The accused was staying separately. On 2.5.1998–fii2«t:’t’he__’
morning, it is alleged that the accused had
house of N13 and over an altercati,ont_he
husband and wife, he stabbed her §i=i,th:da
her crim, when people were attracted, it”is__alie§e’d’7th’atVVt’he
accused ran away with the wea,o«p§”rf:v._ ‘thereafter, was
shifted to a hospital wherxeixn.as’~i_t iegal case,
on receipt of the iffio__rmatio’n,’ police go to
the hospital, §.rec’nrd’:.:h.er”etatetneet §’avn’d_ the basis of the
same, aiicasex ‘iSl:o”.-.§2;f1_’998 is registered for the
offences under 324, 504, 505 IPC and
investigavtion ‘taken up. Statement of the neighbours,
:’vj._V.relati’ves ~r_ecordVedA.A Necessary mahazar iike spot
in the presence of the independent
2 _witnAe’eses__,” ‘ Search for the accused is carried out. He is
‘””:l”farrested.”and on interrogation, alleged to have made
statement ieading to the discovery of the
” “if-eteaipon, the same is seized and on completion of the
‘iinvestigation and receipt of the records, including the
wound certificate, charge sheet is filed. The tria! Court on
K
Section 320 of IPC. These injuries do not specify as
criteria laid down under Section 2 to become
nature. As such, though the lnvfestigatinfjWesgjeincyix’ has it
rightly framed charge under
accused, there is mistake in Atvhe.ch,ergé:.,;e’§eiiist
the accused for the offence under:..Sectio.n s2’6-{PISS That
however, should not deter’ whether the
prosecution has iiiede outi’ ctiriuiction of the
accused Mr iris we noted that any
mistakeiin _frarri’i.ng,,_ t«h,e”-‘recharge will not enure to the
benefit ofthe accuVsed.,’as”‘p.e:r’ Section 215 Cr.i>.C. unless it .
is Shilitfiili thatxwro_nig’1 framing of the charge or erroneous
charge,’ has prejudiced the case of the
noting the fact that in our view, the
i _charg”e is..__vo’flesser degree than the one framed, there is
‘ ..injpezdiirhent for us to consider the same. We have also
,.i§eo’t»–inéi”mind the well laid principles of interference by the
‘:’_4’~Vap;3§ellate Court with the judgment of acqauittals passed by
it ” “the trial Court, i.e., to say, even if two alternate views are
possible, the appelaite Court shoutd not interfere with the
it/’
\§¢’e,_._ha\IAe””‘the evidence of the doctor PW.10
far as the injuries are concerned,
_ remaih It is reievant to note neither there is
Vsugzgestion to this doctor that these injuries are self
it nor any suggestion put to any of the witnesses to
that the victim PW.3 had any other enemy, who
ecouid have caused these injuries. in the absence of such
11
injuries and attracted by her cries, the neighbours,”:.:hei*~.V
father came to the spot, she was taken to the H
her statement came to be recorded:-irithe the
cross-examination, it is eiicited
her husband 10 years baci<V»a:;:jfVa..,waAs' stayinjg her
parents. The other suggestions"'aVs'i_;toitthe prese-ncei of the
accused or bringing theEi<ni_fe"'w.ift'|"!:' V'anti–.'.that she has
given the compiaijnt by her.
What is spite of searching
cross to the arrival of_ the
accused,’A’a§t,ercatien’ by the accused with a
knife, ; is inotudisturbedv; So far as the injuries are
material, in our view, the uncorroborated testimony of the
5/”
12
injured, if it inspires confidence in the mind of the Court,
was to be accepted. The trial Court white consi«de’ring”‘a:’her4 3
evidence, has rejected the same on the ground ofjjnon ‘
corroboration and discrepancies.
her evidence is accpetable as
corroboration. So far as the diecr’epancie$_ ‘ere
they are in respect “incident.
According to the first took place
at about th.e”first information, the
time Fé§5?d€ii.5.5’y.,’;:::’3.3 also commented by
considenngi a neighbour and the
daughter otthe inj’ured,V””eccording to whom the incieent .
‘*vtooiep’ia2ce atA.aboi.itl’i2’noon. In our vieteg this discrepancy
tfirne !.iyl’i_:{. not go much against the prosecution and
the,évidence,.’especially, when the witnesses are rustic
%l”~.-t.._’_’v-viiiagefawand unlike the urban peopie, who always refer to
or clocks to state the time factor, their
‘ assessment of time would be roughly stated and many
. times according to the movement of the sun in the sky.
What the trial Court has forgotten to consider is that by
16
instead of sending him to prison now. Since V.
IPC provides for alternate sentence of impfiso.nm;e-zitt’x
fine, In our view, it would be just and broper to jAirnpo$e:’«’a
fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default totum-gos,,x_ rdg’e n~
months. Exercising the jurfsd~é:’ction ‘”3V’57
Cr.P.C. we direct that if the isahdeposéted or
recovered, the same shahhlhth be ‘pve;:d::V PW.3 as
compensation. «Aepea! The Jlldgment
of acquittal the I Additlonai
Civii Judge, JM:=c I court, Gadag in
C.C.No.171,{i999′,’-.ie”5he:re’t¥§”heat aside and the accused
V stano_;jconcvIcted”‘foVr”the” offence under Section 324 IPC.
is granted four weeks time to
1de:;VJos_%t or Tpazyh fine amou nt.
Sd/-
Judge
Sdii
Euégg
Ks]!-