IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 29"' DAY OF OCTOBER
BEFORE ii"i
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE HULUVADl.--{eRA?i?{E«S}1vL:"
CRIMINAL APPEAL N 0.4f3\30F29ii19:'i' 4' A
BETWEEN:
Jayakurnar,
Aged about 33 years,
S/0 Doddaiah,
Matagere Village, V
Sargur Hobli, -
H.D.K0teTa1uEi_i, _ _
..APPELLANT
(By M/s.iP.Nataraj:.;_i
AND} ~
i:Sta&t_ei of Karniataka,
By Hunsur'T.Ow_n'POIice,
R.e1:$reseh'ted_..by ~ State Public Prosecutor,
High Court Buifding,
A Baiigalpra A ..RESPONDENT
it iS.ri.(i}"i.M.Srinivasa Reddy, HCG?)
This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of
-»Cr:.P.C. praying to set aside the judgment and order of
, conviction dated 3.4.20E() passed by the IV Add}. District and
*6?'
-7
x.
SJ}, at Mysore, in S.C.No.1_08/()9 --~ convicting the
appellant/accused for the offence P/U/S498-A, 341. and 307 of
IPC and etc.,
This Criminal Appeal coming on for further hearing.o:th.is
day, the Court delivered the following: ~ .
JUDGMENT
This appeal is by the :«.1c:cusec;’=4lchaliengingltlieiorderilypofil’
conviction and sentence passedby the I’! Ada”l’LeVD:istric;t
Sessions Judge, Mysore, in convicting the”accuseci; for the
offence punishable underS:ections2,j_4§8{–.£§v) 307 of IPC and
sentencing him tovundergo’ for a period
of two years ‘foil Section 498(A) of UPC and to
undergo rigcii-ou.s iiéi.pris_onij_n’ent for five years and to pay a fine
of ‘clefa11i.t to pay the fine, to undergo rigorous
for-.tw() months, for the offence punishable under
sa:tit;’n 3i)7l?s_ts::’PC.
* It is stated, the accused was married to Sn1t.Pa.rvathi
_,,a..bout nine years prior to the incident and they were pe.r-rnanent
V residents of M_atake1’e of H.D.Kote Taluk. Accused used to
it”
3
suspect her fidelity and whenever she talked with others, he
used to doubt her. One year prior to the incident, they were
residing separately in a house at Sadashivanakoppalu, Hunsur
town, on the advice of the parents of P.W.5 . However,.__once
again accused started suspecting her fidelity and _
her physically and mentally and he was not e.v’e’r1=
to talk to her brothers. This fact wasl’-ainfoirmedlilsy
parents P.Ws.6 and 7 and also liierfi-2.nc]e§P_W.9,ss * 0
her stating that she has got and askedv.herv’lto adjust
with him. On the date the on 11.01.2009
around 018.30′ ‘1 ni;7f’w.hlile ?.ar”»*atl”ii was at the house, accused
picked up la*qsuai”rel .with’llieri’ and tried to stab her with a knife
,_y_stat.i:nlg that she dloe’s,..not’ listen to him and that he suspects her
p_ich21i’ac,te1=.p_l’rA”t.,th’at time, P.W.5 tried to escape and ran away
froafillthevholuls_.e,l’ but accused having chased her, caught hold of
-‘~___l”-her neaiffiiadeshwarzi temple and stabbed her with knife on her
l’l.e1″£..c:hest, back and right rib and caused injuries. When she
0′ = .»vi’aised a cry, on hearing the same, one Mahadeva, her brother,
one Ramesh, D.Kumara and Bhoja came there and separated
3*?’/’
the accused and pacified him. Later, the injured was taken to
the Government Hospital, Hunsui’, by her younger–:bro’the’rV
P.W.l and from there, she was shifted to
Mysore. When she was taking :ireatn’§envtl”.at-I’Gov-erniniepnt
Hospital, Hunsur, the police officials ot”Hunsur to.Wli:.\}’isiited; the
hospital and recorded the statemelntV~l.of P_.uW.5 presence of
Doctor as per Ex.P6 _in\/estig._l:iation and
conducing scene Ofv collecting the
for the offences
punishal§16..Ulldcr:’ 307 of IPC before the
JMFC, the case to the Sessions
Court. ‘UItilrtr1ately,rtheicasell-riiwas disposed of by the IV Addl.
‘”~._»Sess_iolns_J_pudge, l\/llysere,”convicting the accused. Hence, this
?¥tHp¢i1’f:. i
3: ard.
4. According to the learned Counsel for the accused
it ~ fexcept the version of the complainant. no other evidence is
61%,.
available on record regarding the accused causing the incident.
As per the opinion of the Doctor, the injuries suffered by her
are simple in nature. The alleged incident has taken placeiafter
nine years of marriage and it is only due to diii’fereVnc_e5g)_f
opinion between P.W.5 and the accused. The
falsely implicated in this case. He isiin c_ustody.siince orie-.ye’ar_*
and ten months. Accordingly;:_he._sought ‘for of the 2 L’
accused.
5. Per–covnt.ra,v..the Pleader has submitted
that, there is as_pririia_facie–ca’se’ against the accused for having
attempted tio«-ce1n1niit._the_viriiiader of P.W.5, his wife. There is no
._v_illegallity__Toi’_err()ti’com.mitted by the learned Sessions Judge in
L’iconi\/’icitingl accused. Accordingly, he sought for dismissal of
the aiipeal .. i
it * Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, the
V. …p.oints that would arise for my consideration are:
W
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
Whether the prosecution is able to prove the case
against the accused beyond reasonabie doubts-o as
to hold him guilty of the offences punishahvle_iu.nder
Sections 498(A) and 307 of IPC’? ‘
Whether the trial Court has com1nitted”any:.error or i
in convicti.ng~~ and I sente’rr1I<:4inig'.__:t.hev.i
perversity
accused'?
Whether the impugned orderi’passed’i’i’tQy,:4the trial
Court calls for interference’?
What order?
7. The pr_oser;yu§t’ion”in :11?’has”eitar2iined 18 witnesses and
got marked ahvout ‘W114 and .C)s.l to 3. At the outset,
the Vers:i.Qn’–of injured who is examined as
P.W.5 is thaiti,’—shes to the accused nine years prior to
‘”~._the i..ncident”a:-id was residing with him at his place.
to doubt her fidelity, she intimated this fact
to after marriage, for about two years she was
‘ ‘~.__iv’1=esiding with the accused and thereafter, her brother took her to
‘parents house and she was residing there for some time.
” -Later after convening a panchayath, the accused and the injured
A were made to stay at her parents’ place. Thereafter atso accused
J14:-W
7
continued to suspect her and used to say that the children were
born to some other person and not to hint and in this regard. she
has aiso lodged a complaint at Hunsur police station ‘and
conducting panchayath there she was sent ii
accused wherein he. had agreed to icjoi-i ‘:tf:»=~_,~
Thereafter, the alleged incident has ‘taken p1ac.eiA.at’ Hunsiur,i’–..
where they both were residing.
8. P.Ws.6 and 7 areparents”iofiPtW:5 and they are
hearsay witnes.ses§i’i’ hey 1’havespokeniiiiiiabout the accused
assaulting ‘theiriida:ughteii'”–a.and.’ aiso according to them, the
accused had ~assa.uEted *r>ammi when she was pregnant for the
” = _third_’i3:hi}.d, due to there was a miscarriage.
i’ and 2 are the brothers of the complainant.
also spoken about the overt act of the accused and
_i’ha1’as_s’ing their sister Parvathi suspecting her fideiity.
-JV
s
10. P.W.9 is the uncie of the compiainant. P.Ws.3. 4. 8
and 10 are the panch witnesses for the scene of offence
pancharaaina. P.Ws.8, 9, 13 and 14 are also the eyewithesses..
P.W.i2 is a hearsay witness who came to know oiithe.ineide11t.i_f
P.W.l5 is the doctor who examined !.;heiiiinju.r_ed.
owner of the house where the accused and the.$’_eomp1aitaa’nt
were residing. P.Ws.l7 and 1i8*.,are theii’pe_rs’ori:s tifiho have
registered the case andpfiied fthe:vchai’ge’«.%sheet against the
accused. ‘
TheVeiiidenee.::of_:iE’.VV.i5–Dr.Arunkumar is to the
effect that, has treated’ the-~’iinjured on I 1.01.2009 around 8.50
v .Veom;i.iiaiva.e.di’oi’ assault by her husband with a knife.
fTheTD0c’i;o_rthaanoticed as many as four incised wounds on the
right_chest..ileijichest and to the ribs on the right side and also
the back. The opinion given by the Doctor is that the injuries
_dare–.sirnpIe in nature. Later, for further treatment she was
.referred to K.R.HospitaL Mysore.
J?”
E2. P.W.3 is the pancha for the seizure of knife at the
scene of offence, as per Ex.P5. Although, he has supp.o’rtedi_ithe
prosecution in his examination in chief, but he has ‘
the version of the defense in the cross-+e’xaininatio_n anr.i_ pieafcieci.’
his ignorance as to the contents of m.aha;ar_anci seizure of
P.W.4 _is the pancha for the as
per Ex.P~4 and has partly of the
prosecution regarding the ‘Ath_’ei__’.feiatives of the
injured have vpyosecution.
eyewitness and has spoken
about witneissiing the ii3_ci’iée}nt. According to him, on healing
the wentAtovt..h,e’spot and found that the accused was
on her chest and ribs. Later himself, one
Kur13ara,V..Jafgaraiah, Bhoja, Kempeeraiah and Mahadeva
‘*.__f”‘»gathereéV__tne1*e and have separated the quarrel and shifted the
–iri}’ereti to the hospitai.
3%,?’
£4. P.W.9–Shivanna, the uncle of the injured, has also
spoken about the alleged harassment to the injureri”by”-._t’Ize
accused and he also is said to have advised the a=:c’used::;ot to» V’
harass the injured.
15. Apart from the versioni”‘o.fthe injure_d,’etliere_are some
independent witnesses, haiiie vviabout the quarrel that
has taken place betweenthe_inju’red:._aridv,the–‘iae’cused often and
about the acctised asnsaultingj injured isiusjaecting her fidelity.
on’ record, it transpires that the
accused suspectedjthe fidelity of his wife, used to
assault ‘he.r..and that on the date of the incident the
_ accjused–has.”assaulted her with a knife and she has sustained in
all,__ij injuries and initially, she was shifted to
Goveriirnent Hospital, Hunsur and thereafter, to K.R.Hospital,
ii –..i\%iys.ore. The injures on the body of the injured clearly point
i ” »-oiut that they were caused with an intention to cause grievous
hurt suspecting her fidelity. Whether, he had a real. intention of
J1{;,/
11
finishing her of is rather difficult to ascertain in the context. It
appears, there was frequent quarrel between the husbandand
wife and that the accused used to suspect her fidelity
to harass her physically and mentally and that,
i_ncident, he has assaulted her with themknife, 7wh.ich,:’is. _evident”.
from the evidence of the injured. and other~.witnesS’esi, “The ‘i/eiy V’
assault on the Vital part of the that
the accused, with an niust have
committed the offence. Court has
rightly crinvicteidi punishable under
Sectionl498–(A) giitd§’;3,0j’t L’ r
‘i'<.l'Z,,:"l"h__e accuse-dmizs said to be in custody since more than
_()rie,i_5/ear—and'i'lten"–3f13()nths. The prosecution is able to prove the
case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, so also the
i"'*.__l"'trAiayl Court has rightly convicted the accused. So far as
_ ii.n1po.s'ing sentence is concerned, having regard to the nature of
ii " -"li1jUI.'l6S sustained by the injured which are said to be simple in
nature, although the accused has assaulted with a knife, it
1')
would meet the ends of justice, if the sentence. awarded for the
offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC is reduced to
rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years :.1n£3_to_'pefyda V.
fine of Rs.l0,000/~, in default, to undergo simpleoiiirrtpriisoninienti i
for six months. The sentence ordered :foi"j.th'e
Section 498(A) of Il3C remains' u.naitere:l_ii" tlie
sentences are ordered to run con_oui're11tly. is entitled
for the benefit of set off for the detention already
undergone duringthe peri'od"of air-idtriial, as per Section
428 of Cr.P,C'. *ilf.i_ " ],j
55,5
IiiTc1§é