Karnataka High Court
Hayyali vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 November, 2010
Author: V Jagannathan
Bench: V Jagannathan
INTHEHHH{CQURr0FKARmN@$£fE*'
(XRCUTFBENCH,GDLBARGA"E=E _»
DATED:THH3THE2M>DAY<MfN©vEMBERQ20ni"
BEF©§E_ ,p,_; g M
THE ENAEHAN
BETVVEEN ._ 1
:. HAYYALI
MUTYAPPA SA 1'O__R
AGED 31 Y:«:AR,s.~
OCC: AU'1fC..:3R'm§R~. ?« _
R/O HU%DA--_;3~.V ' '-
2. SA\/TI'RAMMA '*¢::, .
S/O SAYAPPA. MADIWAE _
AGES-D QGYEAESS-~.,E
OCC:'«CC~<>L1E, " '
R/O HU1_)A~B "
' z..APPELLAN'lS
{BY s;§;1'Sp;NJA3* E<U.;;KARNL ADV.)
«
E ' * Twxii "s»<:'A*rE' 'CF-. %§A--RNA'1'AKA
« V COMPLEX ;3A1\TGAL0RE;-56ooo1
1' .3121 SHRANABASAPPA K BABSHEYYFY, HCGP]
'i'~HR(3*UGH jMz3LE$:H'3;D PS
REP BY HIGHj'T?C;*=UR'E' PUBLIC
PROt3ECU7£'OR;Ei'IGH COURT
. .5 RESPONDENT
_ u "THIS CRLA ES FELED U/8.3274 {2} CRPC BY 'THE ADVOCATE
FOR THE APPELLANIS AGAINST THE JUDGEMNT DT.4~.O3.2008
PASSED BY THE I ADDLSESSIONS JUDGE, GULBARGA IN
S.C.NO.ZQ2/2007'--CGNV1CT§NG THE APPELLANT'S;'ACCUSED NCLE
I\.)
AND 2 FOR THE OFFEZNCE P/U/8.307 R/W see 3.§L"A§'.é1'}3r
SENTENCING THEM T0 UNDERGO R1. FOR Fiveygaas :5; E1ACH,._
AND TO PAY FINE oe RS.5,000/- EACH, op' _PAY1\?I*E:N'i"OF:-FINE: '
AMOUNT THEY SHALL UNDERGO 3.1. FOR six Mo-:\1'1*:-i&:.€:3}v EACH}
FORTHE oveemce P/U/S. 307 R/WVSEC .34-o--2«':P.o.--. * "
This appeal coming on .fo1f.__hea1'i:1_g'this-.day,,§he _§§:o1ir€:_
delivered the following: "
JUDGMEN3:
This Criminal apheal uh/ho have
been COD\,>iCt€d for the under Section
307 I'/W' Section of QC eehie-nVoe:VVfpVassed to undergo
5 years RI. /- each in defauit.
-Thev ~p1"oseeution in short is that, on
07.1o.20oe:gt ;§bo{:i{rni:ag['igh:e A-1 being the husband of
V compégainant and__V_A-2 heing the person with whom the A-1
mthegnpted the murder of complainant in
AthQe~,;;;roee$e_AVof.A'entering the house, when the complainant
A alongwigh hefehfldren was in the house A-1 knocked the
'door of Complainant, when she woke up and opened
of house then A-1 and A-2 came inside the house
"hanfi complainant; asked A-1 why A-2 had come to her
house and obgeeteé, then A-1 Caught hold her hand and
DJ
gagged her mouth and dragged her to
A»2 went there and took kerosene oil
Complainant then A-1 lit fire to heivriiviltli
which Complainant started (::ryingl'.ari'd_. at
daughter Pramila (PW--l2] can-1e.:"'*anrd "oh her'
mother thus prevented .=furthe.r'bur'h ihjuriesheihg Caused.
Thereafter, the complainant' fhierdaughter came
to the house him about the
incident __the- ppoliclewstation and lodged
ooérnlplainant was sent to
hospital ford on the Complaint, the
investigation work of drawing spot
panChariama.Vat_EX'.1P-- arid collecting wound Certificate at
iphotos and P12, FSL report at
§°<-§%v§£_£.a,§
completion of the investigation where
inolu'dedV.Cotl--eo;ting of four material objects as per MOs.l
4, thee-harge sheet was filed and appellant pleaded not
" "to the charge.
3. The prosecution led the evidence and
PVV/'s.i to 14 and got marked PVV-_l....tyo P\7t?'¥Vi4';.::téip'art'_'frornu"
the MOs,1 to 4. The accused stat/erne_nt,A.
they denied every incrimiei1.atingV"._veyidenee-
against them. T hey did in his
defence except getting Thedlhearned Triai
Judge after appreciating?' :o1_i"b__fecord, came to
the conclusion s'oiniej_"--pr_o:secution witnesses
nameiy ttpport the prosecution
case, yettir etcyteijitdieiiice i.e., PW~11 Sooramma
@ Sarojamina'th'citi{iie. was found trustworthy and
reliable we1s._sii.p"pourted by the evidence of PW~i2
Pramtiav, the dau~ghte_1j,of PW411 and also by the medical
of apart from evidence of PVW13 the father
ot'~PV«./Fri "i°i'hey;;.e\}idence of these witnesses gave raise to no
_ doubt as fares the prosecution case is concerned. Some
' niinor contradictions in the evidence were not found to be
A i'vei*y_fatai to the prosecution case. Therefore the learned
V..Vt'*-.c:Sessions Judge had no difficulty in accepting the
?'z
'<., 'E
ii
sew
Xx"
we?'
52.»;
prosecution evidence and accordingly Corn/9.ierteei--«..p_
accused persons and sentenced tihern to _uride:I";jToV"~R.'-it for"~
five years and to pay fine of
payment of fine amount, they«.__shai1'-juririergoth' for
months.
4. I have hear'-d_fl'the._ of the learned
counsel for the appellantV_$ri.;'§anj»ay"'~Kn--i1<;arni and learned
High Court Goo§re'i*'n_ri1en:t_ PEea'o1er 'th e..:Stat.e and perused
entire reeoréis in the form of paper
book V
5. for the appeliants argued
that tijxe Case of the prosecution is irnprobabalised because
victim Could not have kept quiet when
atternpted to burn her and she could have
.resisted Canéfi therefore there is some element of
iraprobahiiity in the prosecution version. Secondly, it is
that, there is also delay in iodging the complaint
third circumstance is that, PW~i2 being minor
R
V{:§~....»/"it,
M
6
daughter of PVVJL must have been inforiTi~ed.<,:dp:bé}'
mother to depose in support of he.r'im.othe.'_r anddd-Vimporij.ar:t if
fact is that, the complainant had fe.ar7t_hat
1 would give away the prope'rt_y-~t.o A52 A?
had iiiicit affair. Therefore of false
complaint filed also he The aforesaid
submissions arepaiso 'Afé._ti;f;.ported by the
evidence of preseg-:f:'tion._ xV€iptri'es's«§J;TS':'.ii1iKistaii. T he medical
evidence of His submission is
that; 40%" -.017; b1irf;f:-- i'nju.ries""'eaiised to the victim is
indication thev'fa'ertd thvatfthe. accused have no intention
to commit/"miirdei The photographs produced
are ,};notv sunppoirtedv by negatives. Under these
circiin1stan:tes._ the conviction and sentence passed
tiiereforei set V aside,
6: As far as sentence is concerned, the appellants
A argued that, after the conviction of the accused,
fhusband and his wife PW«1i settled the farniiy
dispute and fiied Criminal Revision Petition No.28/2010
/My
/2'
iv
..\J
on the file sf District and Sessions Judge
arose out of Criminai Misc. No.60/2008* T
was arrived between the hL1SbElHd-afid the;wifeend'asyper
the settlement, the husband i.e.,t"A--
his wife a house as maintenan_e'et_%andV'a1_se.3 13"
guntas of agricultural Land. Ther'e.fQre, intviewf the said
settlement between this Court also
may not eonsiderof reduweivngw the senten"e'e';'
7 . The Government Pleader
for the :StéiteeA jnudgrhent of the Trial Court
and argtied «trhVat.:»..C.-ourt has taken all the points
properly after ;:ppr,ec':atmgg the evidence on record. The
eViden"ee»_A--ef PW--1xi"whe is the victim and wife of A~1 fuliy
of PW-12 the daughter of A4 and
PW» t{'r<:)rn the evidence of Pix 313 the father of
'.e0m;:>ta:n'e.nt sand the medical evidence of PW~2. Therefore,
., ttanltvvean be found with the eonelusien taken by the
"Court and the consequent conviction and also
ffsentenee passed by the Triai Court in this eonnectien
;\
i}.
te .,e"M/
MM
W»
learned HCGP referred to the evidence of P\7\?s;_:l
13 in particular.
8. Having thus heard.4_both'---'Sides,
for consideration is whether thejt:onvicti~on"passed by the
Trial Court can be sai'id~~..t.o law in the
light of evidence on record 'ltf vdisptite that PW~1 l
is the wife of A"--4l_::and PW»ll who
is also the her evidence has
clearly though she has been
1"I1aI'I'l€Cl?__fO1f she knew A-2 having affair
with herAhw1isband.,llii'i.:'A'i have got two male and
two female llchildrenlland after developing their illicit
of incident, A-1 had knocked the
"d_.o'or,land'»,shea.woke up and opened the door, A-1 came
into the house and A--i gagged her mouth
l'with and dragged her to kitchen room and A-2 took
A kerosene and poured the kerosene oil on her body and
fire with match box. in the incident PW--~ll
sustained burn irijuries on her face, back, both arms and
§"va x~""éy
M'
5.8"'
K :
9
neck and when she started shouting, then atyetusvetifran
away from the spot and then PW112 Pramiia"
poured water on her and eXtinguish'e~:i.the fireQ"'i'he1"ea.fter
PW-11 complainant lodged comf>iaiht'*
This evidence of PW-- 11 is
Prarniia i.e., PW--12 who was___iV'1-..:ye..a_rs oie1t_and_5she was
examined before the supported her
mother in all material vpVar.tieuIars.g deposed that
A-1 and A--2 I_n".th'e""Cross examination
no damages' aife Vea'us.e'€rf'.'to" PW-it '12'; Nor was anything
brought ' out to » her Version.
9. i is the father of PW~i1 and
he ha.sgdetposed"t:e_.Vthe effect that on 02. 10.2006 he went to
daughter and consoled her after receiving
ph.on'eg.rness.age_'that his daughter sustained burn injuries.
_PW~2" do[(::tor"": has confirmed the fact of PW-11 having
"suffeiredV4O% burn injures, has issued wound certificate
'"'3*'
E
.
.«2//K 2' ée'
10. Thus the evidence of the material PW-ll and PW»l2 have been f;,:.i1y_ su_p"}doi'tedr l"by..Vti<1ieu"
evidence of the doctor and also tiiie other barring those who have turned hostile: Thevl*ea.rnedl';Trial"', Judge has considered the entirehllevidence record, had no reason to reject the l and PW» 12 and he found no infirmity in Such conviction of the accused. under Section 307 was the ' In arriving at the conclusions. the offence punishable under learned Trial Judge has also referred to"'--seVeral of the Apex Court which are V to befotirid in j_:;a_rall6of the Trial Courtjudgrnent. " :the aforesaid reasons, i do not see any fatal infirniities 'ini__the case to disbelieve the prosecution case.' 'as there delay in lodging the complaint this itself cannot ' foel a---ground to reject the prosecution case unless it is
-ill'.-shown that, the delay was occasioned on account of rrilarking time to file a false case. in the instant case "E?
X 3,3 evidence of PW--ll and PW-l2 are so natural:
possible to take the View that, the delay is xreryl'-fatal instant case, As far as minor discrepancies iii' eyideneve l are concerned, they cannot be givenfintiueh "ir_npoi7tanloe:. The testimony of the materi_al---._Witne-sses to reliable and trustworthy. l tl1ei'efo1'e3 seeno good ground made out by the appeljlants ;_to"'revv:e1:sje the order of conviction passed by '=T1*i.al=_ Co1,1rt--lI._*~for the offence punishable IPC.
l2,.v """ part of the ease, the Trial Court'* accused to undergo R.I. for five years of 35,000/-- each, in default of of finlg-.3;;i'ou:1t, they shall undergo S.l. for six T the nature of the offence Committed by the lA_»_l lai«":?_;l_v».A=2'lVis serious enough and attempt was made V --to aiy.ay"l.lthe life of PW-l it having regard to the 40% ll burn injuries found on the Victim and more importantly regard to the fact that, A-1 has since settled family dispute in the Family Court by agreeing to give his Wife a 31 22 A3//' house as Well as land to the extent of 3 guntas and after perusal of the settleff:e:i1i,'V':*ee¢§:hf:uci'' '' between the parties before AdditviQn2;1AbS'eSe;ienS- Jfi:cige'=:_i1'1 Criminal Revision Petition .Ne.__.26 TO, thie have to be taken into clf5';r1e'ideratiC>:1 as llibitlgating circumstance to redue:e._A_ of A 'ifhpflsonment imposed by the Trial Celilril sentence of 5 years imposedthe into 3 years RI. and to each. The fine amount shall .~»_l wife of A-1 and if fine amounbis shall undergo S.l. for a period of of payment of fine.
.1é'xppeal.VsEa"I'1de disposed of by allowing it in part to lathe redtieibg the sentence from 5 years to 3 35;;
EEEQE