Chathrappa vs The State of Karnataka

H. Billappa, J.

This appeal by the appellant-accused is directed against the judgment and order dated 14.12.2009 passed by the Prl. Sessions Judge, Raichur, in S.C. No.108/2008.

By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant-accused for the offence punishable under section 302 of IPC. The accused has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for a period of six months.

Aggrieved by that, the appellant-accused has filed this appeal.

Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is as follows:

PW.1 Parvathamma is the complainant. She is the wife of deceased Hulagappa. Ex. P1 is the statement of PW.1. It is stated that on 16.03.2008 at about 8:00 p.m. there was engagement ceremony of one Kanakamma who is the daughter of PW.3 Hanumantha. Yellamma and others from Jinaru had come to Pothnal. After the engagement ceremony, after taking food, they returned. At about 9:30 p.m. PW-1''s brother-in-law Ayyappa went there and told the husband of PW.1 that the accused and his father Gyanappa were not invited for the engagement ceremony and how PW.1''s husband attended the engagement ceremony. In this connection, Ayyappa picked up quarrel and started abusing. The deceased told him that PW.3 invited them also, but they did not attend the engagement ceremony. Thereafter, Ayyappa went and brought the accused and picked up quarrel and assaulted the husband of PW.1 i.e., the deceased. The deceased also assaulted Ayyappa and they grappled each other. At that time, when the accused tried to assault the deceased PW.1, PW.3 Hanumantha and others pacified the quarrel and sent them. Thereafter, PW.1 and her husband were talking in front of the house of PW.3 Hanumantha.

At about 10:30 p.m., on 16.3.2008, the accused holding a plastic tumbler came near the place where PW.1 and her husband were talking. The accused abused the deceased saying that he would see to it by morning. Then the deceased told the accused that he can do whatever he wants to do and went near the accused. Then the accused removed the knife and stabbed the deceased on his chest. The deceased screamed saying that he was stabbed. PW.1 and PW.3 witnessed the incident in the street light. They noticed serious injury on the chest of the deceased and blood was oozing. Thereafter, PW.1, PW.3 Hanumantha, one Chatramma, Ramayya and others took the deceased in a jeep to the Government Hospital, Sindhanoor, at about 00.30 hours on 17.03.2008. The Doctor after seeing the deceased declared him dead. It is stated, for a flimsy reason the accused picked up quarrel and stabbed the deceased. Based on the statement of PW.1 a case in Crime No. 68/2008 of Manvi police station has been registered for the offence punishable under section 302 of IPC.

After investigation charge sheet has been filed against the accused for the offence punishable under section 302 of IPC.

At the trial, the prosecution has examined in all 12 witnesses i.e. PWs.1 to 12 and Exs. P1 to P12 and MOs.1 to 6 have been marked.

The Trial Court on appreciation of the evidence on record has held that the accused is guilty of the offence punishable under section 302 of IPC and has sentenced the accused to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for six months.

Aggrieved by that, the appellant-accused has filed this appeal.

The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the impugned judgment and order cannot be sustained in law. He also submitted that the Trial Court has failed to consider the evidence on record in proper perspective. Further he submitted that the Trial Court has erred in believing the evidence of PWs.1, 3 and 4. Even assuming that the said incident has occurred there was no intention or motive to kill the deceased. The incident has occurred in the spur of the moment for a flimsy reason. Therefore, the Trial Court was not justified in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under section 302 of IPC. At the most the offence may fall under section 304 Part-II of IPC. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order cannot be sustained in law.

As against this, the learned Additional SPP supported the impugned judgment and order. He also submitted that the Trial Court on proper consideration of the material on record has rightly convicted the accused for the offence punishable under section 302 of IPC. Further he submitted that the incident is witnessed by PWs.1, 3 and 4 who are the eye witnesses. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PWs.1, 3 and 4. The post mortem report shows that the death was homicidal. The accused has carried knife with him and caused the death of the deceased. The material on record clearly establishes the guilt of the accused. Therefore, the Trial Court was justified in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under section 302 of IPC. The impugned judgment and order does not call for interference.

We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

The point that arises for our consideration is:

"Whether the impugned judgment and order calls for interference?"

It is relevant to note, the death is homicidal. Ex. P6 is the post mortem report. It shows that the deceased had sustained stab wound over the left 5th intercostal space 1/2 inch lateral to the midclavicular line measuring 1" x 1". The doctor has opined that the death was due to haemorrhagic shock. PW.8 Dr. Govinda Rao has deposed that on 17.03.2008 he examined the dead body of the deceased. He noticed stab wound over the left 5th intercostal space 1/2 inch lateral to the midclavicular line measuring 1" x 1". He has opined that the death was due to haemorrhagic shock. Ex. P2 is the inquest report. It shows that the deceased had sustained injury measuring 1 1/2" caused by a knife. PW.5 has deposed that the inquest was held and he is a witness to Ex. P2. From the evidence of PW.8 Dr. Govind, Ex. P2 inquest report and Ex. P6 post-mortem report, it is clear that the death was homicidal.

To bring home the guilt of the accused the prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs.1, 3, 4 and 7 and mahazars Exs. P5 and P11.

PW.1 is the complainant. She has deposed that on the date of alleged incident at about 10:30 p.m. she was in front of the house of PW.3 Hanumantha. At that time one Khajappa, Hanumantha, Rakuppe Hanumantha, Dodda Ramayya, Kanakamma, Thippamma and deceased Hulagappa were also present in front of the house of PW.3 Hanumantha. At about 9 p.m., the accused came there. The deceased asked the accused to do what he can do. Then the accused saying he would do it right now removed the knife and stabbed the deceased on his chest. As a result of that, the deceased sustained injury and blood was oozing. The incident was witnessed in the street light. Thereafter, the deceased was taken to the hospital. The police informed that Huligeppa is dead. Thereafter, the statement of PW.1 was recorded as per Ex. P1 and her thumb impression was taken. She has identified M.O.1 knife.

In her cross-examination, PW.1 has stated that one Ayyappa and Gyanappa were taken to the police station after the death of the deceased. The accused went and quarreled with the police. Thereafter, the accused has been implicated in the case. The suggestion that the accused did not stab the deceased has been denied. It is also denied that there was no engagement ceremony.

PW.3 Hanumantha and PW.4 Kanakamma have also deposed that there was engagement ceremony. At about 10.00 or 10.30 p.m., the accused went near their house holding a plastic tumbler and asked the deceased why he attended the engagement ceremony and he would see to it. When the deceased told the accused that he can do whatever he wants to do right now, the accused removed the knife and stabbed the deceased on his chest and blood was oozing. The accused ran away from the place. The incident was witnessed in the street light. PW.3 has stated that the accused ran away with the knife. They have identified M.O.1 knife.

In the cross-examination, PWs.3 and 4 have denied the suggestion that the incident has not occurred and they are deposing falsely.

PW.2 is the witness to the spot mahazar, inquest and seizure of clothes of the deceased. He has deposed that the clothes of the deceased were seized by the police under Ex. P3 and he has signed Ex. P3. He has identified MOs.2 and 3. He has identified his signature on Exs. P2 and P4.

PW.7 is the witness for the recovery mahazar Ex. P5. He has deposed that the accused volunteered to show the place where the knife was concealed. The accused took them to that place and removed the knife from the Jali and produced it. It was seized under Ex. P5. He has identified the Knife M.O.1.

Ex. P11 is the FSL report. It shows that there were bloodstains on items 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 i.e., M.Os.1 to 4 and 6 with ''O'' group blood.

From the evidence on record, it is clear, PWs.1, 3 and 4 are the eye witnesses and they have deposed regarding the incident. They have stated that on the date of alleged incident there was engagement ceremony of PW.4. The accused and his father were not invited for the engagement ceremony. There was quarrel between the deceased, his brother Ayyappa and the accused at about 8.00 or 8.30 p.m. It was pacified. Thereafter, at about 10.00 or 10.30 p.m., the accused has gone near the house of PW.3 Hanumantha where PWs.1, 3, 4 and others were talking. The accused has picked up quarrel and stabbed the deceased on his chest. The post mortem report and the evidence of the eye witnesses show that the deceased had sustained grievous injury. M.O.1 knife is recovered at the instance of the accused. FSL report shows presence of blood stains on M.Os 1 to 4 and 6 and the blood group is ''O'' group. It is clear, the accused has caused the death of the deceased. The background in which the incident has occurred is on a flimsy ground that the accused and his father were not invited for the engagement ceremony. There was quarrel at about 8.00 or 8.30 p.m. and thereafter, at 10.30 p.m. The evidence reveals that there was verbal exchange. The material on record clearly shows that the incident has occurred on a flimsy ground and in the heat of passion. Therefore, it falls under section 304 Part-I of IPC. The Trial Court was not justified in convicting the accused for the offence under section 302 of IPC. It needs to be modified.

Accordingly, we allow the appeal and the impugned judgment and order passed by the Prl. Sessions Judge, Raichur, in S.C. No.108/2008 convicting the appellant-accused for the offence punishable under section 302 of IPC is modified convicting the appellant-accused for the offence punishable under section 304 Part-I of IPC.

The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is in custody since 20.03.2010 and lenient view may be taken.

As against this, the learned Addl. SPP submitted that for a flimsy reason the appellant has taken away the life of the deceased and therefore, no lenience can be shown. The maximum sentence permissible in law may be imposed.

The incident has occurred for a flimsy reason. Having regard to the background in which the incident has occurred, if a sentence of 10 years RI and fine of Rs. 40,000/- is imposed it would meet ends of justice. Accordingly, we sentence the accused to undergo R.I. for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 40,000/- and in default of payment of fine the appellant-accused shall undergo RI for a period of six months.

After the fine amount is deposited, the entire fine amount shall be paid to PW.1 Parvathamma who is the wife of the deceased.

The appellant-accused shall be entitled to the benefit of section 428 of Cr.P.C.

Misc.Crl. 20053/2010 does not survive for consideration and accordingly, it is rejected.