H K ” Begrafjfia Gulappa Kari
IN TEE HIGH CGURT 0F KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
mrrxn THIS THE 27:» DAY 0:? AUGEEST ;2–<%:é§ ' ,1";-I _
__ V
I~I()N'BLE MRS .:I;IsT1cE%:vi;il:$g;w3£;;§ cr$LLL*éR'§
HON'BLE M1;
BETW'E;E.N_'_:.V' L J Siam byéészsr f % RonP.S. . ...APPELLA3\ET.
(By Sgfi. .gxnanci2~»:aya1gi%a:at:19 ‘HtV:GI>)
‘ 1_ . Kuri,
._ Aged 63
–V 2. ‘}éIana1na.ppa Kuri.
-‘ eiiawa, Wf€> Beerappa Kari.
T are rfo Ron Dist.Gadag. e…RRSPONDENTS
U (Sri Mallikarjun M33332′ for Sri Prasanna Kumar, Adv)
above said offences. The prosecution in 53} examined 9
However, father of Basappa i.e. father-in~Iaw by name
Faiiirappa CW-7 who is no more came to the assistaiizgoof
Gangawwa. ‘Faking aévantage of her lonely presagiée,’ _
said to have hi: her on the aiistoge:
to squeeze her rieck, 2. resoiiltfiifioi ifijurios on her
face, neck and otheriéifaiarto also assaulted
fa¥:1’1er«i11–l:a*.ri»’::of- hands and said
Faki1ap15ia”i:Sai;§i_to.i_t}3.*.s’ gound with bieeding
iofiuries-.. éwayiiéfiom the spot thinking the
at 6 am Basappa said to have
:’fet1:17I’io{§«£0’1;}3tovifiii{1.V.iifi:é§SiZ1iJfie€i.the wife and chiiéren to the
‘;’£ie2§1;;¥§§I «KMC, Hubii. Theroafier, the complaint
= A police complaint and a private compiaim:
ii in PC No.58,-“97 which was also referred for 1
uuiiivogigaftion. As there was already 3 police complaint, both
i ; ‘*i’h€:ivts1’Iat’£$I’S were clubbed and investigation wag done. After
cornpiating the investigation, charge shoot was flied for the
./V’
6. The ineident. said to have taisten place at 2 am an
2639,1997 2123:?! by 9 am, they were before the Boater for
ireairnezai. The evidence of the injured 30 fat as the4V%;:jf’:;.2éjie$;:
sustainaé by her is cmresborated by the evidence _
P.W.1 the medical expert, but 315:; F.W 9
neighbouring land wha saié to £13353 vfiiigfd .A
victim in the mowing of 2G.,1{}’.97§ bufaiséi assiszteii ~;
husiaand ofthc injured is gm taewagnr tmhkfej nlospiiaai. The
cr0ss–eXaxn:i;1ation of ‘ :h~;;t VI;*v”z>e_Lj*1?v:1s_¢
%,”i,;,.¥;1?eri:~§’L the evidence sf P”\fJ.4 —- ihfi figured
be éisbeliszved. Even if we agee with the
A the learned Ceunsal far the defame that in viaw
of temnitjs betzveen the tam) gzmups, she w<:-aid' fie iempted
H}
9. The State: has also challenged the acquAii”€fi E_A»§§:f_”V”‘
accused far offences purzishabie ufs 39″?
quesiion Weuid be to» find Gui whe?-Széf Qifeizce-ffiii-sus.:;}idé;f_
the category of ‘attempt to murder’ ‘G:A’.’griev11s intended only
to cause’. except using 3 5:10:22,
wIj.i¢1i’VTis’ Eiivfélze piace of insident, the
..-fished any deadly weapons iike
chQppef,””%miV’esV:=.r S1;:¥<}'<:§'Iftheir intenticn to visit the iand czf
&tAthai"h0u2'*&évas {<3 finish hm" eff; they weuid have
V " ..3§r§;;:arad ta acwmpfish their defiire ef kiiiing Sm':
" ,__'Cangaifi%f.a.T:: The very fact that they did not come prepared
W§'€§1 finch Weapams wmzid oniy go ta: Show tiaeér ir:tenti.n wag
V’ V. _ £131 :9 cemméi an effence which would attract the pmvisions
§3fSe<:.307 IPC.
11
M). Then coming ‘$0 the next: irnpoxiani question
whether the accused are guiliy of offanees pun.ishabl:<;.t,;;3s.§2§
rfw S3934 IFC er ufs 326 :'/w 34 ¥PC, first xv2_.§_1:ébi:e'» _
whether the injuries sustained by victhns"faiI .4
categary of grievous injizry as contsgmpiatafi {ifs 320"{PC if-L :1 v[ A
3.1. As already stated'é b§*e, c’lV%e€:.’,ri;:>1’ifl:v’)’1’i.A}.’,’:3′.’.v
by the Doctor at E:gs.P.l ifiract the
provisiens cf categér3* §i” _’ the accusad
are either gufitgf of Inorder to
aitract §§ié::1pc:n raged must be 3.
9% three matarial czsbjects,
ix%:§> cf gas.’ is black stone and another is
x¥i1ffe<s{<)n.e. Sfone definiteiy does not decide the
V» _;:;am;«e cf i:3_§:~;_i;f§#.V'Thé size, Weight anti the girth ofthe weapczn
'A "sigma wouid ultimateiy decide whether it can be
M
:Téf113:éfi, __ dangerous or cieadiy weapon or net ?
U ;.i3o ri;:1iateiy, except stating that stones iike M05 1 & 2 were
; used.' for causing injuries, neither the Dector not the victim
'her the Invesiigating Officer have given the exact detaiis of
12
these two stones before the Court. In that View of the matter,
unless the description ef the weapon used with eertai§;Tit”},=e.is
before the Court, we cannot hold that Mos
attract the definifien of ‘dangerous or deadly .$&ze_’é§p«:)_;i’VA.hé;s used ”
in Sec.326 IPC. For this, we relyliiupqzihthse
in Mathai Vs.State ef VKeralaAV”(.’2_h€)’O5 Sugfirehjeé.
Casese ((3:1) 695) at paras iiwhhhieia under:
“16’ The express1en”–_’a21y ézisifiznieni which,
used as a weapon of offeyitteg this cause
dea ” has.~.t0 heV.~’gu»3gedV *iai;i_ng 7_:1Qt’e. ” ef the
headi11g:<}i"t.hé:–se<it_io111. What ivquzd cénstimte a
"dangereus 5§&j'eVap0§" woul_d fiepend" upon the
factsiof eégcheiise, vgenemiisatien can be
._1?,V'*§fhe_»Vhea£ii;1ugv»—-_ef the seciion prevides
Sc-me«.insig1fxt'vi;t1to'the'-..fa,::ters to be considered.
The eessential ifigxedknts te attract Sectien 326
V_ axe: (1)VVVV:)iim{a;;fil}?""'causing a hurt; (2) hufi:
caused rims: be a gievoas hurt; and (3) the
Q-'ievotgs huft' "" 'must have beexz caused by
§iang,e;'0z,:.s weapons or means. As was noted by
'V' — Ceurthin State of UP Vsltzdrajeet, there is no
« a regular or earmarked weapon for
oemmigiizg murder or for that matter a hurt.
Whether a particular azfieie can per Se cause any
" serious wound er grievous hurt or injury has to 'be
: 4_ detexmineé faciuafiy. As neted ebeve, the '
evidence efthe cioct-or (PW 5) clearly shows that
_V the hurt er the injury that was caused was severed
under the expression "'g'iev<xus hurt" as defined
13
under Section 320 IPC. The .ineVi{ab1e coneitasien ” V’
is that a grieveus her’: was cause<i;"'I'€– -is net that in
every case a shone would c0:xsifitute..e iia1':«gei'»::r L1';*:a-
weapon. It would depend upcs;i":he..fe'ieis e'i:",the_ «. V' "
case. At this jzzneinre, it would be 1"£"_iv6'1}(1I'3i tc3;'1*1'0ic.__V
the? in seme previsions e.g;..Se~::tiens .3Z4'aI3d"326.V
the expression "dangerous i2s;'eapn_:3" isesed.' In fg
genie other mere serious efifenefes, the expression"
used is 'cieadly weaffion' -'_(e.g.. VS<;=.4<;'ti.<_):'3a 39'? and
398). The facts £nv6ljsé’e:§’e.in3′ paxtgeglar ease,
depending upon _ve,1f.ieus’ . feictefs. ‘i”i–kVe° size,
sha1*pness..–}Weu1d;_tl*1roWj;Eight.°en the question
whether?_’theA:;1iesveape:g séree a dangeri)us”‘or deadly
weapee 53¢. net.-‘1T§:at._weu!d ‘cieiefxnizze whether in
the ees_e’1Se;é:t£{>1i’ 312V5T’=§s1*..Seetio2*;2 326 would be
12.A5f13ei*efefe;.fié=;?irsgéfeeez3 to the prineipies laid down in the
above fieeésion émdAthe’W0;’ d ‘dangercus weapon’ as used in Section
. 32$ the~e,bsenee”efprosecution establishing that Mos 1 8: 2
Aeneid be tefned £is..-‘dangerous Weapons’, we are of the opinion that
_ the e’vider;;:e xeizde out against accused persons wouid attract the
‘ 4″«..fip1’r<}x5§sie1:1 325 and not {ifs 326 {PC
It £3 not £11 dispute that the accused persons are c.:lese£y
% '= eeleted to vietfim P. W51 Gangawwa. They are all residing in the same
" Village. Tizere is nothing on record whisk woulci refiect that
subsequent to the incident in question, sfili the strong enmity
7
14
contizzaes between the two groups. No untoward incidezittttafi’
nature is reported subseqmznt to the incident in questitm, V’
Counse} for the accused submits there i$~’C€§I’d§.ali{j{ tthe-.twc$g
grsups as at’ now. Under these circumsfancisgwe é’x’=:: of.’Vt3-fie” .s?:’e3§¥’~.
that the opinion of the trial }udgéttltf;it~.t£;e 0f–j1ts§ic:ég§§?Gut’t;l be ‘V
11131; by extending the benefit.t1nder . pf F {Z)fi’s:tders Act
to the accused persons is fingure cordiality
between the twe gf§)t:§_s_ ttnake it a peaceful
sociatfir’ in the ”
¥’i:?m3;d;_ \é.?e”~t*..re vtjiot inclined to disturb that
findings the ‘lalso extending the benefit of
Probatien etfttfifféndctfs. “s’s:{:§cet’dingIy; the appefxi is dismissed.
” ….. .. . Sd/.1
Iudt:-I9
Judge
V