Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Manjunatha G L on 16 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:6623-DB
CRL.A No. 1240 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1240 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
State of Karnataka
By Challakere Police,
Rep. By State Public Prosecutor,
High Court Of Karnataka, Bengaluru-01.
...Appellant
(By Sri B.N.Jagadish, Addl. SPP)
AND:
1. Manjunatha G.L.
S/o Lakshmanappa G.T.,
Aged about 62 years,
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYANA 2. Vanajakshmma
MURTHY RAJASHRI
Location: HIGH W/o Manjunatha G.L.,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA Aged about 56 years,
R/o Hiremadure Village,
Challakere Taluk,
Chitradurga District-577 522.
...Respondents
(By Sri. Onkar K.B., Adv.)
This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378(1) and (3)
Cr.P.C. praying to grant leave to file an appeal against the
order of acquittal passed by the I Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Chitradurga in S.C.No.123/2015 dated
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:6623-DB
CRL.A No. 1240 of 2017
07.01.2017 for the offence p/u/s 323, 504 and 302 r/w 34 of
IPC.
This Criminal Appeal, coming on for hearing, this day,
Sreenivas Harish Kumar J., delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
The respondents in this appeal faced trial
before the I Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Chitradurga, for the offences punishable under
sections 323, 302, 504 read with section 34 of IPC
in relation to incident dated 22.05.2015 which is
as follows:
2. The name of the deceased is Hemareddy.
The first accused Manjunath G.L. and PW8
Vishwanatha are brothers. Their houses are
situated in the same compound at the village
Hiremadure, Taluk Challakere, Chitradurga
District. Haystack was stored by Hemareddy in
the compound. On 22.05.2015 around 5.00 p.m.
there was fast blow of wind as a result of which
the hay stack was blown away and fell in front of
NC: 2024:KHC:6623-DB
the house of the first accused. Having seen this,
accused No.2 picked up quarrel with PW10 -
Sundaramma, wife of Hemareddy and in that
course pulled her plait and assaulted with hands.
Hemareddy interfered for pacification of the
situation and at that time accused No.1 brought a
sickle from his house and tried to assault
Hemareddy. But this sickle was snatched by
PW14-Channakeshava. Then accused No.1 took a
stone which was there in front of his house and hit
on the head of Hemareddy with the stone. As
Hemareddy fell down, accused No.1 hit on his left
leg. Thereafter Hemareddy was taken to
Challakere Government Hospital and from there to
S.S Hospital, Davanagere where he died on
23.05.2015. In regard to this incident PW12 made
a report to the police as per Ex.P5. Investigation
resulted in charge sheeting the accused for the
above said offences. The trial court charged the
accused for the same offences and after trial
NC: 2024:KHC:6623-DB
acquitted them of the offences and hence this
appeal by the State.
3. We have heard the arguments of Sri
B.N.Jagadish, Additional State Public Prosecutor
for the appellant and Sri K.B.Onkar, learned
advocate for respondents 1 and 2. We have
perused the entire evidence.
4. Sri B.N.Jagadish argued that the trial court
has not properly appreciated the evidence of PWs8
and 10 to 14, who were eyewitnesses. Their
evidence is consistent and spontaneous, they have
not deviated from the prosecution case; they have
not been discredited in the cross examination. The
defence version is about a motor cycle accident,
which has no supporting evidence. There is
nothing to show that the incident did not take
place at all. Corresponding to the overt act given
by the eyewitnesses, there is mention about the
injuries in the P.M. report. FSL report also
NC: 2024:KHC:6623-DB
supports. If this being the evidence, the trial court
has disbelieved the testimonies of the
eyewitnesses without any reason. The findings are
perverse and cannot be sustained at all. He
argues that these accused deserve to be convicted
for the charges leveled against them.
5. The argument of Sri K.B.Onkar is that all
the eyewitnesses are interested, their
interestedness is forthcoming in their oral
testimonies. The witnesses have stated that
accused No.1 assaulted on Hemareddy's head and
leg, but P.M. report shows fracture of two or three
ribs. There is no explanation for these fractures.
Then the stone was seized on 27.05.2015, this
delay is not explained. That means stone was
planted at a later stage. Added to this, if the
clothes of the deceased were not sent to FSL, it
implies that the clothes did not contain blood
stains which in turn would rule out assault by
NC: 2024:KHC:6623-DB
accused No.1 with a stone. Thus seen the
prosecution case is not free from doubts which
have not been explained away. Therefore the trial
court is justified in acquitting the accused.
6. The oral testimonies of the witnesses are
like this :
PW8 and PW10 to PW14 are the eyewitnesses.
PW8 is the brother of the deceased Hemareddy and
accused No.1. He has stated that at 5.00 p.m on
22.05.2015, the hay stack stored by the deceased
was blown away by the wind and fell in front of the
house of accused No.1. Accused No.2, the wife of
accused No.1 became angry and started scolding
the wife of the deceased, held her plait and
assaulted her with hands. Seeing this when
Hemareddy came out of the house and tried to
mollify the situation, accused No.1 brought a sickle
and tried to assault Hemareddy. PW14
Chennakeshava stopped accused No.1 from
NC: 2024:KHC:6623-DB
assaulting Hemareddy and snatched the sickle
from his hand, and threw it away. PW8 has stated
he along with Kumara, Chennakeshava and
Srinivasa interfered for pacification of the
situation. But at that time accused No.1 took a
stone and hit hard on the head of Hemareddy. As
he fell down, again accused No.1 assaulted on his
left leg and then ran away from the spot.
7. PW8 has stated that Hemareddy was taken
to Challakere Government hospital, and from there
to S.S.Hospital, Davanagere, where he died on the
next day i.e., 23.05.2015. PW8 identified the
stone marked as MO1.
8. PW10 Sundaramma is the wife of
Hemareddy. Her evidence is that accused No.2
pulled her plait and gave blows on her back, ribs,
legs and hands seeing the hay fallen in front of her
house. And when her husband, Hemareddy
interfered for her rescue, accused 1 and 2 kicked
NC: 2024:KHC:6623-DB
her husband and then accused No.1 tried to
assault her husband with a sickle which was
prevented by Chennakeshava, Radha, Vishwanatha
and Srinivasa. Chennakeshava snatched the sickle
from accused No.1 and threw it away. Then
accused No.1 took a stone which was there and hit
with it on her husband's head, left leg and ribs. It
is her evidence that her husband fell down
unconscious and he was immediately taken to
Challakere Government Hospital and from there to
S.S.Hospital, Davanagere, where he died on the
next day. She also identified the stone marked as
MO1.
9. PW11 - Radha and PW13 - Rekha are the
daughters and PW12 - Srinivasa is the son of
Hemareddy and PW10 - Sundaramma. In the
examination in chief, they too have stated about
the incident. PW12 has also stated that after the
death of his father at S.S.Hospital, the police came
NC: 2024:KHC:6623-DB
to hospital and obtained his statement as per
Ex.P5, upon which FIR was registered as per
Ex.P4. All of them identified the stone, MO1 and
PW12 also identified the sickle marked MO4.
10. PW14 - Chennakeshava has also given an
account of the incident and about his intervention
to pacify the situation and his snatching the sickle
from accused No.1.
11. PW15 is not an eyewitness, his oral
testimony is that he heard the sound of altercation
near the house of Hemareddy and accused No.1.
He went there and saw Hemareddy having fallen
down. He saw bleeding from Hemareddy's head
and when he asked Chennakeshava and Srinivasa
the reason for bleeding they told him that accused
No.1 hit Hemareddy with a stone.
12. PW1, PW6 and PW7 have given evidence
about conducting inquest as per Ex.P1, which is
not disputable. PW7 has also stated that there
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6623-DB
took place an altercation between accused No.1
and Hemareddy on 22.05.2015, and he went to
hospital with Hemareddy.
13. PW2, PW3 and PW12 are examined to
prove spot mahazar - Ex.P2 under which blood
stained soil and the sickle was seized. PW2 and
PW3 have not supported but PW12 testifies
drawing of spot mahazar and seizure.
14. PW4 and PW5 are examined to prove
seizure of the stone, MO1 under mahazar Ex.P3.
PW16 and PW17 are police officials and PW18 is
the doctor who conducted post mortem
examination.
15. If the evidence of the eyewitnesses is put
to analysis, they do not appear to have been
impeached in the cross examination. They were all
questioned about civil litigations between
Hemareddy and accused No.1. They do not deny
the pendency of civil cases. It is elicited from PW8
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6623-DB
that he was not so cordial with accused No.1 since
2012. According to defence, the differences
between them could be the reason for deposing
against the accused. Another aspect elicited from
him is that he has two wives, and he was working
as a pharmacist in the hospital being run by his
nephew Dr.Sureshbabu at Chitradurga. The
purpose behind putting this question was to create
an impression that he might not have even come
to the village on 22.05.2015 and thereby his
testimony as an eyewitness is doubtful. But PW8
has denied all the suggestion directed to him in
this regard.
16. The other eyewitnesses PW10 to PW14
are also not discredited. Their cross examination
is full of suggestions denying the prosecution case.
All of them have denied that the incident as
spoken to by them did not take place. That apart
one eyewitness corroborates the testimony of the
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6623-DB
other. Corroboration to their testimonies is
available from attending circumstances. The first
one is Ex.P10, an MLC note issued to Challakere
police by the General Hospital, Challakere. In this
MLC note, the date, time and place of incident is
mentioned as 22.05.2015, 5.15 pm at Hire Madure
respectively. History mentioned is an altercation.
Though the doctor who treated Hemareddy is not
examined, PW16-the Police Sub-Inspector has
stated that after receiving MLC report on
23.05.2015 at 1.00 p.m. he registered FIR in
Crime No.178/2015 for the offences under sections
504, 323 and 307 read with section 34 of IPC.
Immediately the FIR was dispatched to the
Magistrate who received it at 2.00 PM. Thereafter
he received an e-mail communication from
Vidyanagar Police, Davanagere about death of
Hemareddy at S.S.Hospital. The entries found in
Ex.P10 fortify the evidence of eyewitnesses. The
next corroborating circumstance is seizure of the
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6623-DB
stone MO1. PW17, the investigating officer has
given evidence that after the arrest of accused
No.1 on 27.05.2015, he gave voluntary statement
and said at that time that he could produce the
stone used by him for causing the death of his
brother. Ex.P11 is the portion in the voluntary
statement leading to disclosure of the fact that the
stone was hidden by accused No.1 in the chappal
shelf. It is forthcoming from the evidence of PW17
that he was able to seize the stone at the instance
of accused No.1 in the presence of two panch
witnesses Shivanna and Tippeswamy examined as
PW4 and PW5 respectively. These two witnesses
may not have supported the prosecution, but they
at least admit to have signed the panchanama,
Ex.P3 in the bus stand of their village. That means
their evidence shows that the police had visited
their village for investigation purpose. And that by
the evidence of PW17 regarding seizure becomes
believable. The eyewitnesses have stated that
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6623-DB
Hemareddy suffered injuries due to assault by
accused No.1 with a stone, which was recorded by
PW17 at the instance of accused No.1. This
circumstances buttresses the evidence of the
eyewitnesses.
17. The last corroborating feature is FSL
report which is marked as Ex.P17. Four items
were sent to FSL for examination. They are 1)
mud, 2) sample mud, 3) a shirt, 4) a stone. The
shirt (MO5) belonged to Hemareddy. The Scientific
Officer, FSL defected 'B' group human blood in
three items, namely mud, shirt and stone. Item
No.2 is sample mud collected at the spot. Though
scientific expert who issued Ex.P17 was not
examined, it can be acted upon in as much as
PW17, through whom Ex.P17 was marked, was not
cross examined on Ex.P17 at all. Therefore FSL
report also comes in aid of the oral testimonies of
the eyewitnesses.
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6623-DB
18. It is true that the evidence in regard to
seizure of sickle (MO4) appears to be not
supportive to the prosecution. Evidence of PW17
shows that he seized MO4 at the time of drawing
spot mahazar as per Ex.P2 on 24.05.2015. The
defence argument is that it is unbelievable that the
sickle was lying at the spot from 22.05.2015 to
24.05.2015. This line of argument is plausible and
at the same time, it can also be said that in all
probability nobody would have meddled with the
sickle thinking that the police would be handling
the matter. The latter appears to be more
probable than the former. Seizure of sickle,
therefore need not be viewed suspiciously. Even
if there is some discrepancy in regard to seizing
the sickle, the evidence clearly discloses that
accused No.1 did not inflict injuries with that
sickle. It was snatched by PW14 and thrown away.
Since the injury inflicted with the stone became
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6623-DB
fatal, discrepancy in regard to seizure of sickle
cannot be given so much of importance.
19. The trial court appears to have acquitted
the accused giving importance to some
technicalities in the investigation process and
irrelevant aspects. It has opined that the
prosecution should have examined Dr. Obayya C
who issued MLC slip as per Ex.P6. The reason for
this observation is that there is an endorsement in
Ex.P6 by the CMO that the patient was unconscious
at 7.30 a.m. on 23.05.2015 and there is a
signature of a Head Constable (HC 278) which
appears to have been made at 10.45 on
22.05.2015 and by another Head Constable (HC
105) on 23.05.2015.
20. In regard to the above observation of the
trial court, it is to be stated that Ex.P6 was issued
at S.S. Hospital, Davanagere. Firstly HC 278
received it at 10.45 p.m on 22.05.2015. There is
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6623-DB
another endorsement made at 7.30 a.m on
23.05.2015 stating that the patient was
unconscious and not able to give statement. These
endorsements only show that HC 278 received MLC
at 10.45 p.m on 22.05.2015 and the second
endorsement only shows the condition of
Hemareddy. It is not understandable as to how
these endorsements would have a bearing on the
evidence of the eyewitnesses with regard to
occurrence. It is not in dispute that the death
occurred at 1.45 p.m. Anyway based on this MLC
FIR was not registered. This is just an information
to the police. On the other hand, the history
written in Ex.P6 shows that Hemareddy sustained
injuries due to assault by the first accused at 5.15
p.m. on 22.05.2015. Non-examination of
Dr.Obayya C is not fatal to the prosecution case,
even if he had been examined, he would have
spoken about issuing MLC as per Ex.P6.
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6623-DB
21. Ex.P10 is the first MLC issued by Dr.
Adimani of General Hospital, Challakere. Ex.P10 is
disbelieved by the trial court because it does not
contain the name of the person who fought with
Hemareddy or in other words the name of the
person who inflicted injury is not mentioned. It is
also opined by the trial court that documents
relating to O.P.No. 361/2841 and I.P.No. 212629
of S.S.Hospital, Davanagere, are not available.
Dr. Adimani should have been examined. It has to
be stated that the prosecution could have
examined Dr. Adimani, but his non-examination
does not have any impact on the prosecution case.
The eyewitnesses have consistently spoken that
Hemareddy was first taken to Challakere Hospital.
It was quite natural because it was the nearest
hospital to the village where the incident occurred.
When the MLC itself is available, the production of
related documents as observed by the trial court
were unnecessary. What is important is to
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6623-DB
produce MLC, not the other documents. It is also
important to note that based on Ex.P10 FIR was
registered by PW16. Though it appears that there
is delay in registration of FIR after issuance of
MLC, again it cannot be a reason for doubting the
prosecution case. Because it was the duty of the
Head Constable who received MLC to have
submitted the same to the SHO, i.e., PW16 who
appears to have honestly give an evidence that he
received Ex.P10 at 1.00 pm on 23.05.2015 and
registered FIR very soon. The endorsement made
by the Magistrate on Ex.P4, the FIR, shows that he
received it at 2.00 p.m on 23.05.2015. When it is
not the case of the defence that the FIR contains
manipulations, if the trial court gave prominence
to delay in registering FIR to doubt the background
of the incident, such a finding cannot be sustained.
22. The trial court has observed that there is
no evidence to show how Hemareddy suffered
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6623-DB
fractures of 2 n d to 8 t h ribs as deposed by PW18,
Dr.Sunil Kadam who conducted post mortem
examination. The reason for making this
observation is that according to the prosecution
accused No.1 beat Hemareddy with a stone on the
latter's head and left leg toe. Nothing is stated
about beating on the ribs. This gives rise to doubt
the prosecution case. In regard to this
observation of the trial court, it is to be stated
that the fracture to the ribs was detected only
when the dead body was subjected to autopsy.
This discrepancy in evidence may not have that
much significance because the clear evidence of
PW18 is that the death occurred due to
hemorrhage inside and outside the brain due to
fracture of the skull which was consequent to
hitting on Hemareddy's head with a stone as
deposed by the eyewitnesses. It is not that no
eyewitness has stated about infliction of injuries
on the ribs, it is to be stated that PW10,
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6623-DB
Sundaramma, the wife of Hemareddy has given
evidence that the first accused assaulted on the
ribs also. The trial court has not noticed the
evidence given by PW10 in this regard.
23. The trial court has held further that the
evidence of PW8 to 14 are contrary to the contents
of the complaint and their statements. What is
held is that PW12-the complainant has stated in
the complaint that accused No.1 beat Hemareddy
with a sickle on the head and then beat on his left
toe with a stone, but his oral evidence in the court
is contrary to his statement in the complaint where
it is written that he has stated that accused No.1
beat his father Hemareddy only with a stone. It is
also noticed that the oral evidence of PW8 to 15
does not corroborate their statements. On this
finding of the trial court, it needs to be stated that
the trial court should not have read the statements
of the witnesses recorded by the investigating
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6623-DB
officer without any contradiction being brought on
record and duly proved in accordance with section
162 of Cr.P.C. During cross examination, neither
PW12 has been questioned with reference to
assault with a sickle as stated in the complaint nor
the other eyewitnesses are questioned to prove
any contradiction in their evidence in comparison
with their statements under section 161 of Cr.P.C.
The trial court therefore should not have arrived at
such a conclusion. Another finding of the trial
court is that as the presence of PW8, PW14 and
PW15 at the scene of occurrence was doubtful.
This is the meaning that can be gathered if paras
104 and 105 of the impugned judgment are read.
In our opinion such kind of inference is not
possible to be drawn.
24. The trial court has observed that all the
eyewitnesses being the members of the family of
Hemareddy are interested witnesses and no
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6623-DB
independent witness was examined even though
oral testimonies of the eyewitnesses shows that
about 30 to 40 persons were present at the time of
incident. On this finding, it has to be stated that
none of the eyewitnesses appears to have given
evidence solely with a view to falsely implicating
the accused. It is a well settled principle of law
that evidence of related witnesses should not be
viewed with suspicion, what is required is greater
care and caution is to be taken while assessing
their evidence because of their tendency to give
exaggerated version influenced by relationship.
We do not find that the eyewitnesses' account is
filled with hatred towards the accused. It may be
a fact that there were civil litigations between the
accused and Hemareddy, but the evidence, both
oral and documentary, discloses happening of the
incident which culminated in the death of
Hemareddy. Mere pendency of civil litigations at
that time does not lead to an inference that the
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6623-DB
oral testimonies of the eyewitnesses are tainted
with interestedness. It may be mentioned here
that PW14 and PW15 are not relatives of
Hemareddy. Moreover PW14 has admitted in the
cross examination that there were some
differences between him and accused No.1 in
relation to a land transaction, but his evidence is
impossible to be ignored for this reason.
25. Lastly, the trial court has observed that
the documents do not disclose the particulars of
the treatment given to Hemareddy, and there is no
explanation as to how Hemareddy suffered fracture
of 2 n d to 8 t h ribs. For this reason a doubt arises in
regard to prosecution case. It is not
understandable as to why the particulars of
treatment were required to be given. The
prosecution case does not become disbelievable for
want of those particulars. PW10 has stated about
assault on ribs. The specific defence about
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6623-DB
accident has no documentary support. If according
to defence, Hemareddy was killed in an accident, it
was not difficult to establish it. Defence version
has failed, this was just a defence for the sake of
taking defences nothing more. It may also be
stated that taking false defence may be adversely
viewed against the accused.
26. The trial court has expressed a doubt
about the presence of PW11 and PW13, the
daughters of Hemareddy because in the statements
of the witnesses made before the investigating
officer their names are not forthcoming. This is
yet another wrong inference. If that is so, the
other eyewitnesses should have been questioned in
their cross-examination. In fact everybody has
stated about presence of PW11 and PW13. The
trial court should not have expressed a doubt in
this regard without any base in the evidence
brought on record.
- 26 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6623-DB
27. Therefore, we find that the trial court has
recorded findings contrary to the evidence. The
trial court has considered minor contradictions in
the evidence of prosecution and has erroneously
come to the conclusion that prosecution has failed
to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts. The
appreciation of evidence appears to be faulty and
perverse. Only view possible to be taken is that
the incident that led to death of Hemareddy did
take place.
28. Now what is required to be examined is
whether both the accused can be convicted for the
offence under section 302 of IPC. If the
background of the incident is seen, it can very well
be said that accused No.1 had no intention to
cause the death of Hemareddy. The evidence also
does not disclose his preparation to assault
Hemareddy. The entire situation evinces firstly
that accused No.2 became angry having seen the
- 27 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6623-DB
front yard of her house becoming dirty because of
hay falling there due to fast blowing wind and for
that reason only she picked up quarrel with PW10,
Sundaramma, the wife of Hemareddy. Seeing the
quarrel between them, Hemareddy interfered for
mollification of the situation and in that course
accused No.1 resorted to assaulting Hemareddy
which ultimately resulted in the latter's death.
Though eyewitnesses have stated that accused
No.1 gave blows to kill Hemareddy, the
circumstances and the situation do not indicate
that he had the intention to kill. The incident
appears to have taken place in fit of anger,
however it cannot be said that accused No.1 did
not have knowledge of the ensuing consequences
as a result of infliction of injuries by him.
Therefore the offence under section 302 of IPC
does not constitute and instead accused No.1 can
be held guilty of the offence punishable under
section 304 (II) of IPC.
- 28 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6623-DB
29. Accused No.2 cannot be held guilty of
section 304 (II) of IPC just because section 34
was invoked. There is no evidence that she shared
common intention with her husband. The proved
facts do not disclose that she was aware of what
her husband would do. On the other hand the
evidence on record discloses that she gave blows
to PW10 by pulling her plait and also gave blows to
Hemareddy with her hands. This overt act only
establishes an offence punishable under section
323 of IPC. Though charge is framed for the
offence under section 504 of IPC, it cannot be said
that the ingredients required for punishing both
the accused for these offences are proved. With
this discussion we proceed to pass the following :
ORDER
(i) Appeal is allowed.
(ii) The judgment dated 7.1.2017
passed by the 1st Additional
- 29 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6623-DB
District and Sessions Judge,
Chitradurga, in S.C. No. 123/2015
is set aside.
(iii) Accused No.1 is held guilty of the
offence punishable under section
304 (II) of IPC.
(iv) Accused No.2 is held guilty of the
offence punishable under section
323 of IPC.
Bail bonds of accused 1 and 2 are cancelled.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
CKL
- 30 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6623-DB
SHKJ & VAPJ:
22.02.2024
ORDER ON SENTENCE
Both accused No.1 and 2 are present before
the court. We have heard them on sentence.
Accused No.1 submits that his age is 70 years
and an agriculturist; he possesses nearly 39 acres
of dry land, and he has income of nearly
Rs.50,000/- per year from the agriculture. He has
got one daughter to be married. He also submits
that he has undergone heart surgery two times.
He prays for taking lenient view.
Accused No.2 the wife of accused No.1
submits that her age is 67 years and she is a
house wife. She complains of blood pressure and
diabetes. She also submits that her daughter is to
be married. She prays for taking lenient view.
Sri K.B.Onkar, learned counsel for the
respondents/accused No.1 and 2 submits that the
- 31 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6623-DB
accused have repentance for their act. He too
prays for taking lenient view.
Having heard both the accused on the
sentence to be imposed, we have to state that
accused No.1 has stood convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 304 Part-II of IPC. The
sentencing structure found in the said section is,
imprisonment upto 10 years or fine or both. In the
background of the incident, we are of the opinion
that accused No.1 cannot be sentenced with fine
only, he has to be subjected to imprisonment for a
term and fine.
So far as accused No.2 is concerned, she has
stood convicted for the offence under Section 323
of IPC. She obtained anticipatory bail. Section
323 of IPC provides for imprisonment upto one
year or with fine up to Rs.1,000/-. Since accused
No.2 is a woman, and there is a unmarried
daughter in the house, we do not find it feasible to
- 32 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6623-DB
subject her to imprisonment. It is enough if fine is
levied.
In the above background, we now proceed to
pass the following sentence.
For the offence punishable under Section
304(II) of IPC, accused No.1 is directed to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of two (2) years
and pay fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default to pay
fine, he shall further undergo imprisonment for a
period of four (4) months.
For the offence punishable under Section 323
of IPC, accused No.2 is directed to pay fine of
Rs.1,000/- and in default to pay fine, she shall
undergo imprisonment for a period of one month.
Accused No.1 is entitled to set-off for the
period he has already spent in jail.
Exercising power under Section 357(3) of
Cr.P.C., accused No.1 is hereby directed to pay
compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- (Five Lakhs only)
- 33 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6623-DB
to the wife of the deceased i.e., Sundramma
(PW10). The compensation amount shall be
deposited within three months from today before
the trial court and on deposit of the same, the
same shall be released in favour of Sundramma
(PW10) on proper identification.
At this stage, Sri K.B.Onkar learned counsel
for respondent No.1 files an application under
Section 389(3) of Cr.P.C., seeking suspension of
sentence imposed on accused No.1. His
submission is that accused No.1 wants to prefer an
appeal to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore
the sentence imposed on accused No.1 be
suspended to enable accused No.1 to prefer an
appeal to the Supreme Court. On this application,
we have to state that it is not maintainable as
accused No.1 is subjected to imprisonment for only
two years. Therefore application is dismissed.
- 34 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6623-DB
Registrar (Judicial) is hereby directed to issue
conviction warrant against respondent
No.1/accused No.1.
Accused No.2 is hereby directed to pay fine
imposed on her within one month from today
before the trial court.
Free copies of the judgment be supplied to
accused No.1 and 2.
Send back the trial court records along with
copy of this judgment forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
KMV
