Doddeshi vs The State of Karnataka

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 Sri B.S. Prasad, learned counsel for accused and Sri B. Visweswaraiah, learned HCGP for State.

The accused was tried for the following charge:--

CHARGE

That you on 14.12.2004 at about 12.15 a.m. in the night, outside the house of Venkateshappa (C.W.2) did an act namely, inflicted blow on Venkateshappa on the head and left portion of neck and left eye by means of Machchu, with such intention and under such circumstances that by that act you had caused the death of Venkateshappa, you would have been guilty of murder and thereby committed an offence u/s 307 IPC and within my cognizance.

In order to bring home guilt of accused, prosecution has relied on the following:--

I. Motive;

II. The evidence of injured witness (PW2);

III. The evidence of eye-witnesses (PW1, PW3 & PW4);

IV. The medical evidence of PW6-Dr. B.T. Subramani.

It is the case of prosecution that on 13.12.2004 at about 6 p.m., bicycle ridden by PW2-Venkatesh had touched the mother of accused. Therefore, the mother of accused had gone to the house of PW2 and demanded compensation from the wife of PW2 (PW1). PW1 pleaded that they are poor people and offered to pay a sum of Rs. 50/- as compensation. The mother of accused not being satisfied with the offer, went back and informed the matter to accused.

It is the case of prosecution that during the intervening night of 14/15.12.2004 at about 12.15 a.m., accused armed with a chopper, trespassed into the house of PW2 and mercilessly assaulted PW2 with a chopper with such intention and knowledge by such acts, 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.

PW2-Venkatesh is the injured witness. PW2 has deposed about the incident that had taken place on the previous day. PW2 has deposed; the mother of accused had demanded compensation and the wife of PW2 (PW1) agreed to pay compensation of Rs. 50/-; the mother of accused not satisfied with the offer, went back and informed the matter to accused; during intervening night of 14/15.12.2004 at about 12 a.m., accused armed with a chopper, trespassed into house of PW2 and dragged PW2 outside his house and repeatedly assaulted PW2 on his head and other vital parts of PW2; after seeing other witnesses reaching the place of incident, accused ran away from that place; PW2 lost consciousness and he was shifted to Mc. Gann Hospital at Shimoga.

During cross-examination, PW2 has deposed; he was. able to identify accused in light shed by streetlight. PW2 has admitted that he was a stone cutter. PW2 has denied suggestion that pieces of stones, which had been blasted had caused injuries to him.

We do not find that PW2 had any motive to falsely implicate accused. PW2 being the injured would be least disposed to implicate the accused, leaving aside the real assailant.

PW1-Renukamma is the wife of PW2. The evidence of PW1 finds substantial corroboration from evidence of PW2.

The statement of PW1 (first information) was recorded at 1 a.m. during intervening night of 14/15.12.2004. The first information report was received by jurisdictional police at 5.30 a.m. on 15.12.2004. The contents of first information would lend substantial corroboration to the evidence of PW1. The first information was lodged, without loss of time and it had reached the jurisdictional Magistrate, within few hours after it was lodged.

PW3-Rajappa and PW4--Dhananjaya are the neighbours of PW2. PW3 and PW4 are eye-witnesses to the incident. They have consistently deposed; on the date of incident at about 12 in the midnight they heard noise of quarrel from the house of PW2; when they reached the house of PW2 they found PW2 had suffered multiple cut injuries; PW2 had fallen down; accused was standing near place of incident; accused was holding a chopper; after seeing PW3 & PW4, accused ran away from that place; PW1 was crying.

During cross-examination of PW3 & PW4, nothing has been elicited to discredit their evidence. PW3 & PW4 have no motive to falsely implicate accused.

At the relevant time, PW6-Dr. B.T. Subramani was working as Senior Specialist in Government District Mc. Gann Hospital at Shimoga. PW6 has deposed; during intervening night of 14/15.12.2004 at about 12.30 a.m. he examined PW2-Venkatesh and found following injuries:--

Incised wound on the frontal area left side of scalp vertically placed measuring 5" x 1/2" x 1/2" underlying bone fracture seen through the wound, blood clot present.

Incised wound on right side of 1st wound 2" away, measuring 2 1/2" x 1/2" x 1/2" bone exposed.

Deep incised wound on lateral side of left orbit measuring 3" x 2" x 1" fractured zygomatic bone exposed and left margin of orbit wall fractured.

Incised wound on right upper arm measuring 3" x 4" x 1/2" blood clot present.

Incised wound transversely placed on left side of neck measuring 2" x 1/4 x 1/4 skin deep.

Incised wound on right forearm in the middle measuring 3" x 1/2" x 1/2" blood clots present.

Incised wound on left side of face 1" below the 3rd wound transversely placed measuring 2" x 1/2" x 1/2".

PW6 has deposed that age of injuries was less than one hour. The x-rays taken revealed fracture of left parietal bone. The contents of serology report would reveal that chopper (weapon of offence) and clothes of injured (PW2) were stained with ''B'' group blood. This scientific evidence also lends substantial corroboration to evidence of PW1 to PW4 & PW6.

Therefore, there are no reasons to suspect the evidence adduced by prosecution. The accused armed with a chopper, trespassed into the house of PW2 during midnight. The accused repeatedly assaulted PW2 with a chopper and caused aforestated injuries. If by such acts, accused had caused death of PW2, he would have been held guilty of an offence punishable u/s 302 IPC. Therefore, learned trial Judge was justified in convicting accused for an offence punishable u/s 307 IPC.

The learned counsel for accused would submit that. accused and PW2 are relatives. There was no previous enmity between accused and PW2. PW2 had clashed bicycle against the mother of accused on the previous date of incident and he did not bother to compensate the mother of accused (an old woman) for injuries suffered by her. Therefore, accused became wild and assaulted PW2. The accused does not bear criminal antecedents. The accused has chances to reform himself.

The learned HCGP would submit that accused had mercilessly assaulted PW2 with a chopper and caused injuries to vital parts of PW2. Therefore, no leniency is called for in the matter of sentence.

On hearing the learned counsel for parties and considering the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, I deem it proper to reduce the sentence of imprisonment by two years and impose fine of Rs. 50,000/- and direct payment of compensation of Rs. 40,000/- to PW2. In the result, I pass the following:--

ORDER

The appeal is accepted in part. The impugned judgment of conviction of accused for an offence punishable u/s 307 IPC is confirmed. However, the sentence is modified. The accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and pay fine of Rs. 50,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for an offence punishable u/s 307 IPC. Out of the fine amount deposited by accused, a sum of Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) shall be paid as compensation to PW2-Venkatesh. The period of detention undergone by accused during trial is given set off as provided u/s 428 Cr.P.C.