbabu at Chitradurga. The purpose behind putting this question was to create an impression that he might not have even come to the village on 22.05.2015 and thereby his testimony as an eyewitness is doubtful. But PW8 has denied all the suggestion directed to him in this regard.
16. The other eyewitnesses PW10 to PW14 are also not discredited. Their cross examination is full of suggestions denying the prosecution case. All of them have denied that the incident as spoken to by them did not take place. That apart one eyewitness corroborates the testimony of the
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6623-DB CRL.A No. 1240 of 2017 other. Corroboration to their testimonies is available from attending circumstances. The first one is Ex.P10, an MLC note issued to Challakere police by the General Hospital, Challakere. In this MLC note, the date, time and place of incident is mentioned as 22.05.2015, 5.15 pm at Hire Madure respectively. History mentioned is an altercation. Though the doctor who treated Hemareddy is not examined, PW16-the Police Sub-Inspector has stated that after receiving MLC report on 23.05.2015 at 1.00 p.m. he registered FIR in Crime No.178/2015 for the offences under sections 504, 323 and 307 read with section 34 of IPC. Immediately the FIR was dispatched to the Magistrate who received it at 2.00 PM. Thereafter he received an e-mail communication from Vidyanagar Police, Davanagere about death of Hemareddy at S.S.Hospital. The entries found in Ex.P10 fortify the evidence of eyewitnesses. The next corroborating circumstance is seizure of the
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6623-DB CRL.A No. 1240 of 2017 stone MO1. PW17, the investigating officer has given evidence that after the arrest of accused No.1 on 27.05.2015, he gave voluntary statement and said at that time that he could produce the stone used by him for causing the death of his brother. Ex.P11 is the portion in the voluntary statement leading to disclosure of the fact that the stone was hidden by accused No.1 in the chappal shelf. It is forthcoming from the evidence of PW17 that he was able to seize the stone at the instance of accused No.1 in the presence of two panch witnesses Shivanna and Tippeswamy examined as PW4 and PW5 respectively. These two witnesses may not have supported the prosecution, but they at least admit to have signed the panchanama, Ex.P3 in the bus stand of their village. That means their evidence shows that the police had visited their village for investigation purpose. And that by the evidence of PW17 regarding seizure becomes believable. The eyewitnesses have stated that
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6623-DB CRL.A No. 1240 of 2017 Hemareddy suffered injuries due to assault by accused No.1 with a stone, which was recorded by PW17 at the instance of accused No.1. This circumstances buttresses the evidence of the eyewitnesses.
17. The last corroborating feature is FSL report which is marked as Ex.P17. Four items were sent to FSL for examination. They are 1) mud, 2) sample mud, 3) a shirt, 4) a stone. The shirt (MO5) belonged to Hemareddy. The Scientific Officer, FSL defected 'B' group human blood in three items, namely mud, shirt and stone. Item No.2 is sample mud collected at the spot. Though scientific expert who issued Ex.P17 was not examined, it can be acted upon in as much as PW17, through whom Ex.P17 was marked, was not cross examined on Ex.P17 at all. Therefore FSL report also comes in aid of the oral testimonies of the eyewitnesses.
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6623-DB CRL.A No. 1240 of 2017
18. It is true that the evidence in regard to seizure of sickle (MO4) appears to be not supportive to the prosecution. Evidence of PW17 shows that he seized MO4 at the time of drawing spot mahazar as per Ex.P2 on 24.05.2015. The defence argument is that it is unbelievable that the sickle was lying at the spot from 22.05.2015 to 24.05.2015. This line of argument is plausible and at the same time, it can also be said that in all probability nobody would have meddled with the sickle thinking that the police would be handling the matter. The latter appears to be more probable than the former. Seizure of sickle, therefore need not be viewed suspiciously. Even if there is some discrepancy in regard to seizing the sickle, the evidence clearly discloses that accused No.1 did not inflict injuries with that sickle. It was snatched by PW14 and thrown away. Since the injury inflicted with the stone became
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6623-DB CRL.A No. 1240 of 2017 fatal, discrepancy in regard to seizure of sickle cannot be given so much of importance.
19. The trial court appears to have acquitted the accused giving importance to some technicalities in the investigation process and irrelevant aspects. It has opined that the prosecution should have examined Dr. Obayya C who issued MLC slip as per Ex.P6. The reason for this observation is that there is an endorsement in Ex.P6 by the CMO that the patient was unconscious at 7.30 a.m. on 23.05.2015 and there is a signature of a Head Constable (HC 278) which appears to have been made at 10.45 on 22.05.2015 and by another Head Constable (HC
105) on 23.05.2015.
20. In regard to the above observation of the trial court, it is to be stated that Ex.P6 was issued at S.S. Hospital, Davanagere. Firstly HC 278 received it at 10.45 p.m on 22.05.2015. There is
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6623-DB CRL.A No. 1240 of 2017 another endorsement made at 7.30 a.m on 23.05.2015 stating that the patient was unconscious and not able to give statement. These endorsements only show that HC 278 received MLC at 10.45 p.m on 22.05.2015 and the second endorsement only shows the condition of Hemareddy. It is not understandable as to how these endorsements would have a bearing on the evidence of the eyewitnesses with regard to occurrence. It is not in dispute that the death occurred at 1.45 p.m. Anyway based on this MLC FIR was not registered. This is just an information to the police. On the other hand, the history written in Ex.P6 shows that Hemareddy sustained injuries due to assault by the first accused at 5.15 p.m. on 22.05.2015. Non-examination of Dr.Obayya C is not fatal to the prosecution case, even if he had been examined, he would have spoken about issuing MLC as per Ex.P6.
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6623-DB CRL.A No. 1240 of 2017
21. Ex.P10 is the first MLC issued by Dr. Adimani of General Hospital, Challakere. Ex.P10 is disbelieved by the trial court because it does not contain the name of the person who fought with Hemareddy or in other words the name of the person who inflicted injury is not mentioned. It is also opined by the trial court that documents relating to O.P.No. 361/2841 and I.P.No. 212629 of S.S.Hospital, Davanagere, are not available. Dr. Adimani should have been examined. It has to be stated that the prosecution could have examined Dr. Adimani, but his non-examination does not have any impact on the prosecution case. The eyewitnesses have consistently spoken that Hemareddy was first taken to Challakere Hospital. It was quite natural because it was the nearest hospital to the village where the incident occurred. When the MLC itself is available, the production of related documents as observed by the trial court were unnecessary. What is important is to
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6623-DB CRL.A No. 1240 of 2017 produce MLC, not the other documents. It is also important to note that based on Ex.P10 FIR was registered by PW16. Though it appears that there is delay in registration of FIR after issuance of MLC, again it cannot be a reason for doubting the prosecution case. Because it was the duty of the Head Constable who received MLC to have submitted the same to the SHO, i.e., PW16 who appears to have honestly give an evidence that he received Ex.P10 at 1.00 pm on 23.05.2015 and registered FIR very soon. The endorsement made by the Magistrate on Ex.P4, the FIR, shows that he received it at 2.00 p.m on 23.05.2015. When it is not the case of the defence that the FIR contains manipulations, if the trial court gave prominence to delay in registering FIR to doubt the background of the incident, such a finding cannot be sustained.
22. The trial court has observed that there is no evidence to show how Hemareddy suffered
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6623-DB CRL.A No. 1240 of 2017 fractures of 2 n d to 8 t h ribs as deposed by PW18, Dr.Sunil Kadam who conducted post mortem examination. The reason for making this observation is that according to the prosecution accused No.1 beat Hemareddy with a stone on the latter's head and left leg toe. Nothing is stated about beating on the ribs. This gives rise to doubt the prosecution case. In regard to this observation of the trial court, it is to be stated that the fracture to the ribs was detected only when the dead body was subjected to autopsy. This discrepancy in evidence may not have that much significance because the clear evidence of PW18 is that the death occurred due to hemorrhage inside and outside the brain due to fracture of the skull which was consequent to hitting on Hemareddy's head with a stone as deposed by the eyewitnesses. It is not that no eyewitness has stated about infliction of injuries on the ribs, it is to be stated that PW10,
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6623-DB CRL.A No. 1240 of 2017 Sundaramma, the wife of Hemareddy has given evidence that the first accused assaulted on the ribs also. The trial court has not noticed the evidence given by PW10 in this regard.
23. The trial court has held further that the evidence of PW8 to 14 are contrary to the contents of the complaint and their statements. What is held is that PW12-the complainant has stated in the complaint that accused No.1 beat Hemareddy with a sickle on the head and then beat on his left toe with a stone, but his oral evidence in the court is contrary to his statement in the complaint where it is written that he has stated that accused No.1 beat his father Hemareddy only with a stone. It is also noticed that the oral evidence of PW8 to 15 does not corroborate their statements. On this finding of the trial court, it needs to be stated that the trial court should not have read the statements of the witnesses recorded by the investigating
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6623-DB CRL.A No. 1240 of 2017 officer without any contradiction being brought on record and duly proved in accordance with section 162 of Cr.P.C. During cross examination, neither PW12 has been questioned with reference to assault with a sickle as stated in the complaint nor the other eyewitnesses are questioned to prove any contradiction in their evidence in comparison with their statements under section 161 of Cr.P.C. The trial court therefore should not have arrived at such a conclusion. Another finding of the trial court is that as the presence of PW8, PW14 and PW15 at the scene of occurrence was doubtful. This is the meaning that can be gathered if paras 104 and 105 of the impugned judgment are read. In our opinion such kind of inference is not possible to be drawn.
24. The trial court has observed that all the eyewitnesses being the members of the family of Hemareddy are interested witnesses and no
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6623-DB CRL.A No. 1240 of 2017 independent witness was examined even though oral testimonies of the eyewitnesses shows that about 30 to 40 persons were present at the time of incident. On this finding, it has to be stated that none of the eyewitnesses appears to have given evidence solely with a view to falsely implicating the accused. It is a well settled principle of law that evidence of related witnesses should not be viewed with suspicion, what is required is greater care and caution is to be taken while assessing their evidence because of their tendency to give exaggerated version influenced by relationship. We do not find that the eyewitnesses' account is filled with hatred towards the accused. It may be a fact that there were civil litigations between the accused and Hemareddy, but the evidence, both oral and documentary, discloses happening of the incident which culminated in the death of Hemareddy. Mere pendency of civil litigations at that time does not lead to an inference that the
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6623-DB CRL.A No. 1240 of 2017 oral testimonies of the eyewitnesses are tainted with interestedness. It may be mentioned here that PW14 and PW15 are not relatives of Hemareddy. Moreover PW14 has admitted in the cross examination that there were some differences between him and accused No.1 in relation to a land transaction, but his evidence is impossible to be ignored for this reason.
25. Lastly, the trial court has observed that the documents do not disclose the particulars of the treatment given to Hemareddy, and there is no explanation as to how Hemareddy suffered fracture of 2 n d to 8 t h ribs. For this reason a doubt arises in regard to prosecution case. It is not understandable as to why the particulars of treatment were required to be given. The prosecution case does not become disbelievable for want of those particulars. PW10 has stated about assault on ribs. The specific defence about
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6623-DB CRL.A No. 1240 of 2017 accident has no documentary support. If according to defence, Hemareddy was killed in an accident, it was not difficult to establish it. Defence version has failed, this was just a defence for the sake of taking defences nothing more. It may also be stated that taking false defence may be adversely viewed against the accused.
26. The trial court has expressed a doubt about the presence of PW11 and PW13, the daughters of Hemareddy because in the statements of the witnesses made before the investigating officer their names are not forthcoming. This is yet another wrong inference. If that is so, the other eyewitnesses should have been questioned in their cross-examination. In fact everybody has stated about presence of PW11 and PW13. The trial court should not have expressed a doubt in this regard without any base in the evidence brought on record.
- 26 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6623-DB CRL.A No. 1240 of 2017
27. Therefore, we find that the trial court has recorded findings contrary to the evidence. The trial court has considered minor contradictions in the evidence of prosecution and has erroneously come to the conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts. The appreciation of evidence appears to be faulty and perverse. Only view possible to be taken is that the incident that led to death of Hemareddy did take place.
28. Now what is required to be examined is whether both the accused can be convicted for the offence under section 302 of IPC. If the background of the incident is seen, it can very well be said that accused No.1 had no intention to cause the death of Hemareddy. The evidence also does not disclose his preparation to assault Hemareddy. The entire situation evinces firstly that accused No.2 became angry having seen the
- 27 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6623-DB CRL.A No. 1240 of 2017 front yard of her house becoming dirty because of hay falling there due to fast blowing wind and for that reason only she picked up quarrel with PW10, Sundaramma, the wife of Hemareddy. Seeing the quarrel between them, Hemareddy interfered for mollification of the situation and in that course accused No.1 resorted to assaulting Hemareddy which ultimately resulted in the latter's death. Though eyewitnesses have stated that accused No.1 gave blows to kill Hemareddy, the circumstances and the situation do not indicate that he had the intention to kill. The incident appears to have taken place in fit of anger, however it cannot be said that accused No.1 did not have knowledge of the ensuing consequences as a result of infliction of injuries by him. Therefore the offence under section 302 of IPC does not constitute and instead accused No.1 can be held guilty of the offence punishable under section 304 (II) of IPC.
- 28 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6623-DB CRL.A No. 1240 of 2017
29. Accused No.2 cannot be held guilty of section 304 (II) of IPC just because section 34 was invoked. There is no evidence that she shared common intention with her husband. The proved facts do not disclose that she was aware of what her husband would do. On the other hand the evidence on record discloses that she gave blows to PW10 by pulling her plait and also gave blows to Hemareddy with her hands. This overt act only establishes an offence punishable under section 323 of IPC. Though charge is framed for the offence under section 504 of IPC, it cannot be said that the ingredients required for punishing both the accused for these offences are proved. With this discussion we proceed to pass the following :
ORDER
(i) Appeal is allowed.
(ii) The judgment dated 7.1.2017
passed by the 1st Additional
- 29 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6623-DB
CRL.A No. 1240 of 2017
District and Sessions Judge,
Chitradurga, in S.C. No. 123/2015 is set aside.
(iii) Accused No.1 is held guilty of the offence punishable under section 304 (II) of IPC.
(iv) Accused No.2 is held guilty of the offence punishable under section 323 of IPC.
Bail bonds of accused 1 and 2 are cancelled.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE CKL
- 30 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6623-DB CRL.A No. 1240 of 2017 SHKJ & VAPJ:
22.02.2024 ORDER ON SENTENCE Both accused No.1 and 2 are present before the court. We have heard them on sentence.
Accused No.1 submits that his age is 70 years and an agriculturist; he possesses nearly 39 acres of dry land, and he has income of nearly Rs.50,000/- per year from the agriculture. He has got one daughter to be married. He also submits that he has undergone heart surgery two times. He prays for taking lenient view.
Accused No.2 the wife of accused No.1 submits that her age is 67 years and she is a house wife. She complains of blood pressure and diabetes. She also submits that her daughter is to be married. She prays for taking lenient view.
Sri K.B.Onkar, learned counsel for the respondents/accused No.1 and 2 submits that the
- 31 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6623-DB CRL.A No. 1240 of 2017 accused have repentance for their act. He too prays for taking lenient view.
Having heard both the accused on the sentence to be imposed, we have to state that accused No.1 has stood convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II of IPC. The sentencing structure found in the said section is, imprisonment upto 10 years or fine or both. In the background of the incident, we are of the opinion that accused No.1 cannot be sentenced with fine only, he has to be subjected to imprisonment for a term and fine.
So far as accused No.2 is concerned, she has stood convicted for the offence under Section 323 of IPC. She obtained anticipatory bail. Section 323 of IPC provides for imprisonment upto one year or with fine up to Rs.1,000/-. Since accused No.2 is a woman, and there is a unmarried daughter in the house, we do not find it feasible to
- 32 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6623-DB CRL.A No. 1240 of 2017 subject her to imprisonment. It is enough if fine is levied.
In the above background, we now proceed to pass the following sentence.
For the offence punishable under Section 304(II) of IPC, accused No.1 is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two (2) years and pay fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default to pay fine, he shall further undergo imprisonment for a period of four (4) months.
For the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC, accused No.2 is directed to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to pay fine, she shall undergo imprisonment for a period of one month.
Accused No.1 is entitled to set-off for the period he has already spent in jail.
Exercising power under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C., accused No.1 is hereby directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- (Five Lakhs only)
- 33 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6623-DB CRL.A No. 1240 of 2017 to the wife of the deceased i.e., Sundramma (PW10). The compensation amount shall be deposited within three months from today before the trial court and on deposit of the same, the same shall be released in favour of Sundramma (PW10) on proper identification.
At this stage, Sri K.B.Onkar learned counsel for respondent No.1 files an application under Section 389(3) of Cr.P.C., seeking suspension of sentence imposed on accused No.1. His submission is that accused No.1 wants to prefer an appeal to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore the sentence imposed on accused No.1 be suspended to enable accused No.1 to prefer an appeal to the Supreme Court. On this application, we have to state that it is not maintainable as accused No.1 is subjected to imprisonment for only two years. Therefore application is dismissed.
- 34 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6623-DB CRL.A No. 1240 of 2017 Registrar (Judicial) is hereby directed to issue conviction warrant against respondent No.1/accused No.1.
Accused No.2 is hereby directed to pay fine imposed on her within one month from today before the trial court.
Free copies of the judgment be supplied to accused No.1 and 2.
Send back the trial court records along with copy of this judgment forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE KMV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5