Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: grappling in Sidharth Chowdary vs State Of Karnataka on 11 April, 2022Matching Fragments
13. He further contended that the accused and the deceased were highly educated, had love marriage, were salaried persons and were earning handsome salary. Their marriage was solemnised on 09.11.2008 out of their wedlock a female child-Pranya was born on 31.10.2009. They celebrated the birthday of their daughter on 31.10.2012. On 12.11.2012, the accused came to Bengaluru, reached the house of the deceased and started quarrelling with the deceased. The same was stated in the statements of PW.1, PW.2 and PW.3, the sister, father and mother of the deceased, respectively. In the scuffle during the grappling between the accused and the deceased, the accused lost self control and thereby, an unfortunate incident has taken place at the instance of the accused. It was not intentional but due to sudden provocation in the heat of passion. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it is not a case made out by the prosecution to grant an extreme punishment of life as the said incident happened on spur of a moment. Therefore, it is a clear case that falls under the provisions of Section 304 (Part-I) of IPC and not under Section 302 of IPC. Therefore, he sought to allow the appeal.
27. On a careful reading of Ex.P1, the complaint dated 12.11.2012 and the evidence of PW.1, PW.2 and PW.3, the sister, the father and the mother of the deceased, respectively, it clearly depicts that there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased on that day. What conspired between the accused and the deceased was not known to either PW.2 or PW.3, but they only stated that they had seen that the accused was stabbing their daughter. At that time, PW.2 was in the ground floor as he has the habit of smoking cigarettes after lunch. During the scuffle, what had happened between the accused and the deceased was known only to them. The prosecution has not produced any evidence as to the manner in which the quarrel was ensured and the probability of receiving 17 stab injuries during the grappling is not ruled out. Both the accused and the deceased were highly qualified and out of wedlock, they have got a female child-Pranya. From 2008 to 2012, there were no other complaints between the accused and the deceased. When the unfortunate incident occurred on 12.11.2012, due to the sudden provocation of scuffle between the husband and wife, the accused might have used MO.5-knife as he lost self control and stabbed the deceased as stated by him in question Nos. 10, 11, 25 and 42 of the statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. In question No.91, he has deposed that at the time, he came to the room of the deceased, she was in a pool of blood, but he has not offered any explanation as to who killed his wife, despite his statement that somebody killed his wife. When the prosecution proved the involvement of the accused, he did not disclose as to what happened to his wife on that day. PW.3, the mother of the deceased, who is said to be the eye witness to the alleged incident, deposed that the accused stabbed the deceased. In the absence of any explanation offered by the accused, an adverse inference has to be drawn against the accused. Our view is fortified by the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prahlad vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2020)1 SCC Crimes 381 at paragraph 11, wherein, it is held as under:
"No explanation is forthcoming from the statement of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C as to when he parted the company of the victim. Also, no explanation is there as to what happened after getting the chocolates for the victim. The silence on the part of the accused, in such a matter wherein he is expected to come out with an explanation, leads to an adverse inference against the accused."
28. On a careful re-appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence and material on record, it clearly depicts that the marriage is not in dispute. Out of their wedlock a female child-Pranya was born on 31.10.2009. It is also not in dispute that they celebrated the birthday of their daughter on 31.10.2012. The wedding anniversary of the accused and the deceased was celebrated on 09.11.2012 which is also not in dispute. Though in all these events, they were cordial, but PW.1, PW.2 and PW.3 specifically stated on oath before the Court that there was a constant quarrel between the accused and the deceased. On the date of incident, PW.3, who is the eye-witness to the incident, stated that there was a scuffle between the husband and wife. During the scuffle, the accused might have lost his self control, thereby, he inflicted the injuries during the grappling, which cannot be ruled out. Therefore, it ended with the homicidal death of the deceased and it is a clear case falls under Exception 1 of Section 300 of IPC, which reads as under:-
"Exception 1: When culpable homicide is not murder.
Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self- control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident."
29. The exception is no doubt subject to certain limitations. In the instant case, the provocation is not sought or provoked by the accused. The oral evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 and medical evidence depicts that the injuries found on the deceased were due to grappling and cannot be ruled out. In such cases, it cannot be said that the accused caused the injuries by way of an excuse for killing the deceased, but the material on record clearly depicts that while scuffling, the accused lost self control, thereby an unfortunate incident occurred. The said aspect is not at all considered by the learned Sessions Judge, as rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant.