Channarayappa vs State

N. Ananda, J.—The appellant (hereinafter referred as ''accused'') was tried and convicted for an offence punishable u/s 307 IPC. Therefore, he is before this court. I have heard learned counsel for accused and learned HCGP for State.

The accused was tried for the aforestated offence on the allegations that on 17.02.2007 at about 8 a.m., near Janatha houses in B.K. Halli Village, Pavagada Taluk, the accused due to previous political enmity, assaulted PW2 with a chopper on right side of his neck and caused grievous injuries with such intention and knowledge by such act, if he had caused death of PW2, he would have been held guilty of an offence punishable u/s 302 IPC, thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 307 IPC.

The prosecution has relied on evidence of injured witness (PW2-Channakeshava), PW1-Girijamma (wife of PW2), immediately post-occurrence witnesses viz. PW3-Mylarappa, PW4-Ramanjinappa, PW5-Shivakumar and medical evidence of PW9-Dr. Rajareddy and also documentary evidence marked as Ex. P. 1 to Ex. P. 12.

PW2-Channakeshava (victim of assault) has deposed; one year prior to 19.08.2008 i.e., on the date of Shivarathri festival at about 8 a.m., he was going to a temple in B.K. Halli Village; when he reached Anganawadi Centre, accused came there and demanded PW2 to vote for congress party in the coming elections; PW2 was a supporter of Janatadal party; PW2 told accused that he would caste his vote as per his choice and accused should not interfere; accused got enraged and told PW2 that if he does not vote for congress party, he would stab him with a chopper (machu); PW2 told accused that he would not care and he would not vote for congress party; accused was holding a chopper; accused assaulted on right side of neck of PW2 with a chopper; many people gathered there; when PW2 cried for help, nobody came forward to help him; therefore, PW2 held collar of accused and took him to panchayat office; PW2 pushed the accused inside panchayat office, closed door and bolted door from outside; by then, PW2 was fully exhausted and he fell unconscious; PW2 regained consciousness at about 1.30 a.m., in Victoria Hospital at Bangalore; PW2 was an inpatient for 5 days; thereafter, PW2 stayed in the house of his elder sister in K.R. Puram at Bangalore for about two months for taking follow up treatment. PW2 has identified his blood-stained clothes and weapon of offence.

During cross-examination, PW2 has deposed that elections for panchayat was held after a period of 4 or 5 months after the date of incident; at the time of incident, 20 to 30 people were watching. PW2 has denied suggestion that he had concocted a story to harass accused and accused had not assaulted him.

PW1-Girijamma is the wife of PW2. PW1 has deposed; the incident of assault took place at about 8.30 a.m., on Shivarathri festival day, one year prior to 19.08.2008 near Anganawadi in B.K. Halli Village; PW1 learnt from some person that galata is taking place; immediately, PW1 came near the place of incident; accused assaulted on right side of neck of PW2 with a chopper; PW1 & PW2 took accused to panchayat office and kept him there; there was profuse bleeding from neck of PW2; PW2 fell unconscious; several people gathered near place of incident; they were watching the incident; PW2 was given preliminary treatment in General Hospital at Pavagada; later, PW2 was treated in District Hospital at Tumkur. The Doctors in District Hospital at Tumkur referred PW2 to Victoria Hospital at Bangalore; accordingly, PW1 shifted PW2 to Victoria hospital at Bangalore; PW1 lodged first information as per Ex. P. 1. After the incident, some body had informed police. The police took accused from Panchayat office. The accused had assaulted PW2 with a chopper due to political enmity.

During cross-examination, PW1 has denied suggestion that she had not witnessed the incident of assault. PW1 has denied suggestion that there was enmity between accused and PW2 regarding pathway. PW1 has denied suggestion that she had given false evidence against accused.

PW3-Mylarappa has not fully supported the case of prosecution, however he has deposed that PW2 was injured and he was lying in front of panchayat office and accused was inside the panchayat office. Though PW3 has not fully supported the case of prosecution, his evidence that PW2 was injured and accused was inside panchayat office would lend corroboration to evidence of PW1 and PW2.

PW4-Ramanjinappa is a post-occurrence witness. PW4 has deposed; on the date of incident, he was in panchayat office; PW2 came to panchayat office; PW2 had bleeding injury on right side of his neck; some one took PW2 to hospital on a motorcycle; door of panchayat office was locked from outside; police took accused from panchayat office.

During cross-examination, PW4 has reiterated the version given in examination-in-chief.

The evidence of PW4 does not reveal that he had enmity against accused or he was interested in PW2. There are no reasons to suspect the evidence of PW4.

The evidence of PW5-Shivakumar relates to spot inspection by the Investigating Officer.

The evidence of PW6-H. Manjunath Babu relates to registration and investigation of the case.

PW7-Obalamma has not supported the case of prosecution. PW7 was treated as a hostile witness.

PW8-H.C. Shivakumar has given evidence relating to registration and investigation of case.

PW9-Dr. Rajareddy, has treated PW2 in Victoria Hospital at Bangalore. PW9 has deposed; on 17.02.2007 at 4 p.m., when he was the Casualty Medical Officer in Victoria Hospital, he examined PW2-Channakeshava and found following injury:-

An incise injury on right side of neck measuring 6 cms x 4 cms x 2 cms, exposing jugular veins and muscles cutting right sternocleidomastoid and trapezius.

PW9 has deposed; PW2 was admitted in Victoria Hospital on 17.02.2007 and he was discharged on 22.02.2007.

During cross-examination, PW9 has admitted that there is distinction between a machu and a sickle.

The first information was lodged by PW1. The contents of first information would lend substantial corroboration to the evidence of PW1. PW2 was an injured witness. PW2 had no grievance or grudge against accused. PW2 being the injured witness would be least disposed to falsely implicate accused, leaving aside the real culprit. The evidence of PW2 finds substantial corroboration from medical evidence of PW9. The evidence of immediate post-occurrence witnesses would also lend substantial corroboration to the evidence of PW1 & PW2. Therefore, I hold that accused assaulted on right side of neck of PW2 with a chopper and caused aforestated injury.

The learned counsel for accused would submit that after the incident of assault, PW2 had pushed accused into panchayat office, therefore, an offence u/s 307 IPC is not attracted.

The learned counsel for accused would further submit that PW9 has deposed that injury suffered by PW2 was simple in nature. Therefore, learned trial Judge was not justified in convicting accused for an offence punishable u/s 307 IPC.

From the injury described supra, we find that accused had dealt a blow on neck of PW2 (a vital part). The injury was muscle deep, jugular vein was exposed. The sternocleidomastoid and trapezius muscles were cut. The life of PW2 was saved due to timely medical treatment. By the aforestated acts, if accused had caused death of PW2, he would have been held guilty of an offence punishable u/s 302 IPC. Therefore, submission of learned counsel for accused that accused cannot be held guilty of an offence punishable u/s 307 IPC cannot be accepted.

The learned trial Judge has convicted and sentenced accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months for an offence punishable u/s 307 IPC.

The accused had assaulted PW2 on his neck (a vital part) with a chopper in broad day light in the midst of village, without there being any provocation from the side of PW2. There are no mitigating circumstances to reduce the sentence. In the result, I pass the following:-

ORDER

The appeal is dismissed.