1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AT BANGALORE
Dated this the 3"-' day OfJu1y, 2009
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE JAWAD A' A'
CrI'mI'.nai Appeal No I299 of 2003 .
BETWEEN: A M
SHESHAPPA
S / O MUNIYAPPA _
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
AUTO DRIVER
R/O SOLUR vII,LAG-E
ANEKAI. TALUK ._ _ ._ . _
BANGALORE RURAL E_IIS'1'=. 9 APPELLANT
_ {fly 'M/s;_'IiI 3: C5,, Adv]
AND:
STATE BY AN'EjIm$;I';,rCE
BANGALORE RU jDISI'RI CT ... RESPONDENT
{By Ra_§I-I SL1brahmanya Bhat, HCGP}
'I:H?1S_G'CRIMENAL APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 3'?4{2} OF
' CODE _"CR'IIvIINAI, PROCEDURE, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
DAI'ED-3':S»2<)0S«,** PASSED BY THE 2ND ADDL DISTRICT <31 SESSIONS
JUDGE, BAI'f,TGA1.ORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE IN SC NO 318
OF'--~..__ £9S9,_ _CONV1C'}?ING THE APPELLANT-ACCUSED FOR THE
OEFENC.ES'PIINISRABI.E U /8 S07 IPC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY. THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
51./'
I
2
J U D G M E N T
Convicted accused is in appeal against the ‘j:.tj’dgment
dated 3-6-2003 passed in sc No 318 of 1999;”onl’VV~t’h_’e’wl’filerof
the 2″” Additional District and Sessions Judge._,e.u_:E’san*g:aiorell r’urVaI””.,_
district, convicting him for theI__offeéncell’–_p’tj.nish’a.b.i.3é’V.Vi;fi;jer’~.._ V
Section 307 IPC.
2. Heard Sri H P Leeladhar,.-.–ie:a’rna’ti_.counsel._fo;f,:the appellant
and Sri Raja Subrahma’nyta-.l3’hcat},V iea’i’V:i:e.d’lGovernment Pleader,
appearing on béghalf ofthe’
3. The 5gvenj§§S~i’s”of .tifii’é.’j;api3eial””gsthe incident of assault on
PW2 tzliifi’ :92′-{é3_’-19éé’t”a’t 7.30 pm in Solur village,
Anei<al'taluE<i 'A_re.lpor't-~.:rleg.'a"rding the assault was lodged with
the g.compIa"i'na:Vnttioliceon 22-5-1999 by the father of victim —
– Narayagnapoiaf “” was registered in Crime No 63 of 1999
‘a.n.dVf:.i:rt.heruViianyestigation was taken up. In the meanwhile,
the’injti.re:di’..–l9iVanjunath was sent to hospital for treatment. On
Aquestioning the victim Manjunath, he revealed that on 21-S-
‘1.99f9 at 2.30 pm, when he was going along with Seenappa
3
[PW4] and Yallappa [PW5] near the farm of Muniramareddy
[PW7], the accused Sheshappa restrained him and.pi«cked up
a quarrel as to why he [Manjunath] had disclogseh.Vt:iie”Vi.tact of
Sheshappa [accused] writing letters to
expressing his love towards her. fliilhe’accused.Alis»«s_a.ivd”:t’o llhaveh AV
turned the altercation into violence-.A»a’nd trie,dA.gto
but Muniramareddy, near sincident
occurred, pacified bo.t’h~..VQf trielmyjlj4.’;%oi.Never.”théV:accused left
the place threatening take care of him
later.
4. _I.t.._is_f’u..rvti1e.:#;:_@Fle.gec{“ifi complaint that on 22-5-1999
at is-rn,.Vw’he’-nilit-‘i,anju’i’:ath” along with one Srinivas [PW3},
was in “me _m’achine,:°r_;iouse belonging said Srinivas, the
accigisled kho’ci<.e:d_ a}: the door of the machine house.
__Manjunath opened the door, but found the
H with a matchu [chopper]. Immediately, the
accuseydg drJagged'Manjunath outside the machine house and
xwhlnle abusing him in vulgar Eanguage attacked him with the
thchohpper. To ward off the blow, Manjiinath raised his ieft hand
4
and therefore the blow directiy hit at the left palm,
consequent of which the ieft palm was chopped off and fell
down. Hearing the screaming of Manjunath, otherscame to
the spot and Manjunath was shifted to hosQ.lt_é*!p”w’h.i.l’e«”his
father lodged the report with the police, narraitirigi the”
and also seeking poiice action.
5. The investigating officer_’quels’tiAo”n.ed
by PW1 compiainant as also .a_n”d place
of occurrence. He pf”%.5ared”fspotiirnafiiazarinithel presence of
witnesses and seized Since the
medical repo_rt”ag!gso co_nfi:rm’ed”ithat*utheévictim had sustained
grievous -.irijur’y=’fv..i:rtugai’l3Z”amputating his left paim and the
manner ofi__4aissaVu!t.”C.n i’h:i”i_n,4 the accused was charged for the
offe.§ncei’punisha~-Eiie_ under Section 307 EPC.
…g*TfVhe:’«accused pleaded not guilty, necessitating trial,
‘during Vwlhfichigyithe prosecution in ali examined 16 witnesses
and producled 11 documents and 7 material objects.
5
7. The learned trial judge, accepted the prosecution case
and convicted the accused for the offence punishable under
Section 307 IPC and sentenced him to
imprisonment for a period of seven years””.a’ndjV’rfiVnei Rs
20,000/–. Against such order, thv’elAAacc’i:se:d_
8. Sri H P Leeiadhar, le’a_rn.ed counsel’
accused would contend i.n_cid’e.nts_:Vai|eVrjed to have
occurred on 21/22 attributabie to the
accused. l-ie between the
victim a woman cailed
Sarasw.ath’;’;~~.,Vf:’\«\fi.:;i::l.e_”aulieded that when the accused
questlipned he had disclosed the letters
acfdressed._’_’by_ to said Saraswathi the incident
occu.r’re’d, the”iaccused says that it is the victim who had
» :cre_ated=.a-,_fa.lse rumour in the village. Learned counsel
justify his unnecessary harassment of the
acléusea, the father of the victim had foisted a false case
2 xa’g–aninst the accused.
6
9. With regard to the injury suffered by the victim,
submission of Sri Leeladhar is that it only shows”‘_that the
victim had suffered an injury, but does not prove’
as a consequence of the overt acts of the
he submits that even if it is presiurned’ that ~:the_”toV”.the§’_
palm of Manjunath was caused by:4thAe”-azccuse,d, the ch:a’rgVe’–for
the offence punishable Secti’o_riV is not
maintainable and at VaVfCc_usedf’cou’lVd be charged
for the offence under?’ Therefore, he
submits that erred in accepting
the sole establishing the charge,
whileifthev ‘other eyqidejnce whi_ch”is full of inconsistencies has
been ignored. ‘ ,Thi_errefo.r:e,«.h’e seeks acquittal of the accused.
10;§_Per contr.’a,_ Sri Raja Subrahmanya Bhat, learned
» ;Gover.nrne.n:t’~-Pleader, appearing on behalf of the respondent-
H ‘–Stat’e,V”ha’s:._su;;pported the impugned judgment.
AA11. “v7iflhis is a statutory appeal against conviction and
A’ ‘therefore reappraisal of the evidence is necessary. Keeping in
,’-\-.
ii»
if
7
mind what is urged, K have perused the records and
reexamined the evidence on record.
12. PW1 Narayanappa is not an eyewitnesstothe.j’j*n_c§¢d._ent.
He had lodged the report narrating…th_e circLrrn’st’anVcernV whi”Ch:”–
the incident occurred on 22-5-1999. i.’_”t*lowe*.(e’r,::’PW3″Srin_ivasti”
is an important witness of th_e”-proseic-i.ition,
sequence of events shows that
after having food, whéwinewais’;ii.n”‘t.lje:machine house along
with Manjunathnand knocked at the
door and .o’Dfi§{ié.d”‘t’ne”‘door, he was assaulted
by consistent on the point
that the Manjunath as to why he
[Manjuna’t.h4] to the villagers about the love
Eet.ters written [accused]. Similar is the evidence of
i rjws CVA_Murzi:Vrej_u.
T.he:ii4i:,?uiVestion now is whether the evidence of these
Awgitnesses supports the version of PW2 -~ Manjunath, the
victim. The evidence of PW2 is also similar to the other key
3:
8
prosecution witnesses and he is more specific. According to
him, the incident on 22-5-1999 was a sequel to the”–i,ncident
occurred on 21-5-1999, since on
Muniramareddy had prevented the accused”
harm to him, though the accuse-duihiad with-‘,__
dire consequences and with th’at:”-.12tedet&:frh~’inati=on~rvand
prepianning, the accused in the
machine house. 9′ 9’ it it
14. The facts_:i’e,adin,g””to.-t’he.”E-n::c_i_d’er’itozicsvuihd in the evidence
of PW2 the evidence of
PW3 the time of the incident.
The,-e:f.Qre_,* “this witness, apart from the
evidenceuoifhothe’i’_’or.ose’c_ution witnesses, proves the fact that
thergiccused had. the machine house and had gone into
i wish of Manjunath. It is aiso seen that soon
H aiter’ the”.”.a.it’errcation, the accused has tendered a biow upon
thevicitirnh’resuiting in auto-amputation of the ieft pafm. This
2 nfac-t,isVi’urther estabiished from the evidence of doctors — Pws
and 13. Therefore, there is no doubt that Manjunath had
9
suffered a very severe injury resulting in amputation of his
left palrn. Undoubtedly, he would be the main witness to
speak as to how he suffered the injury? He has categorically
indicated the appellant-accused as the persoVn.__’wVh’o4c:”eaused
such injiiry and nothing has been salvaged cr_4os’s<_.
examination of this witness orJany"'other.;l;ey'«_pro'secu'tion'. if
witness to create any doubt, _ Beas'ildAe's,zwe igino-~re"thye
fact that a person having
not normaily shield,':'the a'ct'uail.:'jAoffe._nder«to 'irnplicate an
innocent person falsely! evidence of PW2
Marijtinath iS" t':':i;E'e aiiteafited.'~.xA""Tfh6…_§ilal court was right in
acceptvilnlgv evidence in proof of the overt acts
of thevvlacgcusedi.
1S…«§g ‘In the vnre-svultanit position, the finding recorded by the
» trial the accused had caused the injury resulted in
‘ari~..p’utatVi*on left palm of the victim Manjunath finds full
supportafrom the evidence and requires no interference. I
“tfiiei_refo”re confirm the said finding.
ii
R/7»L
11
palm, left the place, is indicative of his intention to cause only
bodily harm to Manjunath and it falls short of proof~–.t,hat he
had intention to commit murder of Manju_n_ath,’,’ti.V”~The
explanation given by Manjunath that the wj_asVl’
tendered at his head, but to wardoff,’he?r_aise.d_”hisyyleft if
and consequently the blow fell on pallfl7l’_,.,|fT3’a’y
but the other circumstance”«:th»at Vno’t.h_ing.”‘.= the
accused from tenderirlg..,_a sequence
which was possible for object of killing
Mannunath, done so. In this
fact victim’s evidence is
accep:tlab–lle’,i’ of assault by the accused,
but dovlesxinot and beyond reasonable doubt
that -the att’eif_ripvt..n1aicl.eVib.y the accused was to kill Manjunath.
‘ ” sinee a”t’.siri~gie injiurylfhas been inflicted on the victim, that too
no other injury has been caused thereafter
biy-..,thev_acc;u’.sed, the offence may not fall within the mischief of
,sectibia__A’3o7 IPC.
fl.
if
12
17. However, as the accused has used a sharp and
dangerous object like chopper to cause the injury and the
injury itseif is severe and grievous in nature, resulting in
amputation of ieft palm of the victim, the offencejfaE’ijs_c-!,eariy
within the ambit of Section 325 IPC. There4’f’ore4.,’tlié”ifigndifrliig
recorded by the learned trial judge,Ath.a.t”lVVt’rrerpraise-cu.ti’or.,.
established the charge against the :accused
punishable under Section ne’ed_s onlyto
that extent. Accordingly tAhe—-xf:’o~nviction’ accused is
converted from for anllétoiffenlcg-Vf’:’p:liirii:sVh_a’bleunder Section 307
into one of puvnis’ii«a_ble::’u’nde:r,
18. Vi\_iovii we”have’to”~co’n.si’der the nature of punishment to
be impos’e._d;l _ p’un,tis4hment prescribes for the offence
underlvsectionl ‘3.2,6_ isalso imprisonment for a term that may
»e’><-terid: life and fine. But, as the offence has been
H t:o"riv'ei9teVd'_'j–fro;mV. 307 to 326 IPC, the period of imprisonment
shaii ggdepend on the felonious propensity of the accused and
2 "thejtiawnner of attack. As noticed above, since the accused
telndlered only one biow, which unfortunateiy severed the
U
13
palm of the victim, yet he did not indulge in any
indiscriminate assault on the victim.
19. It is also brought to my notice that
the consequence of his act, _the__ acr.’used:’§”himself
volunteered to compensate the vyictirrn ‘money ‘v:a’l–uéi:of a.’
sum of Rs 2.00 lakh. BothV__vt*he accused
said to be permanent resid¢.Fll£S”:al1V.d» n’ativ:e:V.§ofV_:§’;ane village.
Learned counsel for that now the
animosity has ptransformerd and both are living
amicably? court directed the
presence.Vof”accu1:;;ed_u victim before the court and
accordingly bo’tt.a’j’o:f”thlemare present in court today.
20._._1n fa’ct__:’Iear’~ned. counsei for the appellant sought the
in’t1..u€lgetnce..«of ‘th’i’s'”court to reduce the offence as one
“p.unisb:a»-bleéyt’funder Section 325 IPC, so as to. permit
cAo.;;”Vqpo_Lsn’dl’i:§n_CjV. of the offence. But, considering the facts and
circurnstances of the case, the offence cannot be scaled down
further. Hence, it has been retained for the offence
14
punishable under Section 326 EPC and as the said offence is
not cornpoundable under Section 320 CrPC, by Egéeyping in
mind the facts and circumstance of the caseAV..I..__JwiVi:ltihpalvfe. to
decide the nature of punishment. With
have examined the other facts.
21. The accused has beenVingudicifa-i’custody gsrreriodiiof
9’/2 months during the trial a_n_d:’t:her_eafte’r«. undergone
post–conviction detenVtl’o.nfor.§ months. As the
accused himsel_f’h__as to compensate
the victim. itfiv_’_~’.i”‘l::li”ioffithem to dissolve the
dispute. I am inclined to
reduce.’ the period of sentence already
undergori’e_’_4.by however, subject to enhanced
if The trial”cou_rt_has imposed a fine of Rs 20,000/~, which
i shalpl ‘lzteienhanced to Rs 2.00 lakh.
I_n~th4}eAfresult, this appeat is ailowed in part, confirming
the fln__d’ing recorded by the iearned trial judge that the
ac_ctised is guilty of the offence of causing injury to the person
15
of Manjunath. However, the finding of guiit under Section
307 IPC is converted into one of offence under Section 326
IPC. The order regarding sentence passed by they’tVr:i’ai’~Vcoti.rt,
sentencing the accused for simpie imprisonm.entjV’t~f.oir dseyen
years is set aside. The sentence co’nfi.n’e.d to,t:he_ pei”‘it’od”‘for 1’. it
which the accused had airead.y_ undergidone ‘t!~:et.riai:vanVd
after his conviction by the tri’a»!.:Vv:.’c»0urt. Mamountiis
enhanced to Rs 2.00 diireicted to deposit
the enhanced fine amouVn_ti’yyi’th’_i’n today.
23. At ttiis ‘stya§_e,’;iigseams-a.tcotu.i.ssi rtitiiithe appeliant submits
that in–stteaid’~~i,vof:’*1d_epo»s’it~in’gi”t«h.e_amount in court and then
permiittingitheiiiflctiiinV”to.:_.”witii’draw the amount, theaccused
may be V¢piern1,itted4Vtio the amount directly to the victim
an**d~§’.:.produ’ce pro~of___ofy.payment before this court.
the appe|iant–accused and the victim are
pr”esen_t’inA.T~court, the request is accepted. The appellant is
..direc:teiti’ to pay the fine of Rs 2.00 iakh to the victim
it ‘~iV_VEVia–ri’junath and on receipt of it, Mannunath is directed to file
16
an affidavit in the Registry of this court, acknowiedging
receipt of the amount, which shali be part of record.; “-.t