Karnataka High Court

Paniyaravara Chinna vs The State Of Karnataka on 30 October, 2023

Bench: Sreenivas Harish Kumar, Venkatesh Naik T

                                                  -1-
                                                           NC: 2023:KHC:38249-DB
                                                             CRL.A No. 117 of 2018




                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                          DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

                                             PRESENT
                    THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
                                                  AND
                          THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
                              CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 117 OF 2018
                   Between:

                   Paniyaravara Chinna
                   Son of Late Kariya,
                   Now Aged about 24 years,
                   Labour, C/o. Kallangada Machaiah
                   Line House, Nelkeri Village,
                   Virajpet Taluk, Kodagu District.
                   Pin-571201.
                                                                        ...Appellant
                   (By Sri. S.Javeed, Advocate)

                   And:

                   The State of Karnataka
Digitally signed   by Kutta Circle Police,
by VEERENDRA       Represented by SPP of High Court of
KUMAR K M
Location: HIGH
                   Karnataka, High Court Building,
COURT OF           Bengaluru-560001.
KARNATAKA                                                             ...Respondent
                   (By Sri. Vijayakumar Majage, SPP-II a/w
                      Smt. K.P.Yashodha, HCGP)

                          This Criminal Appeal is filed under section 374(2) Cr.P.C
                   praying to set aside the judgment dated 05.06.2017 passed by
                   the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu-Madikeri,
                   sitting at Virajpet in S.C.No.58/2016 - convicting the
                   appellant/accused for the offence punishable under section 302
                   of IPC.
                                    -2-
                                               NC: 2023:KHC:38249-DB
                                               CRL.A No. 117 of 2018




     This Criminal Appeal, coming on for hearing, this day,
Sreenivas Harish Kumar J., delivered the following:

                         JUDGMENT

The accused has preferred this appeal

challenging his conviction for the offence

punishable under Section 302 of IPC. He has been

sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and

fine of Rs.30,000/- with default imprisonment for a

period of one year.

2. The name of the deceased is Chane, the

husband of PW1. The deceased, PW1 and the

accused were all plantation labourers residing in

the labour colony of the plantation belonging to

PW3 Shashi Mandanna. PW2 is the wife of

accused. PW1 and 2 are sisters. The ailing

mother of PW1 and 2 was residing in the house of

PW2.

3. On 06.06.2016, PW1 cooked food and

went to the house of her sister-PW2 for giving it to

NC: 2023:KHC:38249-DB CRL.A No. 117 of 2018

her mother. When PW1 and the deceased visited

the house of PW2 and the accused, the home

theatre in the house of accused was being played

and since the volume was high, the deceased

asked the accused to reduce the volume. This

furiated the accused and having picked up a

quarrel with the deceased, he brought a chopper

and inflicted injury on the neck portion of the

deceased. This resulted in the instantaneous

death of the husband of PW1. This incident being

reported to the police, resulted in investigation

being held and the accused being charge sheeted

for the offence punishable under Section 302 of

IPC.

4. Though the prosecution examined 10

witnesses as per PW1 to PW10, relying on the

testimonies of the main witnesses, namely, PW1

and PW2, the trial court recorded conviction

against the accused for the offence punishable

NC: 2023:KHC:38249-DB CRL.A No. 117 of 2018

under Section 302 of IPC. It is the finding of the

trial court that the evidence placed on record

would clearly indicate that the accused caused

death of the deceased intentionally by inflicting

injury with a chopper on the vital part of the body.

5. We have heard the arguments of Sri

S.Javeed, learned counsel for the

appellant/accused and Sri Vijayakumar Majage,

learned SPP-II for the respondent/State.

6. It is the argument of Sri S.Javeed that if

the testimonies of PW1 and PW2 is assessed, only

conclusion that can be drawn is that the act was

committed in a heat of anger and the accused

appears to have been provoked when the deceased

asked him to reduce the volume of the sound

system. Otherwise there was no enemity between

the accused and the deceased. The whole incident

appears to have taken place in a fraction of

moment that too for a silly reason. In this view,

NC: 2023:KHC:38249-DB CRL.A No. 117 of 2018

the trial court should not have convicted the

accused for the offence under Section 302 of IPC.

At the best, the accused could be convicted for the

offence under Section 304 Part-II of IPC and prays

for scaling down the offence from Section 302 to

304 Part-II IPC and setting the accused free

because he has already spent more than 7 years in

the jail.

7. Sri Vijayakumar Majage, learned SPP-II

argues that the facts and circumstances clearly

indicate that the deceased died on account of a

fatal blow on his neck. The very fact that the

accused brought the chopper and targeted on the

neck of the deceased would indicate the intention

of the appellant/accused to commit murder of the

deceased and in this view the trial court is justified

in recording a finding to convict the accused for

the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.

Therefore he prays for dismissing the appeal.

NC: 2023:KHC:38249-DB CRL.A No. 117 of 2018

8. We have perused the entire records and

the evidence. Ex.P.11 is the post mortem report.

The doctor who conducted the post mortem noticed

"gaping open wound on the neck below medulla

oval shape 2inch x 4 inch long on left side. His

opinion was that the death was due to hypo-

volumic shock due to trauma to major arteries of

neck".

9. PW8 is the doctor who conducted autopsy

and gave report as per Ex.P11 and in the evidence

he has spoken that the injury that he noticed

during post mortem was ante mortem. There is no

doubt that the death was homicidal.

10. PW1 and PW2 are the main witnesses and

it is enough if their evidence is assessed. Their

evidence discloses that when PW1 and the

deceased went to the house of PW2 for serving

food for the ailing mother, the accused had

switched on his home theater system and that the

NC: 2023:KHC:38249-DB CRL.A No. 117 of 2018

volume of the sound system was high. The

evidence of PW1 and PW2 discloses that because of

high volume, they were not able to hear the

conversation properly and therefore the deceased

asked the accused to reduce the volume. This

prompted the accused to lose control over himself

and attacked the deceased with a chopper. PW2 is

the wife of accused, but she has supported the

prosecution by narrating the incident in the

manner it took place.

11. Though cross-examination of PW1 and

PW2 has not been effective, from the testimonies

of PW1 and PW2 in their examination-in-chief

itself, a clear conclusion can be drawn that the

accused became angry when he was asked to

reduce the volume of the sound system of the

home theatre. Except this, there was no previous

enemity between the accused and the deceased.

NC: 2023:KHC:38249-DB CRL.A No. 117 of 2018

12. It is to be noted here that the accused

and other witnesses all belong to labour class who

have a tendency to pickup quarrel even for a small

issues and it is impossible to expect composed

state of mind. If the evidence discloses that a

small issue triggered him to lose control over

himself, it is a clear case which comes within the

ambit of Section 304 of IPC. The trial court should

have assessed the evidence in a right perspective.

There was no case for recording conviction against

the accused for the offence punishable under

Section 302 of IPC.

13. Both PW1 and PW2 have given evidence

that the accused inflicted injury on the neck of the

deceased. The post mortem report and the

evidence of doctor who was examined as PW8 also

show that the injury was on the vital part. Though

there was no intention on the part of the accused

to cause death of the deceased, what we can

gather is, intention to cause injury which in the

NC: 2023:KHC:38249-DB CRL.A No. 117 of 2018

ordinary course of nature result in death. This

situation clearly fits into clause thirdly of Section

300 of IPC. But the incident having taken place in

the background of sudden provocation as discussed

above, the first exception to Section 300 of IPC

can be applied. Therefore we hold that the

accused can be convicted under Part-I of Section

304 of IPC. The argument of Sri S.Javeed, learned

counsel for the appellant that Part-II of Section

304 of IPC is applicable, cannot be accepted. And

taking note of the fact that the accused has been

in custody since 07.06.2016, we proceed to pass

the following:

ORDER

The appeal partly succeeds.

The judgment of the trial court is modified.

The accused is held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-I of IPC. He is sentenced to

- 10 -

NC: 2023:KHC:38249-DB CRL.A No. 117 of 2018

rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years. The period already spent in judicial custody is given set-off.