Loading...

Jenny @ Jenny Vijay vs State By K R Puram P S on 27 October, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Jenny @ Jenny Vijay vs State By K R Puram P S on 27 October, 2010
Author: Huluvadi G.Ramesh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT,.___
BANGALORE 7 A

DATED THIS THE 27*" DAY OF 0CTOBER"2~O_1fi    _

BEFORE  _

THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE Hit.}'LU'jV'AIiI;C§;§AMESIi1Ij

CRIMINAL APPE ALa.N0§55S'i0E zoiéagw  
BETWEEN: A A A A A

Jenny @ Jenny Vijay,

S/0 Savaridas, V

Aged about 24 years, _  _  ' 

R/at 1993,  y       

1" Cross, Uc;dbéI_nk"R6_ad,'--,j~._  _    '

R.M.Nagar, B.an~-g:If3_Qre--i'6,.  ..   "APPELLANT

(By M/is. S;--sha1¥i:§ai?a;§pa.';S:~Agsacniaies, Advs.)

AND:

 -  'Stat§\2.,9y_ ai{.R.Pura'i" é
Rep. byt3.'.P,P;I.

A __H'i 'Ctjalitt g,

'B_aIIga.l(V)"re."_*_v..__  - "RESPONDENT

I (By'.44Sri.C'i:.}\/i.'SriniVas Reddy, HCGP)

 "  This Criminal Appe-at is fiied under Section 374(2) of

* T A'  against the judgment dt.24.4.2008 passed by the Add]-
  SJ, FTC-IX, Bangalore, Bangaiore city, in S.C.N0.445/2007 ~«
 ..._c.<jnVicting the appellant/accused for the offence P/U/S3307,
 324 of IPC and S€I1C€DCi:{§/133133 to undergo imprisonment for 7



7

.5

years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,00,000/-- (two lakhs oniy) I.D., to
undergo imprisonment for 3 years and etc.,

This Criminal Appeal coming on for hearing this deaiyeethe
Court delivered the following:   

JUDGMENT

This appeal is by the accused-e’Ch’allengingither)rder of.’

conviction and sentence passed by the’.Fast_A.TrackV_..Court

Bangalore city, in S.C.N(>.445/208:7.”dated’ ii

2. According to around

12.00 by means of

choppe1’ian_d’also by chopper when she

intervened to rescue’P.W’.5 and caused grievous injuries to them

the complainant to take away her life.

i’tAeeeeei’r{g’:e3z, efneging the offences under Section 307, 324 and

V ‘V 50(i4(‘b). the accused had been charge sheeted. The

i’ incident is said to have taken place at the staff quarters of

ii A§Sl]WiI”1i Nursing Home, Akshayanagar, Bangalore. 011

receiving the message, the SHQ of K.R.Purarn police rushed to

3

Ashwini Nursing Home and recorded the statement of the

injured in the presence of the Doctor and case has_..__been

registered in Crime l\lo.3()l/2006 for the offencesMpuni’shahl’eV

under Sections 307, 324, 506(b) of IPC.

recording the statement of the eyewitness ‘and:other__’wiitneis’sesi7

after conducting rnahazar and cornpleti’ngii’the investi_g”at’ioni:3 the

K.R.Puram police have filed the ciha.rge_sheet~foirithe above said
offences. Since the offence piiinis-hable’».under Section 307 of
IPC is exclusively._triable.f3y,’ti1e Cou_rtiof_ Sessions, the learned
Magistrate hasi–.,Vcos{ninitted the case]; to theiCourt of Sessions.
The Sessions coi,irtfi-».§.’, Track Court No.IX, Bangalore,

has examincc-dd in all ‘Witnesses during the trial and got

marléedill .Vdocurinents–«”and also several material objects as

l. ‘to_:’}’ the defense of the accused was total denial,

afteréiilhearingii-‘V.both sides, the trial Court has acquitted the

ii”-v___”-»accuse€i.for the offence under Section 506 of IPC while acting

if :3’iander.i.–‘Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C. and convicted and sentenced

= for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 324 of

IPC and he was sentenced t_o undergo imprisonment for 21

Qty”

4

period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.l,000/– and default

sentence of six months imprisonment, for the offence’.–u_nde.r

Section 324 of IPC and for the offence under

IPC, he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for..vse”~te”n yeah? K i

and to pay a fine of Rs.2,00,000/- andMdefaulti’s_ente’noe–

years. As against the said order of ‘c’o_nvictionv’andy: sentence

passed, the accused is before this Court on various ‘grounds.

3. Heard.

Counsel for the appellant, it

is not a casc.._Voi’.atte_tnpt i[()…~’lT}LlI’d6I’. The witnesses who have

._Vbeert°e.xa.;pninyed by”th-ewprosecution are the staff witnesses and

pthe itco.lleagu,e’s._of the injured and are interested witnesses.

have turned hostile to the version of the

“-.prosecut.ioh and some of the independent witnesses who were

A pi'”3.va.i1ahEe at the spot were not examined. In the absence of

.. .,examination of the independent witnesses who are eyewitnesses

to the incident, the story of the prosecution cannot be believed.
.

1

I

5

Accordingly, stating that the case against the accused has not
been proved beyond reasonable doubt, he has sought_ for

acquittal of the accused.

5. Per–contra, the learned Got/t. Pleavder

that, there is cogent evidenceon re.co’rdii’to hold’-M. the acciusied

guilty of t.he offence. Apart fro1ii’wwt_he evideliceitof injured,
there are eyewitnesses havei-witnes,sed_ the incident and
they have spokenaboutv,the..o’ver’t pact thefaccused. It is a
clear attemptéto i:murder_’_byjA’ .the:iaccttsed in assaulting
with thé»s{:h0pperi.afiC}~ »ovrder”‘to.iescape when Victim Rarnya has

raised her feiilil on the hand and 1_ater, it has been

“‘~o_v_a1nptttated. fI’hereV”‘i’sv-we-ogent evidence on record to hold the

offences and the impugned order does not

va.nji:if-.V.in:terfei*ence. Accordingly, he has sought for

t ‘~»dismiss’a1,_ ‘I-

6. In the light of the arguments advanced, the points that

would arise for consideration are:

Y

6

(i) Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable
doubt that, the accused has voluntarily ca sed,hurt to
P.W.5 by chopper which is likely to cause,%fi as such,
he has committed the offence punishable under Section
324oflPC?

(ii) Whether the prosecution has proved beyond V’ 4_
doubt that, the accused has assaulted ~.. 2

means of chopper with an intent ‘te.ca’;ise_; her i(_leathT:and,

thereby committed the offence,’ pu_r1ishable u.nder”S’ect’i-an

307 of EPC’?

(iii) Whether the prose.cutionii’ha;slproved.be’yondi}:easonable

dou.bt that, the accused,.has'<cornmitted–an offence of
criminal. intimidation. by.'threavten_ing'–l?.W.2 Sabitha?

7. In the,.case—on ligand,’ thefd_ate ‘of?«the alleged incident,
the ac,.t:usedi’iga:ine:d eatryfliinto the staff quarters of

Ashwini’,Nursing_.i’iiit).fiie,,:_:”by”” holding chopper in his hand,

assaulted onthe, V_r’igiht palm of the victim, which is completely

and when P.W.2 tried to rescue P.W.5, the accused

P.W.2 and threatened to kill her. It is also on

1’eco1’d that, the accused was caught at the place of incident and

the”«.weapon used for the commission of the offence was also

seized at the spot. The motive behind the commission of the

offence is that, since the victim has not obliged to marry him,

“it”

the accused has retaliated against her having hatched a plan to

finish her off and when he attempted to assault on the

of the body, the victim P.W.5 raised her hand anciltiiiev

on her hand and it was severed.

8. The evidence of that,
during 2005 she was w:;si§ing Asfiwisi Nursing
Home and she used to samples and
send the the accused used to
get the1ie.pQfi~s::i~%~oiin_ over to the victim and at
that tin1’e,’- ‘with her and he put forth a

proposal “o–f_’l marriage “her, for which she refused and

‘V ” _ she wlasvshifted to Ramamurthinagar Branch and the

‘acscuseld._use’d.,to’–;nake phone calls to her asking her to come to

thepplchuvrchdarid to other places, for which she used to refuse.

‘Three déiys prior to the incident, when herself and one of her

–..V’°r.ie_nid Urna»P.W.4 had been to shop to purchase sweater and

.—-when her friend Uma went to purchase fruits and the victim was

standing on the road, accused came there and questioned as to

33*’

when she has no time to go with him, how she got time to go

with her friend and showed a chopper and threatened for

which, she being frightened ran away. Subsequent.li_y;

10.1 3 .2006 around £0.30 am. when she ca1ne_bsac.li§’:t£,)iIier

after night duty for rest, between 1 11:45 tel i’ioo’n,i

went inside the room and eaughther neck and ae_saalie.dVVoti her –. 0′

right palm with the chopper d.L1el*to’~.whic.h,”‘her was

completely severed and help of skin and

when P.W.2 cameiitores-ciueiiher, thefacculsed has also assaulted

on her hand cried for help P.W.l-

Dr.Sree’dha’-r the spot and admitted her to the

hospital ~the-Doctor..Vhas:.ii~femoved the palm and admitted her

.__to ‘Since l\/Ialya Hospital demanded Rs.3 lakhs

for later shifted to Victoria Hospital.

9.»fl’he evidence of P.W.l~Dr.Sreedhar, who rushed to the

spot iinmediately after the incident is to the effect that, on the

0 -date of incident around 12.00 noon while he was attending the

patients P.W.2 came running having sustained injures to her

3*”

9
right hand and informed that one person is attempting to

Commit murder of Ramya and he irnrnediateiy rushedto the

rest room and found that the right palm of

amputated and it was hanging with skin. Iin’r!1__ediate13i.;ii

treated her and also he treated 1>.wu72}:nd ~inii7orn1ed:_”the:poiicei

through a letter as per Ex.P.1He treated. P.W,i2.*, i’np:;ti’eni”»._

from 10.11.2006 to 17.11.200oi”ai_i(} he has i’_iopiineio5 that the
injuries sustained by her grieyous..1n,:n’ature. it it

versioniof the pro:iee,uiti»ovn’-a_ii’d went to the extent of saying that

she has noti’–sVustaine_dAanyainjuries and she does not know the

,.V_inCi’de.nti._oV.But heriiievideiice goes to show that she has sustained

p_iii1ju_r’ie.siiandsiiewas treated in the hospital}.

1€__,i1:’P.W.4–Uma is wor1<.in_g in the Nursing Home and she

–has;.not supported the version of the prosecution. PWs.3 and 6

….whc> are the panchas for the seizure panchanarna have also

turned hostile. P.W.7 is the constable of K.R.Puram poiice

10
station who has given the seized material objects for chemical

examination.

12. As per the evidence of

who was working as a Sr.Specialist ;;itii”V’iCto_ria Hosp’ita_lVdu’i’ing’.

the said period, he has treated the injure.diR_amyaio_n :l’0.°l

and she was taken to the hospitaliiibgfiier coileaggueis around 4.30
pm. with 3 history of aeseult at ‘the afternoon and on
her exainination,,_it was… found’ –.that sustained the

following f()u1’l*.iVnju€ri’e_s: . V

1.. Amputation –1im’b.

2. One incisedv.wou_nd._over the right exterior aspect of right

elbow measur_ing’i3 xi’/2 X ‘/2 cms.

wound over the right shoulder upper 1/3″: of

righftirrni’measuring 4 x % X ‘/2.

4} One lvl?.ClSr3s.CliiWOu1}d over the right shoulder measuring 3 x 1/2
xi’-/2 Cinsf i

per the evidence of §3.W.8, injury No.1 is grievous in nature

end’ the rest are simple in nature and in this regard, wound

ii Hiiciertificate was issued as per _Ex.P7. P.W.5 the injured Ramya

ye’

11
was hospitalised for nearly .10 days from 10.11.2006 to

20.11.2006 at Victoria Hospital, Orthopedic Departmeent–.eand

the wound certificate at Ex.P7 would reveal that

limb of P.W.5 was amputated.

13. The evidence of was

working as Asst. Director of F01″e.r_1s:ic.._La1)o1’atoi’y,._BaAIt}ga1ore, is
to the effect that, he received “sefV}ei.1 “articles including

blood sample .7 the FSL.

the investigating officers, who

have deposedii to the effect’ of Conducting investigation and

the 15Ao’licve-«Constable who carried the FIR to the

1.S.i’1~The offences alleged against the accused are under

324, 307 and 506(b) of IPC. Despite some

__d.isc1’epancies and some of the witnesses turning hostile

1 including P.W.2, the fact remains that P.Ws.2 and 5 have

V,

12
sustained injuries and that the accused has assaulted P.W.5 by

means of M.O.6, the chopper and due to the assault, henright

palm was completely amputated. Of course, the defen_se~V

accused is that this injured P.W.5 was in love ll

who was suffering from kidney failu’fe”and« whengh.el’refused to”:

marry her, she has inflicted injury t0l’h_el*self andallso that ‘sas-

had raised a loan to the tune Of’ lakhs from

the accused and when there was’lallde.inand..t0 return the same, a
false complaint has been filed against

l6. ‘%”‘ho!.:gl’1,’:’:ta.therl”ind’e;1erident witnesses have not been

examined,lll’I:;uVt thellevideincei’ of Dr.P.W.8 who has treated the

llthaevidence of P.W.5 and P.W.2 to some

pextenttsw–Qui(l”dep–i.Ct that, the accused has attempted to commit

thetnurdyerlthe victim and in order to avoid, when the victim

raisevd1’he1′ hand the blow fell on her hand, due to which her

ri’g–ht_l..palm was completely severed.

iv

:3
I7. it is seen that the injured has sustained as many as

four injuries and the accused has not only caused injury to

P.W.5, but also caused injury to P.W.2-Sabitha whoji:wie”nt:”to

rescue P.W.5 from the accused. The trial

convicted the accused for the offences j_pjuni;shab!.e V under’.

Sections 324 and 307 of IPC, _ Although,

charged for the offence under 506(5). when
the accused was held f()I5_iithei.ioff.e_ncesA _underiSiection 324
and 307 of {PC itmay him guilty for

the offence

18. a,lso-_not£ced~~i’that accused rather tried to make

._j_false”lpleaj’ that in love with one Doctor and since he

‘tina:fry’–.her, she attempted to inflict injury to herself.

However,, .the_. version of the prosecution and also the evidence

V”-on recorcfelearly reveals that the accused was forcing P.W.5 to

i -in’arr.§,=5 him when accidentally she came in contact with her in

-»-thee course of official work and when she refused, having

determined he attempted on the life of P.W.5 Rarnya and also in

\§<:/

14
the course of the alleged incident when P.W.2 intervened to

rescue P.W.5, the blow also fell on her hand.

19. The trial Court has sentenced the

offence under Section 324 of ¥PC and”sHent’ence-d h.;i«miiV:t’o_ _unde’rgo’1

imprisonment for one year andto payiafine of .lA.,0O0f«’:<li

the offence under Section _IPCi,"~.th'e–iiaccuised was
sentenced to undergo fine of
Rs.2,00,000/-. 1n._the for the
commission'. has refused to
marry the against her, he attempted to
Commit herrnu1'der. . l

"_2l(},_'How.ever, in modification of the order of sentence

paissued, meet the ends of justice if the accused is

ii""'«.__ii'-sentencedli' to undergo R.I. for five years and to pay a fine of

and default sentence of six months simple

~»v–i-ii1_p1'isonment for the offence under Section. 307 of IPC and for

the offence under Section 324 of ZPC to undergo R.I. for one

15
year and to pay 21 fine of Rs.2,000/–, in default, to undergo

sirnpie imprisonment for two months. Both the sentences are

ordered to run concurrently. The accused is entitled”fofrgthye

benefit of set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. for

detention already undergone during the iperiod of

triai. If the fine amount is depositediteheisaid att}.(}¥.t:¥11 sha§1i”i2eii’–..L

paid to P.W.5, the injured.

21. Appeaiis a1Iow.ed.:.i1iw.p2u.’it. it

sa/§_
Judge

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information