Rayappa vs State of Karnataka

Jawad Rahim, J.—Convicted accused is in appeal against the judgment in S.C. No. 135/2008 convicting him for offences punishable under the provision of Sections 324 and 504 of I.P.C. Heard the appellant''s counsel Sri. M.J. Peerjade and learned Addl. SPP Sri. V.M. Banakar. Perused the records, which reveal:

The initiation of investigation is on the complaint of one Tukaram Bhimappa Dasappanavar, examined in this case as PW-2, submitted to the S.H.O. of Kulgod Police Station on 18.09.2007. He alleged, he is a resident of Kalarkoppa village and cultivating the land of one Karisiddappa Kanavi P.W. 6. There was ill-will between Karisiddappa and the accused. As complainant was cultivating the land of Karisiddappa, the accused also became inimical towards him and declared he would do away with the life of the complainant and also his parents. On 17.09.2007 at 9.30 p.m., when the complainant-PW-2/Tukaram along with PW-5/Yallappa and Basappa Chippalkatti were near their house, accused rushed towards them wielding axe in his hand. He abused the complainant in vulgar language and questioned him why he was cultivating the land of Karisiddappa despite his warning. So saying, in an attempt to kill him, assaulted him causing injuries. When PW-5/Yallappa and Basappa intervened, he left the place. The case was investigated by PW-9/PSI Ravindra and final report was filed in Crime No. 110/2007 raising charge for offences punishable under Sections 307, 504 and 506 of I.P.C. and on completion of investigation, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions in S.C. No. 135/2008.

In the trial that ensued, the prosecution examined nine witnesses, relied on nine documents and two material objects. Accused tendered no evidence, but put up a defence of denial simpliciter. Learned trial Judge analysing the evidence opined, the prosecution evidence outweighs the feeble defence and held prosecution has established felony perpetrated by the accused. However, the learned trial Judge noticing the nature of injuries suffered by the victim held, it was not a case for an offence punishable u/s 307 of I.P.C. and scaled it down to one under Sections 324 and 504 of I.P.C. Consequently, sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, assailing which the accused is in appeal.

Learned counsel Sr. M.J. Peerjade has taken me through the evidence on record, particularly of P.W. 2/Tukaram, to contend there is inconsistency in the evidence read in its totality and infuses no confidence to accept it as a true version. He submits that the case has been registered to subdue him at the instance of the owner of the land, which the complainant was cultivating. Learned counsel did his best to tease out the evidence to show that the so called eyewitnesses to the incident have not tendered evidence in full corroboration. Therefore, it dents prosecution''s case. Reliance is also placed on the cross-examination of these witnesses to show that nexus between the alleged overt-acts of the accused and injuries is not established. Medical evidence is also referred to say that charge u/s 307 or Section 324 of I.P.C. is not sustainable.

In negation of these grounds, learned Addl. SPP, Sri. V.M. Banakar, has rightly referred to the vivid description given by the complainant/Tukaram examined as PW-2. His version speaks of not only the presence of appellant at the place of occurrence, but it describes his overt-acts right from the time he reached the spot. He is alleged to have indulged in abusing him in vulgar language and then attacking with an axe in question Two witnesses namely Karisiddappa and Yallappa are cited. Prosecution has not examined Basappa but, Yallappa has been examined. He has stood by the version given by the victim-PW. 2 and that certainly brings sufficient corroboration on material particulars like attack, use of object by the accused. The other witnesses examined by the prosecution have tendered formal evidence to complete the chain of investigation and filing of the charge-sheet. The seizure of the weapon, seizure of torn cloth of the complainant authenticated by the witnesses is also established. Medical evidence tendered by the prosecution through PW-1/Dr. Raghu Maddu Rathod corroborates the statement of the victim that he has suffered injuries as described in Ex. P-1/Wound certificate. Medical officer''s opinion vide Ex. P2 confirms it. The rough sketch/Ex. P-8 shows situs of the incidence. From such evidence, it could easily be assessed that incident in fact has occurred in which the appellant was the aggressor and the witness P.W. 2 was the victim. However, as rightly observed by the trial court, the victim has not suffered serious injuries, which were likely to be fatal. As the appellant was subjected to trial for an offence punishable u/s 307 of I.P.C., the prosecution had no option but to establish he had intention to commit the murder. Of course, it is not necessary that prosecution should establish victim had suffered injury. Even if an attempt is made to cause fatal injury is sufficient to establish charge u/s 307 of IPC if intention could be inferred.

But, in the facts and circumstances of the case, as could be seen, the appellant/accused had opportunity to cause injury that would prove fatal, but he has restrained his hands. Therefore, the intention to kill the victim is absent. In the circumstances, the mens rea having not been established by the prosecution, charge for an offence punishable u/s 307 of IPC had to fail and has rightly been held so by the trial court.

This takes us to the next question as to what the offence accused has committed. Prosecution has successfully established he is the author of injuries caused to PW-2 and therefore, he has to answer to the said charge. The injuries suffered are grievance in nature though caused by an object. In the circumstances, the conviction recorded by the trial court for an offence punishable u/s 324 of I.P.C. is well-founded which needs no interference. Therefore, it is confirmed.

As regards the charge for an offence punishable u/s 506 of I.P.C. is concerned, learned trial Judge has acquitted the appellant of the said charge. Therefore, it does not arise for consideration.

Further, he has convicted him for an offence punishable u/s 504 of I.P.C. and he has imposed on him separate punishment.

Learned counsel Sri. M.J. Peerjade, would submit that even if this Court reaches the conclusion that finding of guilt recorded by the trial court is fully justified, the sentence imposed may be altered. In this regard, he submits that the accused had no intention nor knowledge that the victim would suffer injuries. While reiterating the defence that accused has not committed the crime, he submits that the punishment of three months imprisonment is harsh.

Such submission has met serious opposition from the learned prosecutor who draws my attention to the fact that wound certificate establishes use of axe by the accused in causing injuries to the left knee of the victim. He submits use of axe spells out the intention of the accused and therefore, he does not deserve any liberty.

It is settled principle of law that even or, proof of guilt, the punishment has to be modulated, taking into consideration all attending circumstances like, the position in which the accused is placed, the nature of injuries caused to the victim and also the felonious propensity, if any, of the accused in committing the crime. The evidence read in totality would show that though the appellant has caused injuries to the victim, he has not acted in a manner which speaks out of brutality or deliberate intention to cause serious harm. It is possible that the civil dispute has translated into criminal act for which the accused has to be properly punished. But, the sentence must relate to the nature of act committed. I, therefore, accept the request of appellant''s counsel to dispense with the punishment of imprisonment.

Section 324 of I.P.C. provides for an alternate punishment of imprisonment which may extend to a term of three years or with fine or with both. This is a fit case where the appellant could be saddled with fine that could be paid as compensation to the victim and that will meet the ends of justice.

In the circumstances, while confirming the conviction of appellant for offences punishable under Sections 324 and 504 of I.P.C., the order regarding sentence passed in S.C. No. 135/2008 dated 23.06.2009 impugned in this appeal is hereby modified. The order regarding sentence of imprisonment of three months is set aside. Instead, apart from fine of Rs. 5,000/- imposed, he is directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for an offence punishable u/s 324 of I.P.C. and similarly, for an offence punishable u/s 504 of I.P.C., he is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- besides Rs. 4,500/- as compensation to the victim, in default, the accused is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of one month and fifteen days respectively.

On recovery of the fine amount, the same is ordered to be paid to the complainant/PW-2-Tukaram as compensation as permissible under the provisions of Sections 357(1) and 357(3) of Cr.P.C.

The appeal is disposed of in terms of this order.