H. Ravi vs State

The appellant (hereinafter referred to as accused) was tried, convicted and sentenced for an offence punishable u/s 302 of IPC. Therefore, he has filed this appeal.

We have heard Shri Y.S. Shivaprasad, learned Counsel for accused and Shri N.S. Sampangiramaiah, learned Government Advocate for the State.

It is the case of the prosecution that on 17.09.2005 at about 8.45 p.m. in the house of the accused situate at Upanayakanahalli village, the accused with an intention to cause the death of deceased Hanumanthappa, assaulted with a chopper and caused instantaneous death.

On behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 14 were examined, documents were marked as Ex.P. 1 to P.29 and material objects were marked as M.Os. 1 to 9. Contradictory portions in the statements of P.Ws.3 and 4 recorded under section. 161 Cr.P.C., were marked as Ex.D.1 to 5.

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

I. Motive.

II. Direct evidence,

III. Recovery of blood stained chopper on the information volunteered by accused.

I. Motive: It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased Hanumanthappa had fostered one Geethamma and she was given in marriage to one Manjappa. The said Manjappa(son-in-law of the deceased) developed illicit intimacy with the wife of the accused namely, Manjamma. The said Manjappa, eloped the wife of accused. The accused brought her back but the same act was repeated by the said Manjappa. The accused had felt that the deceased (father-in-law of Manjappa) was responsible for the entire episode. Therefore, he had grudge against the deceased.

The evidence of wife of the deceased namely P.W. 3 -Sakamma after the son-in-law - Manjappa eloped with the wife of the accused, he developed grudge against them has not been controverted. On the other hand, it has been suggested to P.W. 3 that her son-in-law Manjappa was frequently visiting the house of the accused. Even on the date of the incident, her son-in-law had visited the house of accused P.W.1 and her husband (deceased had gone to the house of the accused) to question their son-in-law and their son-in-law assaulted them. P.W. 3 had falsely implicated the accused to save her son-in-law. P.W. 3 has denied these suggestions. Thus we find that prosecution has proved that accused had enemity against deceased and he had motive to commit the offence.

The homicidal death of Hanumanthappa has not been controverted. The evidence of P.W.9 - Dr.O.Mallappa and contents of the post mortem report marked as Ex.P.4 would reveal that deceased had suffered following injuries:-

A chop wound on the front and left side of the head 10 cm X 5 cm with skull bone cut open, membranes feared and underlying brain exposed.

A chop wound 20 cm X 5 cm Bone deep across the front and outer side of right thigh cutting all the muscles and vessels.

An incised like stab wound 3 cm X 1 cm. 3 Cms. Deep over the low back,

An incised like stab wound 3 cms X 1 cm. 2 cms. Deep over the left side back.

Multiple (5 in no.) abrasions 1 cm x 1 cm over the left side of the chest.

An imprint abrasion.1 cm x 3 cm over the left waist.

An imprint abrasion 8 cms. X.1.5 cms. Over the back and

An imprint abrasion 5 cms. X 1.5 cms. Over the left side of the neck.

The skull was cut open. The brain and the membranes had been exposed. P.W.9 has opined that the death was due to coma, as a result of head injury and hemorrhagic shock, consequential of injuries sustained.

The next point for determination is ''whether the homicidal death of Hanumanthappa had taken place in the house of the accused?''. P.W. 3 has deposed that on the date of incident during evening accused had pelted stones on their house. At that time, P.W. 3 and her husband (deceased Hanumanthappa) had gone to the house of accused to question him as to why he had pelted stories on their house. At that time, the accused assaulted her husband with a chopper and caused his death. On hearing the hue and cry raised by P.W. 3, other witnesses came to the place of incident. The evidence of P.W. 3 (hat her husband was done to death in the house of accused has not been controverted. On the other hand, it has been suggested to P.W. 3 that before the incident, P.W. 3 and deceased had gone to the house of accused to question their son-in-law (Manjappa) about his illegal intimacy with the wife of accused. At that, time, said Manjappa (son-in-law of P.W. 3 and deceased) assaulted deceased and caused his death. P.W. 3 had falsely implicated the accused to save her son-in-law. P.W. 3 has denied these suggestions. We also find from the contents of spot inspection report, inquest report and evidence of Investigating Officer that homicidal death of Hanumanthappa had taken place in the house of accused.

P.W. 3 has given eye-witness account of the incident. She has deposed;- at about 7.30 p.m. on the date of the incident, the accused had pelted stones on their house; P.W. 3 and her husband had gone to the house of accused to question him. The accused repeatedly assaulted on head. limbs and also on the thigh of deceased with a chopper. The deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to injuries in the house of accused. P.W. 3 has deposed after the incident, accused along with the chopper ran away from that place. During cross-examination. P.W. 3 has deposed that she saw the incident in the light shed by a lamp in the house of accused. During cross-examination certain contradictions as to whether P.W.1 was alone in the house and that her husband came to house at 3.30 p.m. are brought on record. As these contradictions do not touch upon the substratum evidence of P.W. 3 regarding the incident of murder, they are of no consequence The evidence of P.W. 3 finds corroboration from evidence of P.W.1 - Nagendrappa, P.W.5 - Thippeshi and P.W. 6 - Basavarajappa.

P.W.1 - Nagendrappa has deposed on the date of the incident at about 8 p.m., he was executing drain work at a distance of 100 feet from the house of accused. He had engaged C.W. 10 - Thippeshi. C.W.6 - Siddappa and one Basavrajappa to execute the said work. At that time, P.W. 3 and the deceased informed him that accused had pelted stories on their house. P.W. 1 told them that he would enquire the matter next day morning. Thereafter, P.W. 3 and the deceased proceeded towards the house of accused, to question the accused as to why he had pelted stones on their house. After 5 minutes, he heard hue and cry from the house of accused. Thereafter, P.W.1 - Nagendrappa, P.W.5 -Thippeshi, P.W.7 - Rudrappa and one Gangappa rushed to the house of accused and found that. Hanumanthappa had died. The accused holding a chopper ran towards Channel road. The deceased had suffered cut injuries on his head, back and also on his lower limb. P.W.1 informed that accused had assaulted her husband with a chopper and caused his death. On the same day at 10.30 p.m., P.W.1 came to Santhebennur Police Station lodged first information as per Ex. P.1.

During cross-examination, P.W.1 has admitted that there was enemity between accused and deceased Hanumanthappa, as the son-in-law of the deceased had illicit intimacy with the wife of accused. P.W.1 has deposed that at the time of the incident a kerosene lamp was burning in the house of accused. He has denied the suggestion that he had not seen the accused running away from the place of incident.

We have carefully gone through evidence of P.W.1. We do not find any reasons to suspect evidence of P.W.1, as he did not have grudge to falsely implicate the accused.

P.W.5 - Thippeshi had who been engaged by P.W.1 to construct the drain has given evidence which is more or less similar to evidence of P.W.1. P.W.5 has deposed after hearing the hue and cry, P.Ws.1, 5 and 7 ran towards the house of accused. At that time, he saw the accused holding a chopper running away towards channel road. P.W. 3 was near the place of incident, she immediately informed P.W. 1, 5 and others that accused had cut her husband with a chopper.

During cross-examination, P.W.6 has admitted that the son-in-law of deceased had illicit intimacy with the wife of accused. He had eloped the wife of accused. The deceased and P.W. 3 had advised their son-in-law but it was of no avail. P.W.6 has denied the suggestions;- on the date of the incident at about 8.30 p.m., son-in-law of the deceased namely, Manjappa and the wife of the accused were in the house of the accused: deceased questioned the son-in-law (Manjappa) as to why he had visited the house of accused; said Manjappa got enraged and assaulted deceased with a chopper and caused his death. P.W.6 has denied the suggestion that he has falsely implicated the accused at the instance of P.W. 3. From the evidence of P.W. 3 and P.W.6, we find that they had no enemity or grudge against: deceased to falsely implicate him.

P.W.6 -Basavarajappa is also one of the immediate post occurrence witness. He has deposed that by the time he reached the place of the incident, the accused was running away from the place of the incident towards channel road. The accused was holding a chopper. During cross-examination, P.W.6 has denied that the he had falsely implicated the accused, at the instance of P.W.1. Thus from the evidence of above witnesses, the prosecution has proved that on 17.09.2005 at about 8.30 p.m. in the house of accused, the accused assaulted deceased Hanumanthappa with a chopper and caused his death.

The evidence of P.W.8 - Rajappa would reveal that at 1 a.m. on 18.09.2005, accused came to his house and sought for drinking water. P.W.8 gave drinking water. The accused requested P.W.8 to provide some place to sleep. P.W.8 told that there is no place in his house. Therefore, the accused slept: in front of the house of P.W.8. When the accused came to the house of P.W.8.. he was wearing banian and nicker. On the following day, the accused was not there. P.W.8 had found that the accused had vomited at the place where he was sleeping. During cross-examination, P.W.8 has denied the suggestion that he has given false evidence against the accused. From the evidence of P.W.8, it is clear that his village Maradi and panayakanahalli are at a distance of 2 kms. The conduct of the accused of going to the house of P.W. 8 during the midnight and asking for place to sleep is inconsistent with his innocence.

The evidence of P.W. 10 - Dr.H.S.Prakash would reveal that accused had attempted to commit suicide by consuming poison. On 19.09.2005, at about 9.30 a.m.. P.C. 569 -Nagaraj had taken the accused to Government. Hospital at Channagiri. P.W. 10 has examined the accused, gave stomach wash. P.W. 10 found that accused had consumed some insecticide. The evidence of P.W. 10 has remained uncontroverted. The accused had not offered any explanation for his conduct after the incident.

P.W..14 - Madan Gounkar, Investigating Officer has deposed that on 20.09.2005 at about 10 a.m., the accused was discharged from the Hospital and he was produced before him by P.C. 193, P.W. 14 arrested accused and recorded his voluntary statement as per Ex.P.22. P.W. 14 secured witnesses namely, C.W.7 -Krishnamurthy, C.W.8 -Umesh and C.W.9 - Hanumanthapa. The accused led the Investigating Officer and the witnesses to a culvert near the land of one Krishnamurthy of Upanayakanahalli village. The accused took out a chopper from a lantena bush near the culvert. P.W.20 seized the chopper under a mahazar marked as Ex.P.3. The Investigating Officer has deposed that photographs were taken when the accused removed a chopper from the lantena bush near a culvert situate by the land of one Krishnamurthy. These photographs are marked as Exs.P.23 to P.27.

P.W.4 - Krishnamurthy has deposed that on 20.09.2005 accused led the Investigating Officer and other witnesses to a culvert, which is at a distance of 1 k.m. from the house of accused. The accused removed a chopper from a lantena bush. The Investigating Officer seized the same under a mahazar. During cross-examination of P.W.4 nothing is elicited to disbelieve his evidence. P.W.4 has identified the photographs, which were taken at the time of recovery Thus we find that the prosecution hats proved the recovery of chopper (weapon of offence) on the information volunteered by accused.

The learned Counsel for accused referring to contents of Forensic Science Laboratory report would submit that the chopper which is said to have been recovered on information volunteered by accused has no bloodstains. It is true that contents of Forensic Science Laboratory report would reveal that the chopper, which had been sent for examination was not stained with blood. The incident had occurred on 17.9.2005. The incriminating articles were examined in the Forensic Science Laboratory on 04.10.2005. It looks probable that due to passage of time, bloodstains on the chopper had disintegrated and could not be detected when the chopper was examined in the Forensic Science Laboratory. Therefore, absence of bloodstains on the chopper cannot be a ground to discard evidence given by Investigating Officer in proof of recovery of chopper on the information volunteered by the accused. Thus, from the above evidence, prosecution has proved that on 17.09.2005 at 8.45 p.m. accused had committed murder of deceased Hanumanthappa in the house of accused.

The learned Counsel for accused relying on the judgement of this Court in Crl.A.No. 46/2005 dated 27.11.2007 would submit that the son-in-law of deceased (Manjappa) had developed illicit intimacy with the wife of accused. Even if the case of prosecution is accepted that when the incident took place, the accused was under grave and sudden provocation, we are not persuaded to accept this submission. The evidence on record does not disclose that the deceased was in any way responsible for illicit intimacy between his son-in-law (Manjappa) and the wife of accused This contention is also opposed to human nature. Deceased Hanumanthappa had given his fostered daughter Geethamma to the above said Manjappa in the circumstances, it looks highly improbable that the deceased had supported his son-in-law to give up his wife and develop illicit intimacy with the wife of accused.

The learned Counsel for the accused would submit that the incident of assault took place in the house of the accused. The deceased and P.W. 3 had gone to the house of the accused to abuse him. Therefore, the incident had taken place in a sudden quarrel. In order to consider the case under exception (4) to Section 300 I.P.C. the Court must be satisfied that culpable homicide had taken place without premeditation in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel, in a sudden fight and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.

In the case on hand, evidence on record does not disclose that there was a fight between accused and deceased. From the nature of injuries, we notice that accused had cut the head of the deceased with a chopper (a heavy weapon) and had broken his skull into pieces and the brain matter had come out and the accused had caused as many as four injuries with a chopper. Therefore, it is not possible to hold that: accused had not acted in a cruel or unusual manner. Therefore, we hold the instant case does not fall under exception (4) to section 300 IPC. We hold that accused has committed an offence punishable u/s 302 of IPC.

The learned Counsel for accused submit that the learned trial Judge was not justified in imposing fine on the accused in the background of circumstances which had led to the incident of murder of Hanumanthappa.

We see from the impugned judgement, the learned trial judge has sentenced the accused to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.25,000/- in default, to undergo R.I. for a period of six months. It is also ordered that out of the said fine amount, a sum of Rs.20,000/- shall be paid as compensation to P.W. 3 - Sakamma. In the discussion made supra, we have accepted the evidence of prosecution that son-in-law of the deceased namely Manjappa had developed illicit intimacy with the wife of accused. The said Manjappa had eloped the wife of accused not once but twice. The accused was in a desperate mood; to some extent he was dejected in life due to immoral acts of his wife and said Manjappa (son-in-law of the deceased). Therefore, the fine imposed by the trial Court needs to be substantially reduced.

On re-appreciation of the evidence, we find that the learned trial Judge has properly appreciated the evidence on record. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the judgement of conviction. However, the sentence needs modification to reduce fine amount.

In the result we pass the following order:

ORDER

(i) The appeal is accepted in part. The impugned judgment as it relates to fine imposed on the accused is modified.

(ii) The judgment of conviction of accused for an offence punishable u/s 302 IPC is confirmed. The sentence of imprisonment for life imposed on the accused is confirmed.

(iii) The fine amount of Rs.25.000/- imposed by the trial Court is reduced to Rs, 10,000/. Out of the said fine amount, a sum of Rs.5000/- shall be paid as compensation to P.W. 3 - Sakamma.

(iv) The period of detention undergone by accused during trial and also during pendency of this appeal is given set off as provided u/s 428 Cr.P.C.