Puttaramu vs State of Karnataka

A.S. Pachhapure, J.—The appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence for the offence punishable u/s 307 IPC on a trial held by the Fast Track Court at Ramanagaram. The facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal are as under:

There is a civil dispute between PW-2 and the appellant for one gunta of land. On 18.11.2002 in the morning at 8.30 a.m. PW-2 Krishna Shetty went to answer the call of nature near a tank and while proceeding towards his land, the appellant who was hiding in a bush with a weapon in his hand said to have chased him and assaulted him with the back portion of the sickle. PW-2 sustained fracture of mandible. He was treated by PW-6 Dr. Ramakrishna. A complaint of this incident was filed by PW-1, wife of PW-2, as per Ex. P1 and after registration of the complaint, the spot mahazar Ex. P2 was held in the presence of PW-5 and another. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. The sickle M.O. 1 was sent for the opinion of the expert. Ex. P5 FSL report was secured. After collecting the injury certificate and other details, charge sheet came to be filed against the appellant for the offence punishable u/s 307 of IPC.

During the trial, the prosecution examined PW-1 to PW-7, got marked the documents Ex. P1 to Ex. P6 and produced M.O. 1 The statement of the appellant was recorded u/s 313 of Cr. P.C. No defence evidence was led.

The trial court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of the material on record, convicted the appellant for the charge u/s 307 of IPC and ordered him to undergo R.I. for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default, to undergo R.I. for six months.

Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the present appeal is filed.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned High Court Government Pleader.

The point that arises for my consideration is:

Whether the appellant has made out any ground to warrant interference in the conviction and sentence ordered by the trial court for the charge u/s 307 of IPC?

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that except the injured and his close relatives, there is no other evidence and therefore, he contends that the trial court committed an error in accepting such evidence and awarding conviction. It is also his submission that there was no intention to cause the death and therefore, the conviction of appellant for the charge u/s 307 of IPC is improper. Alternatively, he submits that the sentence awarded is on the higher side and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, lesser sentence be considered.

On the other hand, the learned High Court Government Pleader supporting the judgment and order of the court below submits that the evidence of the injured is corroborated by the medical evidence and there are no reasons to interfere with the conviction and sentence ordered by the Trial Court.

As could be seen from the evidence led by the prosecution, PW-2 is the injured. PWs 3 and 4 brothers-in-law of PW-2 are the eye witnesses to the incident. PW-1 is the wife of the injured and she also deposes before the court having witnessed the incident.

There was a dispute between the parties in relation to 1 gunta of land and PW-2 and the appellant are cousins. It is on the date of the incident, when PW-2 the injured went to answer the call of nature and was returning to his land, the appellant was hiding in the bush and after chasing him, assaulted with the back side of the sickle. The blow was on the mandible and there was fracture of mandible and there was also an injury on the left side of the neck. The injured was immediately shifted to the hospital and PW-6 has examined him and issued the injury certificate Ex. P3. On perusal of the evidence of PW-6 and injury certificate Ex. P3, it reveals that the examination was done on 18.11.2002 at 12.25 p.m. within few hours of the incident. The injured was admitted with the history of assault. Injury No. 1 was huge swelling on left side of neck and injury No. 2 was step formation at right first premolur and right canine region, occlusion impaired and inability to open the mouth. The doctor on examination of PW-2 has certified that the injury No. 1 is simple whereas injury No. 2 is grievous. PW-2 is the injured witness and the medical evidence also corroborates the evidence of PW-2 and other relatives PWs. 1, 3 and 4.

The injured generally does not implicate innocent and does not leave a person who has really caused harm. On this principle, if the evidence of the injured, his relatives and that of the doctor PW-6 is looked into, there is no reason to disbelieve the version of the prosecution about the assault made by the appellant on PW-2 the injured.

As could be seen from the intention on the part of the appellant, it cannot be said that he was intending to take away the life of PW-2. If it was so, he could have used the sharp edge of the sickle for causing the injury. But he used the blunt end of the sickle in assaulting PW-2 and thereby there was fracture of mandible which is said to be a grievous injury. Therefore, in the absence of any intention to cause the injury, the provisions of section 307 of IPC are not attracted and therefore, his conviction u/s. 307 of IPC is improper and illegal.

Perusal of the material placed on record reveals that PW-2 sustained grievous injury and therefore he has to be charged u/s 326 of IPC. So far as the sentence is concerned, it appears that the appellant was aged about 42 years at the time of incident. He is facing the proceedings for the last eleven years. Taking into consideration this aspect and the fact that there was civil dispute between the parties, reasonable sentence has to be awarded.

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The conviction and sentence of the appellant for the charge u/s. 307 of IPC is set aside. He is acquitted of the same charge. The appellant is convicted and sentenced for the charge u/s. 326 of IPC and he is ordered to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default, to undergo S.I. for one month. The appellant is entitled to set off u/s. 428 of Cr. P.C.

The Trial Court is directed to secure the presence of the appellant to undergo the sentence.