IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT ._'
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER. " .'
PRESENT
THE HONBLE MR. JUsIIcEe;<.s_RaEDiiAR._ "
THE HoN'Bt_E MR. BS7'.
cRL.'A:.':"N0'§_s1ss _
BE'I'WEEN:-- 'V i V
State of = I
By K.M..t.DQ&d_tP:G};3Ace. "
_ . Appellant
{By S1*iP.'M. NawazA,' A::d--.a._s'Pp) '
AND:--
S1ti«.§13I:V1ur:chaia}_*;;-,. A
" V' , 'Syn: Sri. M'anchaiah';" 'V
__ ' Aged abO1it3~4_yeaIS,
" L,' 'R/ 0; Srini'vas.af;.ura.
~.Mandy'a
V. . Respondent
{By Sri AMQN. Umashankar, Advocate as Amicus Curiae)
'*:in:s Cr1.A. is filed U/s.378{1) 8: (3) of Cr.P.C. by the
it .State £3.13. for the State praying that this Horrble Court may
'the "pieased to grant leave to file an appeal against the
judgment and order of acquittal dated 22.07.2004 passed by
" -"the S.J., Fast Track; C0urt--II, Mandya, in S.C.Ne.84/1997 ----
acquitting the resp0r1dent---accused for the offences
punishable U/s.3(}'7 of EPC. The appeilant/State prays that
the above order may be set aside.
This appeal coming for hearing on this day, PINTO, J.,
delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the State challenging’thglfirdér
of acquittal dated 22.07.2004 Vvpassed 0
Sessions Judge, Fast Track L fl’;
S.C.No.8~<£/1997 acquitting ,,;~esponderit_uof: "offences" V
U/s.307 of IPC.
2. A charge-s’h\ee.t } heei1.l>l’ifi1ed against the
respondent. 0610,1996 at 1.00 a.m., the
responlderfi, in Kasharkoppal village assaulted
his wife wrtth a blade with such intention or
andl”‘under such circumstances that if such
‘ assa.ult__he;’had–.caused the death of said Lakshrnanima, he
would guilty of murder and therefore, he is held
liahleuforr offence U/s.307 of IPC.
00 After framing the charge the prosecution in
order to prove its case has examined in all 9 witnesses and
00 hfllgot marked Exss.Pl to P8 and produced M.Os.l to 5. The
defence of the accused was one of the total denial.
4. After hearing the prosecution and th..e=de.fence
the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to
prosecution has not been able t_o.t.,prove_–‘the” of t1<1e°
accused beyond reasonable
respondent. The State has fi1ed"–thisappeal, A' V l I it
5. PW1 — La1:_shmamrna’~h_as__vstatedl:thatflvaiccused is
her husband. He about 10 years
prior to the incident inVv~Ami’L1thammla_ The accused
was Iintro’du¥{:edVll::f:’by Nathaiah and Kenchaiah of
Moleko’ppla_lul village.to-he:j:parents. Thereafter, the marriage
Was _arranged;v On._tl*;e: date of incident since there was no
the hous-.e.’ she had prepared Ambali with ragi
‘ flourg her mother and she requested the accused to
‘take that time, the accused picked up quarrel
“her stating that she could have brought money and
it prepared rice for him. The said incident took place at 8.00
She has stated that she could prepare the same only
it “after providing materials required for preparation of such
food. The accused become angry and went to bed and did not
take food given by her. He was abusing her. She relqrleosted
him not to raise Voice since it will cause nuis”an’Ce_’
neighbourers. At about 1.00 a.m. in ..
respondent suddenly picked up a:=__b1adeand_
her neck. She started crying. laccusedlrlcaused ‘tout?’
injuries on her chest and onllher onziher right
index finger. She tried:ta_ resist_ the accused
and in the process, he also minor injuries.
On hearing the”-zries nieighbolurerslcameifthere and thereafter
draggedlltlhe. She has been shifted to
KM. lit:-ctor has treated her. She came
to know the has already married his first vcfife
another \}il1age..only after two months of her marriage
‘ the hospital, the police took the statement from
lhelrsasl The bloodstained pillow and mat are
marl;ed,aslll\/1.0.1 and ]\/1.0.2 and the blade used by the
naccused is marked as l\/1.0.3. In the cross-examination it is
AA”sugAgested by the accused that he has not married her at all
it “and that she is telling falsehood before the court. However,
that suggestion has been denied. He has also denied the
relationship between himself and PW}.
6. PW2 -~ Mallaiah is the father sf.
stated that accused has married his daughter”:
accused was not providing: properhddfeod
providing food to the accuseV’dz_:.and his~.dau–ghter. lie has
further stated that that had caused
injuries ‘his daughter by cutting he1*«._n’er::i:.__ On hearing cries
of his daughter”h_e’ ‘carne her”h_ous_e:fand other witnesses
like -and others gathered there and
broke open.the’e.door :.and”dragged the accused out of the
roojIn;’ His daughter has sustained injuries on her neck.
—- Channamrna is the mother–in~1aw of the
stated that on the date of incident, she has
giifen ragiv ‘flour to her daughter. She had heard noise from
~he__r daughters house. Her self and her husband reached the
d and door was locked. The accused and PW1 were inside
-“lithe house. PW1 had sustained injuries. Thereafter, the
daughter was taken to K.M.Doddi Hospital.
8. PW-4 -~ Siddaiah is another eyewiiriess’
injuries caused on PW} and hewaaiso §spea’}.{‘_’tah0ut.V the
presence of the accused and the ‘».jnj1:ir’ies cr1_’th:e’
PW1 on the date of incident.’ _V
9. PWS -~ Manjsiddaiahe ancthertennltness to
corroborate the Version’ PW6 ~ Raju is
signatory to EX.P2—-_- V”
10. It ‘Dr..1:i§~.is}iiva:1n;gai’ah has stated that the
injured wjas tc~.f5}’IC on 06.10.1996 at 5.00 an}. and
he fountithe fclinnfitng
* -. 1 aA-ccntusicn over ieft side forehead measuring 3
i inch iitim
1 “Z. :v'<v..A31._incised wound over media} aspect of middle
finger measuring 1 inch X 1/2 inch.
3 incised Wound over right cheek measuring 3
inch X 1/2 inch with fresh bleeding. Tenderness
present.
4. An incised wound over right side of neck
measuring 4 inch x 1 inch with bieeding.
Tenderness present.
5. Sterno mastoid muscie cut.
An incised wound over front of neck measuriiig
4 inch x 1/2 inch. Bleeding seen~;Tendei’–ne’ssl
present. _ _ V V
An incised wound over upper: pa1″t_of_fr_on’t of
neck measuring 2 inchlx 12:2. inch. _ l -.
A punctured wcimq over. later
thigh measuring if/§:..p.V’i’11ch cinch; Bleeding
seen. Tenderness<pre'se11t."*_gg
He has opined that and 5 to 7 are
simple injuries_:an__d injury. He has
issuedixfoundcertifiicate» pcruEX.P4. He has further stated
that orithe .,e2;:amined the accused and found
the following injurieson"the person of the accused.
There was
Anin'ci–sed wound over upper part of the neck.
incised wound over the middle of neck
xiii-ezisuring 2 inch X 1 inch with bleeding.
' " —geifendemess present.
suspected fracture of thyroid
cartilage.
Abrasion over right index finger measuring 1
inch X 1 inch. Bleeding seen. Tenderness
present.
5. A contusion over right upper part of-«cthip
measuring 3/2 inch X 1/:2 inch. Tendernests
present.
He has issued wound certificate as in it
respect of the accused and opineqgthatdthve
simple in nature.
11. PW8 — Kernpaiaht_isV:’the”..1?olice”‘Constable who
has sent biade and” Egbert FSL. PW9 m–
Shivashankar Micarthy who registered
the case in’_'(3rfi;iie and recorded the statement
of the injured hospital as per EXP}. I-Ie visited
the scene hr ._:Vocct1rre’nce: and recorded the statement of
‘t it -. witnesses after'”receiv’ing the reievant documents, he has
fi1e_d’ch:ar:ge§shee:t in this case.
is from the evidence of these witnesses, the
1earned”‘Sessions Judge has found that the prosecution case
‘i_s”fuiI of concoctions and inconsistencies. Hence, it has not
proved its case beyond reasonabie doubt and has acquitted
the respondent for the offences alleged against him.
a
x}
13. Heard Sri P.M. Nawaz. Addl. SP? and Sri
Umashankar learned counsel for the accused.
materials carefully.
14. It is seen that PW1 slates’ that ac¢fi:;gdhlé’r
husband / The other witnesses in this case Inore ‘par*ti’c*nlarly.VV
PW2, PW3 and PW4. and pws’ stated .tiiatj’v:hé-,§£cu’§ed is
the husband of PW1. VTi1oughA.Ait”is by ath’e~ae’cused that
he has married her the és._ridé1«..c7¢:jor clinchingly
establish that liyiing as husband and
wife the 1§Vlace’tVysfrl’1eret._tl*ie_ incident had taken place on the
night oi°”tO4’ES;t10.’i–996VA§ ‘the materials on record in the
forrii “o£.eyeWitn_esVses and also complaint as per Ex.P1 and
evidence of WV? — Dr. Shivalingaiah stating that
and PW1 had sustained injuries on
we hold that on the date of offence, PWI and
accused’ were living together and accused has caused
it ~..vVinjLi’ries on the neck of PW1 by means of blade — M.O.3. As
_;%against the clear and cogent evidence of PW1 and PW’? on
one hand and the evidence of eyewitnesses PW2 to PW5 on
the other, the discrepancies and contradictions elicited by
%
if)
the defence are minor in nature and do not go to the very
root of the prosecution case, in order to rendervitcitotally
unreliable. Under the circumstances, we hogidvthat
prosecution has proved that accused has.caiused’r–.gn.evous–.iV
injuries by means of blade on the neck;
liable to be convicted for said offence Ali/s.326»of ¥’
we convict him for the said offence;
15. It is seen “t1:at.t’h_<: in the custody
for almost two mo;1ths;"We~ §5';~opege the said period
as ser__1tenceVVo'f -for the offence committed by
him. It isisubmi'tted.VA'by:fiS3»ri'iimashankar that the accused is
a pcgoolie, However, for the injuries caused by the accused,
_b"e,compensated.
result, the appeal filed by the State is
allowed. Tire respondentwaccused is convicted for the offence
f “U,{4s.3l2’6 of EPC and sentenced to R1. for 2 months and to
‘pay’ a fine of Rs.20,00()/– in default to undergo S.l. for a
“period of 6 months. The accused was in custody for 2
months as under trial prisoner and the said period is given
/?
set. off to the sentence of imprisonrnent imposed on him. He
shall deposit. the fine amount before the trial C0u_fi..l:”J’E’23.illi–171’g
which the trial Court shall execute the sentence. *
amount of fine shall be paid to PW la as,_c40m;’jehsa:fi;0rl§”
The fee of Amicus Curiae “at
State shall pay the same.
NM?