Manchanaika vs The State of Karnataka

N. Ananda, J.—The appellant (hereinafter referred to as ''accused'') was tried for an offence punishable u/s 307 IPC and convicted for an offence punishable u/s 326 IPC. Therefore, accused is before this court. I have heard learned counsel for accused and learned SPP for State.

The case of prosecution rests upon evidence of injured PW 2-Jayamma (wife of accused) and their son PW 4-Siddappa. The prosecution has also relied on evidence of PW 5-Dr. Hemalatha and evidence of immediate post-occurrence witnesses namely PW 1-B.S. Ankanaika, PW 3- B.M. Chikkanna, PW 7-Swamynaika and PW 8-Siddinaika. The prosecution has relied on the report of Chemical Examiner to prove that place of incident (floor of the house of accused) was stained with human blood.

PW 2-Jayamma is the wife of accused PW 2 has deposed; that she had married accused about 20 years prior to the date of incident; they have two children by their marriage; their eldest son is PW 4-Siddappa and second son is Chikkanna; accused was suspecting her character; on the date of incident, accused picked up a quarrel; at about 5 a.m., on the date of incident, accused assaulted PW 2 with a hammer; PW 2 suffered injury to her chin; eight of her teeth fell on the floor and some of her teeth were extracted in hospital; PW 2 was treated in hospital for about 20 days; police had recorded her statement and registered the case.

During cross-examination, PW 2 has deposed even before the date of incident, accused was assaulting her. PW 2 has denied suggestion that she has given false evidence at the instance of her brother (PW 1-Ankanaika).

As could be seen from evidence of PW 2, the place of incident of assault has not been disputed. The suggestion put to PW 2 that she was not assaulted by accused and she had falsely implicated accused at the instance of her brother (PW 1) does not stand to reason.

PW 4-Siddappa is the elder son of accused and PW 2. PW 4 did not have grudge or grievance against his father. He did not have bias in favour of his mother (PW 2). PW 4 is an independent witness. PW 4 had nothing to gain by falsely implicating accused. PW 4 has deposed about the incident of assault. He has deposed; his father (accused) assaulted his mother (PW 2) with a hammer. From cross-examination of PW 4, we find that PW 4 had no reasons to falsely implicate his father (accused). There are no reasons to suspect the evidence of PW 4. The evidence of PW 2 is corroborated from evidence of PW 4 (her elder son).

PW 5-Dr. Hemalatha had examined the victim (PW 4) at 2 p.m., on 30.09.2006 in JSS Hospital at Mysore and found following injuries:-

I. Sutured wound over lower lip towards right side.

II. Swelling and tenderness present on both sides of mandibular region, bluish, movements of jaw and mouth not possible.

III. A cut lacerated wound measuring 1" x �" over right parietal region posteriorly.

PW 5 has deposed that injuries 1 to 3 could be caused by a blunt object like a hammer. PW 5 has deposed that injury No. 2 is grievous in nature.

Thus, we find direct evidence of injured (PW 2) is supported by medical evidence. In addition to this, we have evidence of post-occurrence witnesses namely PW 1-Ankanaika, PW 3-B.M. Chikkanna, PW 8-Siddinaika and PW 9-Manchanaika These witnesses have given consistent evidence that on the date of incident at about 5 or 5.30 a.m., PW 2 had suffered injuries due to assault by her husband (accused) with a hammer and PW 2 had fallen down.

PW 9-Manchanaika has deposed; accused had made an attempt to commit suicide; PW 9 prevented accused from committing suicide.

The conduct of accused would also lend corroboration to the case of prosecution. Therefore, learned trial Judge was justified in holding that accused had assaulted his wife (PW 2) and caused afore-stated injuries.

The learned trial Judge having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also having regard to subsequent attempt made by accused to commit suicide held accused guilty of an offence punishable u/s 326 IPC. The learned trial Judge having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, nature and severity of injuries, sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for an offence punishable u/s 326 IPC.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the conduct of accused before the incident and after the incident and motive for assault, I do not find any mitigating circumstance in favour of accused. Therefore, I pass the following:-

ORDER

The appeal is dismissed.