Sathisha vs State of Karnataka

N. Ananda, J.—The appellant (hereinafter referred to as ''accused'') was tried and convicted for offences punishable under sections 354 & 307 IPC. The appellant has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months for an offence punishable u/s 354 IPC. The appellant has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four years and pay fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for an offence punishable u/s 307 IPC. Therefore, he is before this court. If have heard Sri M. Chidananda Kumar, learned counsel for accused and Sri M. Narayana Reddy, learned State Public Prosecutor for State.

It is the case of prosecution that accused is a distant cousin of the husband of P.W. 1-Rajammanni. The house of accused is situate at a short distance from house of P.W. 1. On 09.02.2008 at about 9 p.m., when P.W. 1 was washing vessels in front of her house, accused came from her behind and hugged her and outraged her modesty. P.W. 1 extricated from clutches of accused and ran inside her house. P.W. 1 did not disclose the incident to her family members under the apprehension that reputation of her family would be spoiled. On the following day i.e., on 10.02.2008 at about 10 a.m., P.W. 1 saw accused going in front of her house. P.W. 1 scolded accused for shameful acts committed by him on previous night. P.W. 1 also threatened accused that she would inform the matter to her husband and her brothers-in-law to teach him a lesson. The accused did not respond. On the same day, at about 1 p.m., P.W. 1 had gone to a nearby stream for washing clothes and she was returning to her house. When P.W. 1 was coming near garden land of one Nanjaiah, accused armed with a sickle came from her behind and repeatedly assaulted P.W. 1. P.W. 1 fell down. The accused tried to squeeze neck of P.W. 1. After hearing hue and cry raised by P.W. 1, Rajamma (P.W. 7) and Hanumantha (P.W. 2) came to place of incident and rescued P.W. 1 from hands of accused. The accused left that place. P.W. 1 was shifted to General Hospital at Yelandur. The statement of P.W. 1 was recorded by PSI of Yelandur Police Station and crime was registered against accused for offences punishable u/s 354 & 307 IPC. After completing formalities of investigation, final report was filed against accused for aforestated offences.

In view of conviction of accused for offences punishable under sections 354 & 307 IPC, the following points would arise for determination:--

Whether prosecution has proved that on 09.02.2008 at about 9 p.m., when P.W. 1 was washing vessels in front of her house in Maddur Village, Yelandur Taluk, accused with intention of outraging her modesty came from her behind and hugged her and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 354 IPC?

Whether prosecution has proved that on 10.02.2008 at about 2 p.m., when P.W. 1 was returning to her house near garden land of one Nanjaiah, accused armed with a sickle, repeatedly assaulted P.W. 1 and tried to squeeze her neck with such intention and knowledge by such acts, if he had caused death of P.W. 1, he would have been held guilty of an offence punishable u/s 302 IPC and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 307 IPC?

Whether learned trial Judge has properly appreciated evidence on record?

To what order?

P.W. 1-Pajammanni is the victim. P.W. 1 has deposed; accused is the cousin of her husband; on a certain day about 6 months prior to 08.09.2008 at about 9 p.m., when she was washing vessels near her house; accused came from her behind and hugged her with intention to outrage her modesty. P.W. 1 extricated from clutches of accused and ran inside her house. P.W. 1 did not disclose the incident to her family members least it may bring disrepute to her family; on the following day, when she was near her house, accused was passing in front of her house, at that time, P.W. 1 scolded the accused as to what he had done to her on the previous night she had also told accused that she would inform the matter to her husband and her brothers-in-law and she would teach him a lesson; accused did not react; on the same day, when P.W. 1 was returning to her house after washing clothes, accused armed with a sickle came from her behind and repeatedly assaulted/her; P.W. 1 suffered injuries on her head and her limbs; P.W. 1 raised hue and cry; at that time, witnesses namely P.W. 2-Hanumantha and P.W. 7-Rajamma came and rescued P.W. 1 from hands of accused; accused ran away from that place; P.W. 1 was shifted to General Hospital at Yelandur; after preliminary treatment, police came to hospital and recorded her statement (first information); P.W. 1 was shifted to K.R. Hospital at Mysore and she was admitted and treated in K.R. Hospital at Mysore for one month.

During cross-examination, P.W. 1 has denied suggestion that husband of P.W. 1 had borrowed a sum of Rs. 10,000/- from the father of accused, in order to knock off that amount, P.W. 1 had concocted a story against accused. In my considered opinion, this suggestion is totally untenable.

It is elicited from evidence of P.W. 1 that her husband and accused were sustaining by coolie work. This suggestion is as vague as it could be. If father of accused had lent a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to husband of P.W. 1, it is not understandable as to how husband of P.W. 1 could knock away money by foisting a case against accused. The evidence of P.W. 1 finds substantial corroboration from the contents of medical evidence and the contents of first information.

At the relevant time, P.W. 5-Dr. Nagendra Murthy was working as a Medical Officer in General Hospital at Yelandur and Ex. P.4 is the wound certificate issued by P.W. 5. P.W. 5 has deposed; injured (P.W. 1) had come to hospital with history of assault by one Sathish at about 2.10 p.m., on 10.02.2008 near a channel. P.W. 5 has deposed; that P.W. 1 had suffered following injuries:--

A cut lacerated wound over the lower part of right cheek, extending upto chin measuring 6 cms x 2 cms, muscles exposed, bleeding present;

A cut lacerated wound over lower part of left forearm measuring 5 cms x 4 cms, bleeding present;

Two incise wounds present over right forearm and middle of forearm measuring 2 cms x 1 cm on posterior aspect, bleeding present; incise wound on dorsal aspect of right forearm near little finger measuring 2 cms x 0.5 cm, bleeding present;

Incise wound present over the centre of forehead measuring 2 cms x 0.5 cm between centre of nose measuring 3 cms x 0.5 cm, bleeding present;

An abrasion over lateral aspect of right upper arm measuring 3 cms x 0.5 cm, bleeding present;

An incise wound over centre of occipital area of the scalp measuring 2 cms x 1 cm, bleeding present

P.W. 5 has referred injured (P.W. 1) to KR Hospital at Mysore for further treatment.

P.W. 5 has opined that injury No. 1 is grievous in nature and injuries 2 to 6 are simple in nature. P.W. 5 has denied suggestion that aforestated injuries could be caused when a person is geared by a bull. P.W. 5 has denied suggestion that above injuries could be caused by a fall. There are no reasons to suspect medical evidence given by P.W. 5.

As already stated, P.W. 1 was injured in incident of assault. There are no reasons to suspect her evidence regarding incident of outraging her modesty and assault by accused. The independent witnesses namely P.W. 2-Hanumantha and P.W. 6-Parvathi have deposed that they had witnessed incident of assault. They have deposed that accused was assaulting P.W. 1 with a sickle; they rushed to place of incident and rescued P.W. 1 from hands of accused. They have also deposed; on the following day of incident, police visited place of incident and seized incriminating articles from place of incident; P.W. 2 and P.W. 6 are independent witnesses. They did not have grudge against accused. There are no reasons to suspect their evidence.

During cross-examination of P.W. 2 & P.W. 6, nothing has been elicited to discredit their evidence.

Therefore, I hold prosecution has proved that on 09.02.2008 at about 9 p.m., when P.W. 1 was washing utensils, accused came from her behind and hugged her to outrage her modesty; on the following day, at about 10 a.m., P.W. 1 questioned accused about illegal acts committed by him and threatened that she would inform the matter to her husband and her brothers-in-law and she would teach him a lesson; accused got annoyed; accused was waiting for an opportunity to assault her. When P.W. 1 was returning to her house after washing clothes near garden land of one Nanjaiah, accused armed with a sickle assaulted on her vital parts with such intention and knowledge by such acts, if he had caused death of P.W. 1, he would have been held guilty of an offence punishable u/s 302 IPC and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 307 IPC.

The learned counsel for accused would submit that accused was aged about 26 years at the time of incident; he does not bear criminal antecedents. Therefore, sentence of imprisonment has to be substantially reduced.

The learned State Public Prosecutor would submit that having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, no lenient view is called for in the matter of sentence.

Having heard the learned counsel for parties and also having regard to age factor of accused, I deem it proper to reduce sentence of imprisonment from four years to three years for an offence punishable u/s 307 IPC. At the same time, I deem it proper to enhance fine to suitably compensate P.W. 1-Rajammanni. In the result, I pass the following:--

ORDER

The appeal is accepted in part. The impugned judgment of conviction of accused for offences punishable under sections 354 & 307 IPC is confirmed. The sentence imposed by trial court for an offence punishable u/s 354 IPC is confirmed. The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years and pay fine of Rs. 25,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for an offence punishable u/s 307 IPC. The substantive sentence of imprisonment shall run concurrently. Out of fine amount, a sum of Rs. 20,000/- shall be paid as compensation to P.W. 1-Rajammanni. The period of detention undergone by accused during trial is given set off as provided u/s 428 Cr.P.C.