Karnataka High Court
Shri.Manappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 January, 2025
Author: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:316-DB
CRL.A No. 200128 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 200128 OF 2018
(374(Cr.PC)/415(BNSS)
BETWEEN:
SHRI. MANAPPA S/O HANUMANTA VADDAR
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: LABOUR,
R/O HUDA VILLAGE,
TQ: LINGASUGUR, DIST: RAICHUR - 584101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SHAMBULING S SALIMATH,ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH SINDHANUR RURAL POLICE STATION,
Digitally signed REPRESENTED BY THE ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
by RAMESH
MATHAPATI HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
AT: KALABURAGI BENCH - 585103.
KARNATAKA ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SIDDALING P. PATIL, ADDL. SPP)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S.374 (2) OF CR.P.C,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION
DATED 20.02.2018 PASSED BY THE PRL.DIST.AND SESSIONS
JUDGE AT RAICHUR IN S.C.No.4/2016 CONVICTING THE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
U/SEC.302 AND 504 OF IPC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:316-DB
CRL.A No. 200128 of 2018
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV
AND
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K.,)
This appeal by the convicted accused is directed against
the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
20.02.2018 passed in S.C.No.4/2016 by the Principal District
and Sessions Judge at Raichur (hereinafter referred to as
'learned Sessions Judge'), wherein the learned Sessions Judge
convicted the accused for the offences punishable under
Sections 302 and 504 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-
for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. In default
of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo simple
imprisonment for six months. Further, the accused is also
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months
and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable under
Section 504 of IPC. In default of payment of fine, the accused
shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months.
Further, it is directed that the substantive sentences shall run
concurrently.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:316-DB
2. The factual matrix of the prosecution case in brief is
that, the deceased in this case Earamma was the wife of
accused/appellant, residing at Huda village in Lingasugur Taluk.
The accused was an addict, frequently picked up rows with his
wife demanding money to gratify his vices. Against this
backdrop, on 16.09.2015 at about 7:30 p.m., the accused
picked up a row with his wife. The complainant-PW.1 was
seated in the porch (katta) of the house and was embroiled in a
conversation with his relatives. At that time, the deceased
Earamma was inside the house. The accused picked up a
quarrel with her and demanded money for alcohol, when she
refused to give money by stating that he is not earning a dime
and is wasting money earned by her, being enraged by this
statement, the accused verbally abused her and assaulted with
a blowing pipe (Udukolave) on her parietal region and also on
right forehead. Owing to the assault, she collapsed on the floor.
The complainant and others visited the spot, at that time, the
accused threatened them that if they come inside the house, he
would kill them. Thereafter, the accused fled the spot. Later,
the complainant-PW.1 lodged a complaint before the
respondent police against the accused as per Ex.P1 and based
on the same, the then PSI respondent Police-PW.20 registered
NC: 2025:KHC-K:316-DB
an FIR against the accused for the offences punishable under
Sections 302 and 504 of IPC in Crime No.266/2016 dated
16.07.2015. Subsequently, PW.12 conducted the inquest
panchanama on the corpse of the deceased as per Ex.P2 and
the corpse was sent for postmortem examination. The accused
was arrested by the respondent Police on 17.09.2015 i.e., on
the following day of the incident and based on his voluntary
statement, the Investigating Officer recovered MO.1 i.e., the
blowing pipe which was purportedly used while committing the
crime and the clothes of the accused worn by him at the time
of the incident as per MOs.5 and 6 under Ex.P6. Later, by
obtaining necessary documents from the concerned authorities,
the Investigating Officer-P.W.23 laid the charge sheet against
the accused for the aforementioned offences before the
committal Court.
3. After committal of the case before the Sessions
Court, the learned Sessions Judge framed charges against the
accused for the aforementioned offences and read it over
verbatim to him. However, the accused denied the charges and
claimed to be tried.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:316-DB
4. In order to prove the charges levelled against the
accused, the prosecution in total examined 23 witnesses as
P.W.1 to P.W.23, marked 23 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-23 and
marked 6 material objects as M.Os.1 to 6.
5. Post assessment of the oral and documentary
evidence placed by the prosecution, the learned Sessions Judge
convicted the accused for the charges levelled against him and
also sentenced him as stated supra. The said judgment is
challenged in this appeal.
6. We have heard Sri Shambuling S. Salimath, the
learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Siddaling P. Patil, the
learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
7. The primary contention of the learned counsel for
the appellant is that the judgment challenged in this appeal
suffers from perversity and illegality. The learned Sessions
Judge failed to appreciate the evidence of the material
witnesses in right perspective. According to the learned
counsel, there are material contradictions and omissions in the
evidence of the eyewitnesses examined by the prosecution i.e.,
NC: 2025:KHC-K:316-DB
PWs.1, 2, 5 to 9 and 23. As such, their version cannot be
believed to convict the accused for the charges levelled against
him. He further contended that the eyewitnesses have
categorically deposed that, following the assault made by the
accused, they reached the spot. As such, they cannot be
termed as eyewitnesses to the incident. Further, the
prosecution also failed to prove the recovery of M.Os.1, 5 and 6
under Ex.P6 since the evidence of P.W.4 the panch witness for
the mahazar, suffers from severe infirmities. The prosecution
failed to examine any other witness to prove Ex.P6. The
learned counsel also contended that the motive portrayed by
the prosecution is not proved as none of the witnesses have
deposed that the accused and the deceased were having
frequent rows owing to his vices. Accordingly, he prays to allow
the appeal and to set aside the impugned judgment of
conviction.
8. Alternatively, the learned counsel submitted that
even if the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution be
taken on its face value, this case squarely falls within the ambit
of Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC and the accused is liable to
be sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 304
NC: 2025:KHC-K:316-DB
Part-I of IPC instead of Section 302 of IPC. According to the
learned counsel, the entire incident was caused out of the blue
on spur of moment and in a grave and sudden provocation
owing to a row between them. Accordingly, he prays to modify
the sentence imposed by the Sessions Court.
9. Per contra, the learned Addl. SPP Sri Siddalaing P.
Patil submitted that the judgment under this appeal neither
suffers from perversity nor illegality since the learned Sessions
Judge meticulously examined the evidence of all the witnesses
on record and passed a well reasoned judgment. He further
contended that the prosecution has placed the evidence of
eyewitnesses to the incident i.e., P.Ws.1, 2, 5 to 9 and 23, they
have collectively categorically stated that on the fateful day,
the accused quarrelled with his wife i.e., the deceased
Earamma and assaulted on her right forehead with a blowing
pipe and caused injuries on her. Thereafter, she succumbed to
the injuries. This evidence of eyewitnesses clearly corroborates
to the medical evidence i.e., the evidence of P.W.11 the Doctor
who conducted autopsy on the corpse and issued a postmortem
report Ex.P8. He additionally contended that the recovery
mahazar Ex.P6 clearly proved the evidence of P.W.4 and
NC: 2025:KHC-K:316-DB
P.W.12. Further, the prosecution also sent the material objects
for FSL and on examination; the Scientific Officer has opined
that the blood stains found on the articles are of human 'O'
blood group. The Scientific Officer also examined the clothes of
the deceased i.e., M.Os.2 to 4. In such circumstances, there is
a clear corroboration of oral evidence led by the prosecution to
the medical evidence. Accordingly, the learned Addl. SPP prays
to dismiss the appeal. He contended that, on facts and
evidence placed by the prosecution, this case does not fall
within the ambit of Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC and the
learned Sessions Judge has rightly convicted the accused for
the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant
and also the learned Addl. SPP, the points that arise for our
consideration are:
(i) Whether the judgment under this appeal suffers
either from perversity or illegality?
(ii) Whether the learned Sessions Judge is justified in
convicting and sentencing the accused for the
offences punishable under Sections 302 and 504
of IPC?
NC: 2025:KHC-K:316-DB
11. In the instant case, albeit the prosecution examined
23 witnesses to prove the charges levelled against the accused,
it is redundant to delve into the nitty gritty of individual
evidence of all witnesses.
12. In order to prove the homicidal death of the
deceased Earamma in this case, the prosecution predominantly
relied on the evidence of P.W.11 the Doctor who conducted
autopsy on the corpse of the deceased and the postmortem
report issued by him as per Ex.P8. On careful perusal of Ex.P8,
P.W.11 has opined that the cause of death is due to
"hypovolemic shock secondary to multiple fractured wounds".
He also gave his opinion as per Ex.P9 that the injuries found on
the corpse of the deceased could be caused by an assault made
by M.O.1. Further, the prosecution also relied on the inquest
panchanama conducted on the corpse of the deceased by
P.W.12 as per Ex.P2. P.W.3 is the panch witness for the same.
On perusal of the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.12, they both
categorically stated that they have noticed three injuries on the
corpse of the deceased. Nevertheless, there are as many as
nine eyewitnesses to the alleged incident. All of them have
clearly stated that they witnessed the assault made by the
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:316-DB
accused on the head of the deceased with M.O.1. In such
circumstances, we are of the considered view that the
prosecution has successfully proved the homicidal death of the
deceased Earamma.
13. In order to connect the accused with the homicidal
death of the deceased, the prosecution predominantly relied on
the evidence of P.W.1-complainant, P.Ws.2, 5, 6 to 9 and 23
the eyewitnesses to the incident. On perusal of the evidence of
these witnesses, all of them have categorically stated that, on
the date of incident i.e., on 16.09.2015 at about 7:30 p.m., the
accused came home and picked up a row with his wife
Earamma by demanding money to consume alcohol, when she
refused to give money, enraged with the same, out of the blue
in a fit of rage, he verbally abused her and assaulted her
parietal region and on right forehead head using M.O.1. Due to
the same, she succumbed to the injuries on the spot. This
consistent version of the eyewitnesses also corroborates with
the contents enumerated in the complaint-Ex.P1 lodged by
P.W.1 at the earliest point of time before the respondent-Police.
Moreover, the prosecution also examined P.W.22 the Junior
Engineer of GESCOM to establish that on 16.09.2015 at about
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:316-DB
7:30 p.m. there was supply of electricity to the house of
deceased and accused. The said letter is marked at Ex.P16. In
such circumstances, there is no reason to disbelieve the
testimony of the eyewitnesses. Besides, the eyewitnesses
P.Ws.5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 23 are the neighbours and villagers.
There is no reason for them to depose falsely against the
accused. Though the defence cross-examined these witnesses
at length, nothing worthwhile was elicited from them to discard
their testimony. As rightly contended by the learned Addl. SPP,
the evidence of the eyewitnesses P.Ws.1, 2, 5 to 9 and 23
corroborates with the medical evidence i.e., the evidence of
P.W.11-Doctor. On perusal of Ex.P-8, there are three injuries
sustained by the deceased on her forehead and parietal region.
Further, the doctor has also opined as per Ex.P9 that those
injuries sustained by the deceased could be caused exclusively
upon her on being assaulted with M.O.1. In such
circumstances, the evidence of eyewitnesses is believable and
trustworthy and rightly appreciated by the learned Sessions
Judge.
14. The prosecution also proved the recovery of the
weapon M.O.1 under Ex.P-6 Mahazar. On careful perusal of the
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:316-DB
evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.12, both these witnesses have
categorically stated that the accused led them to the place
where he hid M.O.1 after the incident. Accordingly, the same
was recovered at his behest. Moreover, the said M.O.1 the
weapon, M.Os.5 and 6 i.e., clothes worn by the accused at the
time of incident were sent for Scientific examination and
P.W.21-the Scientific Officer opined that all these articles were
stained with human blood of 'O' group and issued the certificate
Ex.P-21. The prosecution also proved the spot mahazar i.e.,
Ex.P3 by the evidence of the Investigation Officer. Admittedly,
the place of incident is the house of accused and he has failed
to offer any such prudent explanation as to the cause of his
wife's demise. In such circumstances, as per the provision of
Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act the accused is duty
bound give such explanation failing which the Court is
empowered to draw adverse inference against the accused
under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act. Further the
evidence of the eyewitnesses clearly corroborates with the
testimony of the Investigating Officer P.W.16. In such
circumstances, we are of the considered view that the
prosecution has successfully established that the accused is the
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:316-DB
perpetrator of the crime and owing to the impact of the assault
using M.O.1, the deceased succumbed to the injuries.
15. So far as the alternative contention raised by the
learned counsel for the appellant that this case squarely falls
within the ambit of Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC which is
punishable under Section 304 Part-I of IPC is concerned, on
careful perusal of the evidence of P.W.1 and Ex.P1 and the
other eyewitnesses, the same depicts that the incident
happened in spur of the moment. On the fateful day, the
accused returned home, upon consuming alcohol he picked a
row with the deceased and demanded money to consume
alcohol. At that time, the deceased refused and verbally abused
him. Enraged by the same, out of the blue, he picked up a
handy weapon lying in the house and assaulted on the
deceased's head. On perusal of the evidence of all the
eyewitnesses P.Ws.1, 2, 5 to 9 and 23, they collectively
deposed that the incident was caused out of the blue following
a row between them. There is neither such intention nor
premeditative motive on part of the accused to do away with
the life of the deceased. Even after the assault, the accused did
not behave cruelly with the deceased. Though, it is contended
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:316-DB
by the learned Addl. SPP that the accused gave three repeated
blows to the deceased and thus act of the accused cannot be
termed as a sudden provocation. However, the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Surinder Kumar vs. Union Territory of
Chandigarh reported in 1989 (2) SCC 217 held that, merely
because three injuries were inflicted on the deceased by the
accused is insufficient to establish that the accused acted in a
cruel manner. Where, on a sudden quarrel, a person in the heat
of moment, picks up a handy weapon thereby causing injuries,
one of which proves fatal, he would be entitled to the benefit as
stipulated in Exception 4 under Section 300 of IPC. The number
of wounds inflicted during the altercation is not a decisive
factor.
16. The Hon'ble Apex Court held in the case of Rambir
Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in 2019 (6) SCC
122 held that, in a sudden fight, in absence of premeditative
motive, when an act is committed in a heat of passion, should
the offender not take undue advantage or act in a
cruel/unusual manner, the conviction can be converted from
Section 302 to Section 304 Part I or Part II of IPC. In
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:316-DB
paragraph 18 of the above judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court
held as under:
"18. Having regard to the evidence on
record, we are of the view that the case of
the appellant falls within Exception 4 to
Section 300 IPC. Further, the judgment in
Surinder Kumar v. State (UT of Chandigarh)
also supports the case of the appellant. In
the aforesaid case, the knifeblows were
inflicted in the heat of the moment, one of
which caused death of the deceased; this
Court has held that the accused is entitled to
the benefit of Exception 4. In the aforesaid
judgment, this Court further held that in a
sudden quarrel, if a person, in the heat of
the moment, picks up a weapon which is
handy and causes injuries one of which
proves fatal, the accused would be entitled
to the benefit of Exception 4. We are of the
view that the said judgment supports the
case of the appellant and further having
regard to the evidence on record we are of
the view that all the four ingredients which
are required to extend the benefit of
Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, apply to the
facts of the case on hand. Since the
occurrence was in sudden quarrel and there
was no premeditation, the act of the
appellant-accused would fall under Exception
4 to Section 300 IPC. As such, the conviction
recorded against the appellant under Section
302 IPC is liable to be set aside and is
accordingly set aside and the conviction of
the appellant-accused under Section 302 IPC
is modified, as the one under Section 304
Part II IPC and we impose a sentence of 10
years' simple imprisonment on the accused."
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:316-DB
17. Applying the above principles to the facts and
circumstances of this case, we are of the considered view that
the entire incident occurred in spur of the movement owing to
grave and sudden provocation and as such the act of the
accused falls well within the ambit of Exception 4 to Section
300 of IPC. Therefore, we are of the view that the conviction
imposed by the learned Sessions Judge is liable to be modified
for the offence under the Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC and
the accused is liable to be punished under Section 304 Part-I of
IPC.
18. On the question of sentence, the learned counsel
for the appellant submitted that the accused is on incarceration
from 9 years 3 months as on this day. In such circumstances,
we are of the view that the sentence already undergone by the
accused is sufficient for the offence punishable under Section
304 Part-I of IPC by imposing reasonable fine. In that view of
the matter, the appeal partly succeeds and accordingly, we
answer point No.(i) in the negative and point No.(ii) partly
affirmative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Appeal is allowed in part.
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:316-DB
(ii) The judgment of conviction and order on
sentence imposed by the learned Sessions
Judge against the accused for the offence
punishable under Section 302 of IPC is hereby
modified for the offence punishable under
Section 304 Part-I of IPC.
(iii) The accused is sentenced for the period which
he had already undergone i.e., 9 years 3
months and that he shall pay a fine of
Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under
Section 304 Part-I of IPC and in default of
payment of fine, he shall undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of 3 months.
(iv) However, the conviction and sentence imposed
for the offence punishable under Section 504 of
IPC by the learned Sessions Judge shall be kept
intact.
(v) Both the sentences shall run concurrently.
(vi) The accused is entitled for the benefit under
Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:316-DB
(vii) The accused shall be released either on
payment of fine amount or undergoing the
default sentence, if he is not required in any
other case.
Sd/-
(S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
MSR,SWK
CT: PS
