Karnataka High Court
State By Ramanagara Rural vs Lakshmi @ Lakshminarayana on 17 June, 2014
Bench: Mohan.M.Shantanagoudar, C.R.Kumaraswamy
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF JUNE, 2014
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAN .M. SHANTANAGOUDAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.R.KUMARASWAMY
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.265/2010
BETWEEN :
State by Ramanagara Rural
Police Station.
..Appellant
(By Sri B.Visweshwaraiah, HCGP.,)
AND :
Lakshmi @ Lakshminarayana
S/o Sri Kuntappa @
Srinivasaiah
Aged about 25 years
R/at: Vaderahalli Village
Kasaba Hobli
Ramanagara Taluk.
..Respondent
(By Sri H.C.Hanumaiah, Adv.,)
-2-
This Appeal is filed under Sections 378(1) & (3)
Cr.P.C by the State Public Prosecutor for the state praying
to grant leave to file an appeal against the Judgment and
Order of acquittal dated 11.12.2009, passed by the P.O.
Fast Track Court, Ramanagara in S.C.No.42/2006
acquitting the respondent/accused for the offence
punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code.
This Appeal coming on for final hearing, this day,
MOHAN .M. SHANTANAGOUDAR., delivered the
following:-
JUDGMENT
The judgment and order of acquittal dated 11.12.2009 passed by the Fast Tract Court, Ramanagara in SC.No.42/2006 is appealed against by the State by filing this appeal.
2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that PW.4 Shivananjaiah has two daughters, namely Roopa and Deepa; deceased Ramesh was the brother of Shivananjaiah; Roopa and Deepa were studing in Ramadurga High School at Ramanagara during the relevant period; Deepa was travelling from her residential place Vaderahallii to Ramanagara for her -3- studies. Accused and his friend Shekhara (DW1) were close friends who allegedly teased Deepa while coming back from the school at 7.00 p.m. on 3.1.2005; such acts of the accused teasing Deepa were informed by Deepa to her parents, in turn the father of Deepa (PW.4) informed the same to the deceased, the brother of PW.4; the deceased and PW.4 became very angry and in the said angry mood they questioned accused as to why he teased Deepa; at that point of time accused was coming towards his house by walk; PWs.1, 3 and 5 as well as DW.1 were present near the scene at that time; with the angry mood, the deceased fisted on the face of the accused; immediately thereafter accused took out the knife which he was carrying and stabbed on the left side of the chest of the deceased, consequent upon which the deceased breathed his last.
-4-
3. The defence has come out with a specific theory to the effect that the deceased and his brother PW.4 came to the spot with the chopper and club. The deceased was holding chopper and PW.4 was holding club and fisted on the face of the accused, consequent upon which accused sustained injuries and he fell in a ditch. When accused wanted to get up and save his life, the deceased tried to assault the accused with chopper. Having no other alternative, in order to save his life, the accused stabbed once on the deceased which unfortunately fell on the chest and consequently deceased died.
4. In order to prove its case prosecution in all examined 15 witnesses and got marked 10 Exhibits and 4 Material Objects. On behalf of the defence, 12 Exhibits were got marked. The Trial Court on evaluation of the material on record, acquitted the accused granting benefit of doubt in favour of him. -5- The State has filed this appeal questioning the judgment and order of acquittal.
5. Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State submits that the evidence of PWs.1 to 5 coupled with the plea of the accused is sufficient to bring home the guilt against the accused; the presence of the accused is not disputed; the aspect of teasing by the accused is not in dispute; the deceased fisting on accused is also not in dispute; however, the defence has come out with a specific theory that the deceased is the aggressor and since he wanted to take away the life of the accused, the accused has exercised his right of private defence. According to the defence, the prosecution has not come out with the true story inasmuch as it has suppressed the medical records of the accused as also the seizure of weapons held by the deceased and PW.4. -6-
Learned Government Pleader draws the attention of the Court that such assertion cannot be believed at all, inasmuch as there is no positive material on record in favor of accused. There is nothing on record to show that the accused had lodged the complaint or that he had sustained injuries and consequently he was treated by the doctor. So also nothing is brought on record by the defence to show that the deceased and PW.4 came to the spot armed with the weapons i.e., chopper and club. According to the learned Government Pleader, evidence of PWs.1 to 5 is supported by the evidence of PW.6 and their evidence is consistent and cogent with the case of the prosecution. Thus, according to him, the Trial Court is not justified in acquitting the accused.
6. Sri H.C.Hanumaiah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-respondent argued in support of the judgment of the Court below. He -7- submits that the prosecution has not come out with the true story, inasmuch as it has suppressed the fact that the accused had sustained bleeding injury and he was also treated by the doctor; the prosecution has not produced the medical records pertaining to the accused; though the chopper and club were seized from the spot at the time of seizure mahazar, such fact is deliberately suppressed by the Investigating Officer; since the deceased wanted to take away the life of the accused by assaulting with the chopper, that too when the accused was in a helpless condition, the accused who used to carry a knife with him regularly took out the same and stabbed the deceased which unfortunately landed on his chest portion. He further draws the attention of the Court to the evidence of PW.1 to contend that the accused was a cable operator and he used to carry a knife always with him because he had to frequently repair the cable -8- wires. He further submits that the elder sister of Deepa, namely Roopa was in love with the accused and she has written a number of love letters to the accused as per Ex.D3 to D12; since the father of Roopa, i.e., PW.4 as well as her uncle (deceased) and other family members were not agreeable for such affair of the accused with Roopa, PW.4 wanted to take away the life of the accused. Such aspect of motive according to him is suppressed by the prosecution. It is further submitted by him that since the Trial Court has considered all the aspects of the case as well as the material on record for coming to the conclusion, no interference need to be made.
7. PWs.1, 2, 3 and 5 are close friends of PW.4 and deceased; all of them are eye witnesses to the incident in question; PW.1 has lodged the complaint as per Ex.P1 at about 11.45 pm. in Ramanagara Rural Police Station. The incident has occurred at 8.30 p.m. -9- on 8.1.2005. The death of the deceased has taken place on 10.30 p.m. at Ramangara Hospital on the very day i.e., on 8.1.2005; PW.4 is the elder brother of the deceased. He is also eye witness to the incident; PW.6 is the daughter of PW.4. She has deposed that she was being teased by accused and DW.1 and in the morning of the date of incident also she was teased by the accused and DW.1. It is her further evidence that she has intimated about such fact to her family members including the deceased; PW.7 is the Teacher working in the school wherein Deepa was studying. However, he has turned hostile, since he refused to support the case of the prosecution in further details; PW.8 is the witness for seizure panchanama at Ex.P6 under which MO.No.4- knife was seized. The said knife was used by accused for commission of offence; PW.9 is a witness for inquest panchanama and spot panchanama at Ex.P3
- 10 -
and P4 respectively; P.W.10 is the Head Constable who apprehended the accused on 11.1.2005 at Bangalore Bus Stand; PW.11 is the Police Constable who carried MO.Nos.1 to 3 the clothes of the deceased after postmortem examination; PW.12 is the Police Constable who carried the FIR to the jurisdictional Magistrate; PW.13 is the doctor who conducted the postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. Postmortem report is at Ex.P7; PW.14 is the Investigating Officer who completed the investigation and laid the charge sheet; PW.15 is the Sub-Inspector of Police who registered the crime in Crime No.2/2005 of Ramanagara Rural Police Station based on the complaint at Ex.P1 lodged by PW.1. He has sent the FIR to jurisdictional Magistrate as per Ex.P10.
DW.1 is the close friend of accused. He has deposed not only with regard to the main incident in
- 11 -
question, but also with regard to teasing of PW.6 by accused and DW.1; DW.2 is the accused himself. He has also deposed about the actual incident in question.
8. As aforementioned PW.1-complainant is an eye witness. The case of the prosecution is that accused intentionally stabbed the deceased Ramesh with knife (MO.No.4) on the vital part of the body and inflicted injury and hence Ramesh succumbed to the injury on 8.1.2005 at about 10.30 p.m. at Government Hospital, Ramanagara.
PW.1 has deposed that at about 8.00 p.m. on 8.1.2005, while accused and DW.1 were standing near the house of Puttaswamaiah, himself (PW.1), Prabhakar (PW.3), Manju (PW.2) and Puttaswamy (PW.5) were also talking with each other standing nearby; all of them went to their respective houses;
- 12 -
thereafter PWs.1, 2, 3 and 5 once again came back near a shop situated close to the house of Puttaswamy and were talking with each other; at that point of time, deceased Ramesh and PW.4 Shivananjaiah also came there; accused and DW.1 were asked by them as to why they teased Deepa (daughter of PW.4); at that point of time, accused abused the deceased in filthy language and told him that he can do whatever he wants; consequently, the deceased became furious and fisted on the face of the accused; immediately, thereafter accused took out knife from his pocket and stabbed on the left side of the chest of the deceased Ramesh; thereafter he took out knife and assaulted once again on the left hand of the deceased; immediately thereafter PWs.1 to 5 took the deceased to the Government Hospital wherein the deceased died at about 10.30 p.m; thereafter PW.1 went to Police Station and lodged the complaint.
- 13 -
In the cross-examination, PW.1 admits that PWs.1, 2, 3 and 5 are close friends of deceased and PW.4. He came to know about the incident of teasing Deepa by accused and DW.1. He also admits that the deceased became furious with the filthy language used by the accused against the deceased, so also the deceased became furious and angry because of the challenge of the accused and hence with the said angry mood, the deceased fisted on the face of the accused. However, PW.1 has denied the suggestion made by the defence that the deceased and PW.4 came to the spot with chopper and club respectively. He has also denied the suggestion of the defence that because of fist blow on the accused, the accused sustained bleeding injury and that he fell in a ditch. He has further denied the suggestion of the defence that the deceased tried to take away the life of the accused by assaulting him with the chopper and
- 14 -
thereafter the accused took out knife and stabbed the deceased in order to save his life. However, he has admitted that when he visited the Police Station on the next date of the incident, the blood stained clothes and the knife used for commission of offence were shown to him by the police. He has further admitted that the accused used to carry the knife for the purpose of repairing the cable wires. It is the further evidence of PW.1 that there was lot of hue and cry near the scene of offence and that there are number of houses adjoining the scene of offence.
9. From the evidence of PW.1, it is clear that the deceased and PW.4 came to the spot and asked the accused as to why they teased Deepa. However, accused abused the deceased in filthy language and challenged him by saying that he may do whatever he wants to do. Consequently, the deceased and PW.4 became furious and deceased gave a blow on the face
- 15 -
of the accused. Immediately thereafter accused took out knife and stabbed on the chest of the deceased. The defence also does not deny about the aforementioned facts. However, case of the defence is that the deceased and PW.4 came to the spot with chopper and club respectively and deceased wanted to take away the life of the accused, in order to save his life, accused took out the knife and stabbed on the deceased. The evidence of PWs.2, 3, 4 and 5 is almost similar to the evidence of PW.1.
10. PW.2 has deposed that when PWs.1, 3 and 5 were standing near the scene of offence, PW.4, deceased and accused were quarrelling with each other. Immediately thereafter the accused took out knife and stabbed on left side of the chest of the deceased as well as on the left hand of the deceased. Thereafter deceased was admitted to the hospital. PW.2 has admitted in the cross-examination that at
- 16 -
the time of incident, the neighbours of the accused, Shivalingaiah and Puttaswamaiah as well as their family members were present near the scene of offence and that the deceased had become furious and angry during the relevant time. He further admits that the deceased fisted on the face of the accused in a very angry mood. Except the aforementioned statement found in the cross-examination of PW.2 his evidence is on par with the evidence of PW.1.
Same is the evidence of PW.3. PW.3 has also deposed that when himself and PWs.1, 2 and 5 were near the scene of offence, PW.4 and deceased came to the spot and asked DW.1 and accused who were standing there as to why they teased Deepa. Thereafter accused challenged the deceased and told him that he is at liberty to do whatever he wants. Immediately thereafter deceased assaulted the accused with hand. Being aggrieved by the same,
- 17 -
accused took out the knife and stabbed on the left side of the chest of the deceased. He has admitted in the cross-examination that the deceased and PW.4 came to the spot with angry mood and they were furious and with the said angry mood the deceased fisted on the face of the accused. He further admits that PWs.1, 2, 3 and 5 are close friends of PW.4 and deceased.
PW.4 is the elder brother of the deceased. Kumari Deepa is the daughter of PW.4. He has deposed that he was informed by Deepa about she being teased by the accused and DWs.1 and such teasing continued for a long period. It is also deposed by PW.4 that her daughter Deepa had allegedly beaten the accused with chappal since he had teased her. Further, in respect of the actual incident in question, he has deposed that he (PW.1) and deceased went near accused and DW.1, who were
- 18 -
talking with each other and asked them as to why they teased Deepa; accused abused the deceased in filthy language and challenged him that he can do whatever he wants. Since the deceased became furious, he fisted on the face of the accused only once and immediately thereafter accused took out knife from his pocket and stabbed the deceased as a result of which deceased died in the hospital. In the cross- examination, PW.4 has admitted that he was told by his daughter Deepa about she being teased by the accused and thereafter deceased and PW.4 went to ask the accused as to why he had teased Deepa. In the cross-examination, he has withstood by denying the suggestions made by the defence which are contrary to the case of the prosecution.
Same is the evidence of PW.5. He is also one of the eye witnesses to the incident in question. He has also deposed about the incident of assault. He has
- 19 -
deposed that deceased and PW.4 came to the spot and since deceased was very much angry, he fisted on the face of the accused and in turn accused after abusing the deceased in filthy language took out knife and stabbed him.
11. We find that the evidence of PWs.1 to 5 is consistent and cogent with regard to incident in question. All of them have deposed that the deceased and PW.4 were very much angry because of the act of accused and DW.1 teasing the daughter of PW.4. Deceased is the younger brother of PW.4. After hearing from Deepa in respect of she being teased by the accused and DW.1, the deceased and PW.4 came to the spot in the village wherein the accused and DW.1 were standing. All these witnesses have consistently and cogently deposed that the deceased asked the accused as to why he teased Deepa. But the deceased became more angry because of the filthy
- 20 -
language used by the accused as well as because of the challenge made by the accused. Thereafter deceased fisted on the face of the accused. Immediately thereafter the knife was taken out by the accused and deceased was stabbed. The said portion of the case of the prosecution remained unchallenged inasmuch as the defence also agrees with the same.
12. The evidence of PWs.1 to 5 with regard to aspect of teasing is supported by Deepa-PW6. She has deposed that on 8.1.2005 at about 8.00 a.m. while she was going to school, accused came near her and threatened with dire consequence in case if she does not marry him; she became angry and she showed chappal to the accused and spit on him and went to school; thereafter she informed about the incident to her Teacher namely Chikkabasavaiah, who in turn told her that in case if further incidents reoccur she should inform either to teachers or to her parents.
- 21 -
Thereafter in the evening she informed her parents about the incident.
In the cross-examination, PW.6 has admitted that the deceased and PW.,4 went out of their house in order to bring it to the notice of family members of the accused with regard to the factum of teasing. She has further admitted that since one year prior to the incident in question, the accused used to talk with her while going on the road. However, she has not disclosed about such talking by the accused to her parents. She has denied the suggestion that she used to tease DW.1. She has further denied the suggestion that deceased and PW.4 went out of the house by taking chopper and club with them. Except the admission of PW.6 that she used to talk with the accused since one year prior to the incident, no vital admissions are made by PW.6.
- 22 -
13. PW.7 is the teacher working in the school wherein Deepa was studying. He has deposed before the Court that at about 8.30 a.m. on 8.1.2005 when he was in the school, the accused came before him and told that Deepa of 9th class student abused him and spit on him. Accused also asked the teacher to conduct enquiry in that regard. However, PW.7 told the accused that he should inform the said fact to the Head Master. PW.7 is treated as hostile by the prosecution.
14. The knife (MO.No.6) was seized from the person of the accused based on his voluntary statement. Ex.P6 is the seizure panchanama. It gives the description of knife. The said knife measures 5 inches in length; out of 5 inches, 3 inches is the plastic handle and remaining 2 inches is a steel blade. The steel blade could be folded inside the plastic handle.
- 23 -
15. Ex.P7 is the postmortem report. PW.13 is the doctor who conducted the postmortem examination. The postmortem report clearly reveals that there is a cut wound in the upper part of the abdomen near the chest measuring 1.5 cm. There was bleeding from the wound. The deceased had sustained one more injury namely irregular cut wound of 3 cm. x 2 cm. over the back of the left elbow; the doctor has opined that it is a defence wound. Because of the wound near chest there was an extravasatation of blood to the surrounding tissues at the medial end of 5th intercostal space of the left side measuring 1.5 cm. in length. The doctor has opined that death was due to syncope due to perforation of the right ventricle of the heart. The doctor has also opined that due to the puncture of right ventricle, large quantity of blood has accumulated in the percicardial space resulting in cardiac tamponade-cardiac arrest and
- 24 -
death. Thus, the medical evidence in the form of postmortem report as well as the evidence of the doctor clearly reveal that the death was due to injury on the chest and that there was a perforation of the right ventricle of the heart which has resulted in cardiac arrest and death of the deceased.
As per the evidence of aforementioned prosecution witnesses, it is clear that there was a single blow on the chest by sharp cutting weapon and because of such injury the deceased died. The voluminous evidence on record particularly, evidence of PWs.1 to 5 discloses that accused stabbed on the chest of the deceased only once.
16. The evidence of prosecution is also admitted by the defence. As aforementioned, the defence has examined two witnesses, i.e., ,DWs.1 and 2. DW.1 is also the eye witness. DW.2 is the accused himself.
- 25 -
These witnesses have also deposed that accused stabbed on the left side of the chest of the deceased with knife. Therefore, there is no dispute with regard to accused stabbing the deceased with knife, that too on the left side of the chest. There is also not in dispute that because of such injury the deceased collapsed on the spot and breathed his last immediately after his admission in the Government Hospital at Ramanagara. However, DW.1 as well as DW.2 have deposed that the deceased and PW.4 came to spot armed with chopper and club; they were in angry mood and they wanted to take away the life of accused; initially deceased fisted on the face of the accused, consequent upon which the accused sustained a bleeding injury on the face and fell down in a ditch; when the accused wanted to get up from the ditch, the deceased wanted to assault him with
- 26 -
chopper and in order to save his life, accused stabbed on the left side of the chest of the deceased.
17. We are conscious that the defence witnesses are entitled to equal treatment with those of prosecution witnesses and that the Court ought to overcome traditional methods to disbelieve any defence witnesses. Quite often they tell lies but so do the prosecution witnesses. Since the defence has come out with the aforementioned specific theory, it is for the defence to show at least by preponderance probabilities that their theory is acceptable. As aforementioned, it is the specific defence that the deceased and PW.4 came armed with the chopper and wanted to take away the life of accused. If really the deceased was armed with the chopper he would have definitely assaulted the accused with chopper at the first instance itself particularly when he was stated to be in an angry mood. On the other hand, from the
- 27 -
material on record including the evidence of the witnesses, it is clear that the deceased fisted the accused on his face and he had not used the chopper. If really the deceased had the chopper in his hand, he would have assaulted the accused with the said chopper. More over, neither the panchanama nor any other material on record disclose that the chopper is seized by the police. Except putting suggestions to show that the deceased was carrying the chopper, the accused has not relied upon any reliable material on that aspect of the matter. Not even a simple injury is found on the accused. If really the accused had sustained any injury on his body including the face, the investigating officer would not have let him go without being medically examined. If really the accused had taken treatment in a private hospital, he would have definitely produced such medical certificate in support of his contentions.
- 28 -
According to the defence, the accused fell down in a ditch after receiving blow from the deceased; when he tried to get up from the ditch, the deceased tried to stabbed him with chopper. As such, he took out knife and stabbed the deceased. If accused had fallen in a ditch, he could not have stabbed the deceased with the knife on the upper portion of the body. The blow of the accused, if any, would have fallen on the lower portion of the body of the deceased, if really he had fallen in a ditch. On the other hand, the material on record, more particularly size and situs of the injury would clearly reveal that the deceased as well as the accused were standing on the same plain and the accused took out knife and stabbed on the left side of the chest of the deceased. Therefore, the defence theory as put forth by it cannot be accepted.
- 29 -
18. Sri Hanumaiah, learned counsel appearing for the accused submits that only the interested witnesses PWs.1, 2, 3 and 5 were examined before the Court; though neighbours of the place wherein the incident has taken place were very much present, their statements were not even recorded by the police; another daughter of PW.4 namely Roopa was in love with accused and she has written number of love letters at Ex.D4 to D12; since the family members of the deceased and PW.4 were not agreeable for such affair between Roopa and accused, the false complaint came to be lodged against the accused inasmuch as it was the deceased, who wanted to take away the life of the accused. He further submitted that the theory put forth by the prosecution that the accused was arrested on 11.1.2005 at Bangalore Bus Stand falls to the ground in view of the evidence of PW.1 who has admitted that
- 30 -
the knife used by the accused was in the Police Station itself on the next date of incident and such knife was shown to PW.1 by the police.
19. It is no doubt true that PW.1 has admitted that the knife was shown to him in the Police Station by the police on the next date of incident itself. Therefore, Sri Hanumaiah is justified in contending that recovery of knife at the behest of accused on 11.1.2005 cannot be believed. It has also come on record that PWs.1, 2, 3 and 5 are the close friends of the deceased and PW.4 and they have supported the case of the prosecution fully. It is further true that the neighbouring witnesses namely Shivananjaiah and Puttaswamy who were present on the scene of offence are not examined by police and their statements are not recorded. It is by now well settled that a the conviction can be recorded on the basis of the statement of a single eye witness provided his
- 31 -
credibility is not shaken by any adverse circumstance appearing on the record against him and the Court, at the same time, is convinced that he is a truthful witness. It is also by now well settled that a close relative, who is a natural witness, is not necessarily an interested witness. The term "interested" postulates that the witness must have some direct interest in having the accused somehow or the other convicted for some animus or for some other reason. The ground that the witness being a close relative and consequently being a partisan witness, should not be relied upon, has no substance. {Kartik Malhar vs. State of Bihar - 1996 SCC (Cri) 188}.
In the matter on hand, PW.4 is the elder brother of the deceased. Even the defence admits the presence of PW.4 on the spot. The defence also not denied the incident of assault by the deceased with knife on the chest portion of the deceased. In view of
- 32 -
the same, we are of the clear opinion that non- examination of the neighbouring witnesses will not lead to any type of suspicion against the case of the prosecution.
20. It is no doubt true that Ex.D4 to D12 are the love letters stated to have been written by Roopa, the elder sister of Deepa. Even assuming that they were in love with each other and even assuming that her parents were against accused, the accused cannot be acquitted inasmuch as he has entirely admitted the case of the prosecution, except to state that he has exercised his right of private defence. We have already discussed during the course of judgment as to how we disbelieved the theory of defence that the deceased had possessed weapon.
21. It is very much clear that the deceased and PW.4 came to the spot in an angry mood. They were
- 33 -
furious by hearing the news of teasing by the accused. They came to the spot wherein accused was talking with DW.1. They questioned the accused about his conduct towards Deepa. In the altercation, the deceased admittedly fisted on the face of the accused, and the accused took out the knife suddenly from his pocket and stabbed on the left side of the chest of the deceased. Thus, material on record would clearly reveal that the incident of assault by the accused was unintentional. Incident of assault suddenly was generated because of fisting by the deceased on the accused. The accused did not come with preparation inasmuch as admittedly he used to carry knife with him for cable repair work. Even assuming that the accused wanted to save his life from the deceased, we are of the clear opinion that the accused has exceeded in exercising his private defence. Since the deceased and PW.4 were unarmed, there was no reason for the
- 34 -
accused to take out knife from his pocket and assault on the vital portion of the body of the deceased. In view of the same, it can be concluded that the accused did not have intention of committing of murder; the incident is as a result of grave and sudden provocation by the deceased; and the accused has exceeded in exercising his right of private defence. Since the assault by accused is without any intention of committing murder, the offence falls within the ambit of Section 304 Part-II of IPC. The offence in question may not fall within the ambit of definition of murder, but it is a culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 Part-II of IPC.
22. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances and the reasons assigned, the respondent-accused is liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II of IPC.
- 35 -
23. Heard Sri Hanumaiah and the learned Government Pleader regarding sentence to be imposed on accused. Sri Hanumaiah submits that the accused is recently married and leniency may be shown in his favour by imposing sentence of 3 to 4 years.
Per contra, learned Government Pleader submits that minimum sentence to be imposed is eight years. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the interest of justice will be met if sentence of five years of imprisonment is imposed on the accused with a fine of Rs.25,000/-. Accordingly, the following order is made:-
i) The judgment and order of acquittal dated 11.12.2009 passed by the Trial Court in SC.No.42/2006, is set aside.
- 36 -
ii) Accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II of IPC and sentenced to undergo for imprisonment for a period of five years.
iii) Accused is also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty-five thousand only).
iv) In default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo imprisonment for one year in addition to the sentence of five years.
v) In case of recovery of fine of Rs.25,000/-, the said amount shall be paid to Smt.Rathnamma (widow of the deceased).
vi) Accused is entitled to set off for the
period already undergone by him
during the course of investigation or trial.
- 37 -
vii) Accused shall be taken into custody forthwith.
Appeal is allowed accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE *ck/-