Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Azgar vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 April, 2025
Author: Sudhanshu Dhulia
Bench: Sudhanshu Dhulia
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s).7173-7174/2024)
AZGAR APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR. RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, respondent- State and respondent No.2-victim.
3. The appellant was the accused in a case bearing Spl.C.No.12/2015 (FIR No.180/2013) for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 326, 354 Indian Penal Code (for short “the IPC”) and Section 11(iv) read with 12 of the POCSO Act. After trial he was convicted and sentenced with a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default simple imprisonment of five months, by the Sessions Court at Chamarajanagar for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC which was modified by the High Court to Section 307 of the IPC, sentencing him to simple imprisonment of 10 years.
Signature Not Verified
4. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant Digitally signed by Nirmala Negi Date: 2025.04.28 18:19:15 IST Reason: and the victim was in some kind of relationship and on 27.12.2013 at 10 a.m. when the victim was coming out from 2 the toilet, the appellant assaulted her with an axe; three injuries on the back of her neck and one on her chest, all lacerated wounds as it is seen from the evidence. All the same, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the appellant of the other charges and modified the charge under Section 326 to Section 324 of the IPC and awarded him only a sentence of fine of Rs.10,000/-.
5. The matter was taken up in appeal by the State as well as by the complainant, before the High Court and the High Court allowed the appeal of the complainant and partly allowed the appeal of the State and changed the finding from Section 324 to Section 307 of the IPC and increased the fine from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.20,000/- while sentencing the accused to 10 years simple imprisonment. These are the orders which have been challenged before this Court by the appellant/accused.
6. Having heard both parties, we are of the opinion that the learned Sessions Court was entirely wrong on the sentencing aspect. Although, we agree with the ultimate conviction given under Section 324 of the IPC but we cannot agree with the sentence, which was only a fine of Rs.10,000/- as imposed on the appellant.
7. The High Court modified the finding from Section 324 to Section 307. We are not convinced that there is any evidence to reach a conclusion of attempt to murder. The accused and the victim admittedly were in a relationship 3 and they fell out. The appellant attacked the accused with a dangerous weapon, but the injuries were such that, no inference of an intention to murder can be arrived at. The injuries sustained were lacerated wounds and the conviction under Section 307 of the IPC cannot stand scrutiny.
8. Under these circumstances, we partly allow these appeals holding the conviction under Section 324 of the IPC as awarded by the Sessions Court but enhance the sentence from fine alone and impose a sentence of two years along with compensation/fine of Rs.50,000/- which shall be deposited by the appellant within a period of six months from today before the Court concerned failing which the sentence shall be enhanced for a further period of three months.
9. We have been informed at the Bar that the victim has now passed away. Hence, the compensation of Rs.40,000/- out of the fine should be given in favour of the nearest kin of the victim and for this purpose, we direct the District Magistrate concerned to ensure that the said compensation is paid as directed herein.
10. We are further informed that the appellant has already undergone some period of incarceration and presently he is on bail. He shall surrender before the Court concerned within a period of four weeks from today and shall undergo the remaining sentence in jail after 4 deducting the period of incarceration which he has already undergone.
11. The concerned Registrar (Judicial) of this Court is directed to communicate this order to the Court concerned for onward compliance.
12. All pending applications stand disposed of.
... ..............J. [SUDHANSHU DHULIA] ...................J. [K. VINOD CHANDRAN] New Delhi;
April 23, 2025.
5
ITEM NO.28 COURT NO.12 SECTION II-C
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)Nos.7173-7174/2024 [Arising out of impugned final judgment and orders dated 22-11-2023 in CRLA No. 1786/2017 & CRLA No. 491/2017 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru] AZGAR PETITIONER(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR. RESPONDENT(S) (IA No. 88989/2024 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Date : 23-04-2025 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSHU DHULIA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN For Petitioner(s) Mr. Abdul Azeem Kalebudde, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. V N Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Swetank Shantanu, AOR Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Choudhary, Adv. Mr. Ankit Kumar, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The appeals are partly allowed in terms of the signed order, which is placed on the file.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(NIRMALA NEGI) (RENU BALA GAMBHIR) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR