Krishna Murthy vs State Of Karnataka By Ulsoor Police ... on 30 September, 2011

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Krishna Murthy vs State Of Karnataka By Ulsoor Police ... on 30 September, 2011

IN 'ms HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 30%: DAY OF sEp'mMBE¥':;v A'
BEFORE  4%  k V 
'l"HE HONBLE MR,JUsT1cEAAA..:~;.APAéi§1'1#AA:éi§RE 
CRINHNAL APPEAL     

BETWEEN:

KRLSHNA MURTHY

S/O LOGANATHAN . .__ ;

AGED ABOUT36 YEARS ., --

NO.4'D'S'.£'REE'F A' ;

JAYARAJA NACAR  - p A 
ULSOOR,BA1?JG,_A;§_yOR1§', §   .3..,W,,fAPPELLANT
{BY SR1' :%;.V.I{ANEAEiRIS§%I-Nf:~__AIDV, APPOI.N"£'ED

As AMICUS. c»?s;_r.a*g11A};«:}'   «.  

   
STATE ' OF' KAR;\zA'1=A*;:A"~«..  " "
BY ULSOOR POLICE), ' ~
BAm.AL0R;E:V-.   '

'  _R"I:::<3R:iA:~:I«:.':x;r;fgD B5?"

   $.*::A;fsF£f jm.}3LIc PROSEEC 3309.
*-:;£:{:H (:<:3':i5--rR1f:=' 0;: §{A_R1\lA'I'AKA

;~:»:§§~i ;<;@;U}:z':' BEELEEENGS
Bﬁ£*~ECz2'°&E,0'REZ '..,RES§'8Jf°*€]?}E;N'F

A if igj§i3?23R:,{;,.A:°8R::s::2:AsA §2:?§;}:}Y an 3'-§$@;rA;

'E'§€ES CRL.A FELED {HS 3'??? CREKC BY" THE)

M  = ._ --f A'BE?GCA'fE FOR THE APPELLQNYXACCUSES AGAENS? THE

JUDGMENT D331/8/04 PASSED BY THE":-'; P.O.. FAST"
TRACK C€)URT-- IV, BANGALORE~CONV£CT£NG THE
APPELLANT~ACCUSEZD FOR THE QFFEINCE E3,/UXS 30'? OF
EPC AN?) SENTENCENG EEEM T0 UNZEERGQ SE. E'-'SR E YE:'}AE{



"gm

regularly atiiencling to the duties. He was e0;.'1sum.ing
liquor. He used to quarrel with his wife PW2-Rama.
On 11.10.1998 at abeut 13.30 13.31., PW2__--_Rama

was in sleep and by that time she regained Cbrisefeus

she was in the hospiial. On the date of irge:ide1§:t"he:§"t'e 

the appellaxat, PW2-Rama and   fi1'e 

residence. The appellant had  {fie ﬁioljce 

and informed of having  aess.;a11IE--..Qfi, }i'i.sV'"Wife and'

under such cireur:1:=J;a11ee'S';*ii1e'""--po1iee"'ca1*ne to the

residence of the   '_{_?'W2~Rama in a

p0e1:'Vef--VTbieed.  su_éV€:1ir1ed many injuries. She
was ime0nseiQii$;._T'Sheewas immediately shifted 1:0 the

ho_s_pita1.L" _}PW6'«Divi.$i'ikanth exammed PW2~Rama at

 A€;'§:{)f4«E:3i-eV.1'1<3=;;Are ef:""'£'2V.£G.1998 and found the injuries as

the eei'i:if£eate~--Ex,P5.. Enguriee L2 anti 6

were .gg~ri_e%;7ezzs arid 439$ and '1? were saimpﬁe, She wee

 AA iiieeéiefgged fzegza the heepétai an 2E5EG'1;§98$ 33;: ﬁze-;

'  "§:§;3;:7e 3? {he iiaéééeieim :51 h2:::"::::e:'--I\§b{},i"; Esme §"{'m';':e§. The

 deeter eeines that the izajuriee might Eiave been eaueed

by the hammer«1\rE.O.5 and blade 3.4.0.6. PW1 Submitted

a eempiainfi agaizelst the zippeﬁani, fa}: having seamed {he _



,4,

injuries on PW2»Rama while she was sleeping and it
was registered by PW5 whe held the spot mahazar
EXP4 in the presence of attesting Witnesses, regarded

the statement of the witnesses and after e01}eet{:1g"'-the

injury certificate and other documents  '

against the accused.   

During the trial, the proe'{:e_1Jetidh a
ta 4, got marked the   andt'
M.O.s 1 to 8.  t V4

Statement of    U/8.313

Cr.P,'C  took the defence 01' total
denied" 'The 'a1_$:p.eIia.1fite._eXgtIr1ined Dwbthe doeter of the
NIMHANLS . ho'sp'i't3;i ,_  V. got marked the deeunaents
exhibits Iu37E.._f.ew..Ei)2.§'- «The triai Ceurt after hearing the

pféftiee and .:~:tfte'1""gtepreeizttioia ef the :;r1at.eriaE er: record

V ;e;~e.V::¥2?eteC§.._t};e_ atppeiiazit for the eharge 'L:/'e.3G"}"" ef EPC

 ._3§T";§; e:'f§e:"e:§E"i£a1 ta uederge Si fer {me year gmié te pa}?

 Aggi*i.e__*<5'e& by the eemrietien an§ sezzteneee the present

 "a.p;téea1 has been filed.

e'*§1'§1e"ef". 5'<"3§;.;GSG,f -- RE} te %;EIE{§€E"'§f{) St} "fer twe mezgthe.

ye,



#5

3. As; the Counsel for the appellant is absent, I
have heard the learned Amieus Curiae and the learned
HCGP for the respondent.

4, The point that anses fer my eensiderat'ieh_"«1_e;--_' 'Whether the appellant has made to warrant interference in his.:eem'ict§'_enVe;I1Vd' Senigeriee l for the offence 12/330? of If3'C:'?'l\V A

5. The learned Amiet.1e"~Curizie would' eejr1'Ee.m::l t11a'E V the appellant was.' st1fi'eerir1:g._l'rQm eev.ere,x§ Paranoid SeI1jze:5h:=:<ii1ia the incident and he was incapable efnature ef the aet that he was doing it is evitheeér' or eontrary :0 law. He submite

3.i'h_E?1""£f is eVn51'pievmaterial on {hie aspect zmé the triei eeihznitted errer Em aWe.rel'i;":g eemrietiezll flie Eeazzeee RC8»? has eupperfgeel the judgmezeé AA eeé azsdiei" ef ééze Ergéel éieuﬁ, ?. A3 eeuld be seen frem the eviﬁeriee ef PWl,metherwinmlaw ef the appellant and PW'2~wife§ none ef ihem Speak eheut {he motive fer the meéeieeé. PW2 \.

_(3_ had spent 8 years of maritai life as on the date of the incident. She had an affection for her husband all the times. At the time of the marriage {he appellant was working at Bijapur and he was :irregular in duties and his conduct was not propzijf:

transferred to Bangalore and '§71fife_:'A.x21r§'1.0 made the efforts to get the Eveaz appellant was staying in :31 "'(.:jh"i'r1rs1aiah'," V the relationship between «P'vV2"L_:'af1"d' thehhégppevihlant were Cordial except that'''the '' irregular in aEtenhdi'r"1g' d1j3:f;ies_ wa,e"eensu1ning iiquor. 8;_f1*he i11eidje'1*2f"t(1e1{'.pEaCe on 11.10.1998 at 11.30 p.171'. = £E1'e,§_V P;\Fv'2»Rama1 wife ef the appeilant «iééis The facts reveal that 111; was the appeliant . £1-iii%iE<:e'«..eE1i§;};"'aier1e whe were preeem 1:1 ihe heuee axle? zﬁdayv-._'ee11rE§er, She azppeiiam had 'taken the h:a,1":111':1e1" and V ~%<:e§1. ii' 21': iihe yiaee Eihezfg 11?e1'e S§€€?§3§EEg'.-£1 '§Ef1.e1"e wage 11.339 21 "'1.e§11'a§1"§ei heiweee PW2 ané ﬁhe appeﬁeni, E'111'ih.e1%* there is no evidence as 10 ihe r1at.11:re of quarrei betxxreen them' 'fhe aepeilahi has examined SW1w§}1*.Cha1"1draeheE~:a1' whe W213 werking in ?'€EE\,¥£HANS heaepiia} arid 213 per {he >1»/~:;.1 if _7_ records the appellant. was mtffering frem "Paranoid Sehizophrania and he has produced Ex.Dl, the letier' w1*itien to the Superintendent of prisene. He States that the appellant was gilven shock treatment on 1.6:. on 10.11.1997, 21.11.1997.

19.1 1.1997. 21.1 1.1997, 24. 111131997 and even on the day when recorded the treatment {hath for the disease the vappﬂellaeﬁf Iﬁvlnimum 5 years treatment is the medicine is disc§1ﬁiﬁi1*1"ue;1. peeeihility of relapse of the diseae-e.' «.011 evidence. he states that the appevllanf' ..S'ufAferif1g from Paranoid Sehizephrania.

records regafdihg the treatment has been produced the erese~«e'.x:a1ni1'1atie11 he eaiegorieally en §.l@.'§QQ8 the appellant 'seek the A i:rea€.1a:2e1a1' and hie :::e:{1d.i1iie11 was serieus as; am the eaid. A' He aiee states the"? 5:391: a @€§'E%i3E"§: 1.vE1e is eufieeiyzg ffrem Paraeeid Sehizephrarzla may eaase injury ﬁe others or to himself. From this evidence of DWI if the evidence of PWS l mid 2 1:3 pemlsed, apart {rem the faeg :;«,é/~ that the appellant was suffering from Paranoid Schizophrenia, no I11(}l;3lV(E has been atiribuied by PWS 1 and 2 and the quarrel between husband and wife may be only because that the appellant was Paranoid Sehizophrania. The absence (3? indieaies the possibility that person of sound mind at the tlnie before the incident he the mental disease and':'axze1s time, Considering the absence 0lf"inl0i.£x_r_e" evidence of PWs celnflelct of the disease he was suffering; ii; 'ca;1:.r_1m:_ that the appellant lgnowing the I1ai;urel of iglae" he was doing 213 to Whether it is wrong e1°V--.eOn§irafy lo law. This is eniy be<:an-Se that l'£:e"*wfas eufferin_g*"'f§:em severe Paraneid Sehi:«:0phran_i:as_ ' _e;:?:;d_ -ne~£&?e:«;§§?ve§ unsound mind ineapable <3?" lénnwlng the = n2*2?;:'zre ..€_:l?;el eel.

3; lE7l%':e p1*eeee:,n*;_£{>n 312:5 ex.:>::n§neeE Wife 3 said 4 Ehe neighhnure whe Came E0 'ihe place of ineidenl, and later 2 P'~ﬁfB~Sr.Srikanth who treated the injured-PW2 and AAl':?W5«-pﬁlliifﬁ officer whe eendueied and held the I X' Mg"

investigation. 80 looking :0 the material placed on record, the defence has b€€I1 satisfactorily established from the evidence of DW1 and that of P'\?V$ 1 and it would got to establish that the appellant xaxfgéj from Severe Paranoid Schizophrania at incident as he was incapable :rJf"'k':13Wi;1g_;the'.11atu:'e of the act that he was doing Veithelf'. 1vrof;gA'0r to law has caused assa'ul1f~,on Hmljn the' circumstances, the a~§3xpel}.aﬁ't"i..V§; ehigitled ltd 2130 order of acquittal.

lhléiévlvignored the evidence 0f {)W1l'--the ~'i:he NEMHANS hospital and exhibits am} the records pertaining to the tI*e:l3l;t15I1vF:r1't. giveii" to the accuseﬁ far Paranoid E': has 21130 fzilleéi £9 take: into {:::3.:z.&§§:%.«é§'a?l§:E€}:': fhai *€.w0 days; €3Ei§"l'i€31"' {:9 éhi-2 lrzciderif; the AA ap§{é:§§,;i:':f; Wag stxamined "by E}'s?€E élfid he had $913119? ma? A' "€;;§f2§§5alppi%ll2iz:l, '«,a.-*a:=; 5;uffs3:r'§:'_z§ ifmm Ssszvﬁrﬁ m€:::.;;a§ aiiaﬁréei"

slané this faiti ES establisheé by the absence of metive and in such circumstances, the trial Cezmrt might E0 :i'§fc1V€f granted gm erder sf aaiq'uii€.al( The appmciaiien of M

-- EU-

material placed On record clearly establish that the appellant was mentally unsound at; the time 01' {E16 incident and is entitled to an arder of acquittal.

11. In that View of the matter, I answer' jfl1:é"--« pi)in_t in ih€ affirmative and proceed to pass the 1 V' ORDER, 1} The appeal is allowed; I

11) T he convlctlon aﬁd'-.::3léntenC'eVord{3rif§dVl'2lg'i;1;irl-st the appellant lbrpppthe is set aside. He is; charge. His llll fa}'gl§"ca11l§§Véll€§d. Fine if any deposited lr.lshau:x§r¢ﬁ;¢a§d;

f<§es_V0f .vﬁhé"vAl1ﬁlcus Curiae is fixed at $5,006/-- '~ . f;13;£: State plléill 'pay {he same.

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court

Krishna Murthy vs State Of Karnataka By Ulsoor Police ... on 30 September, 2011