Sharanappa and Ningappa vs State of Karnataka

Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J.—Appeal is by the accused challenging the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the Fast Track Court I, Bijapur in SC 17/2008. Charge sheet was filed against the accused for the offence under Ss. 324, 326, 307, 504, 506 r/w S. 34, IPC. According to the prosecution, the 1st accused was following CW 6 - Lalitha, daughter in law of the complainant and wife of Mallanagouda and teasing her since 3 to 4 months prior to 6th December, 2006. Despite warning/cautioning not to resort to such teasing, the 1st accused continued to do so. When the complainant again cautioned the 1st accused not to resort to such things, being enraged, on 6.12.2006 at 8.00 a.m. the 1st accused along with the 2nd accused, while the complainant was cultivating the land, raised a quarrel with him with an intention to commit his murder and assaulted with the handle of the axe and sticks on the complainant''s back, hip and left leg and voluntarily caused grievous hurt and committed the offence with an intention and knowledge. Hence, the complaint. Since the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, during trial, prosecution examined, in all about thirteen witnesses and got marked about eleven documents and material objects 1 to 3. Thereafter, on hearing, the accused were convicted for the offence under S. 324, 326 and also for the offence under S. 504, 506 and 307 IPC and sentenced the accused for six months, one year and two years imprisonment respectively and also to pay five of Rs. 500/-. Against this order of conviction and sentence, accused are before this Court seeking acquittal.

After investigation, police have filed charge sheet against Sharanappa Biradar and Ningappa Biradar who are claiming to be relatives of the complainant.

The argument of appellants'' counsel is, the alleged offence neither attracts offence under S. 307 nor any other offence and on account of teasing of the daughter in law of the complainant, appellants have been falsely implicated in the case and there is no prima facie case against the accused for the above said offences and even the complainant has turned hostile and none of the eyewitnesses have supported except one witness who is an interested witness. Accordingly, he has sought acquittal.

It is the argument of the Addl. SPP, rightly relying upon the evidence of one of the eye witnesses who is none other than the son of the complainant himself, the accused have been convicted. There is no illegality in the order passed. Accordingly, he has sought dismissal of the appeal.

In the light of the arguments advanced, the points that arise for consideration are-

Whether the prosecution has proved the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt;

Whether the accused intimidated and assaulted causing grievous hurt and also admitted to commit murder of the complainant;

If so, what offence the accused have committed and

What order.

It appears from the evidence on record that none of the eye witnesses has supported the prosecution version except the son of the complainant. Though the complainant has turned hostile, the trial court proceeded to believe the son of the complainant PW 2 and PW 10, the doctor. The history of assault and the assailants is mentioned before the doctor. However, PW 2 has spoken about the incident. The other witnesses have not supported the prosecution version. The half hearted version of the complainant and turning hostile to the version of the prosecution appears to be due to family relation or some other reason. But the fact remains, as per the wound certificate - Ex. P9, complainant has sustained compound fracture, displacement of left leg bone at lower 1/3rd. Out of five injuries, injuries 2 and 3 are opined to be grievous in nature and others are simple injuries. According to the evidence of Doctor/PW 10-Dharmaraya, if a man is assaulted by means of wooden club, the injuries as mentioned in Ex. P9 would be caused. It is also mentioned in the history of assault that complainant was assaulted by one Sharanappa. Even the evidence of PW 2 Mallanagouda is, there was ill-will between the complainant and the accused. According to PW 2, the accused was teasing his wife, despite he advised the accused, they continued to do so. Since the complainant told the accused that Lalitha, wife of Mallanagouda is his daughter by relation and warned them not to tease her, while the complainant was working in the field with PW 2 and his brother spraying medicine to the plants in the field, there was some sound from the direction where his father was working and when he went there, he saw the accused assaulting his father from the handle of the axe due to which, he sustained fracture and bleeding injuries. Of course the other witnesses to the incident have turned hostile. The opinion of the doctor is, the injuries could have been caused due to hard and blunt object. The fact remains that in the circumstances, there was no intention to commit murder of the complainant May be some exchange of words would have taken place by way of abusing and raised voices. That itself is not sufficient to hold the complainant had been alarmed that there was threat to his life as such, there is attempt on his life. The complainant is present before the Court today. Of course he expressed that the accused are related to him. At the most, the nature of overt act and injuries caused would attract offence under S. 325, IPC. Since the complainant has shown leniency and rather is rather trying to make out that no such incident has taken place, there may not be any impediment to permit the accused to compound the offence. The complainant and accused are relatives. In that fact situation, there appears to be no such intention to commit murder of the complainant much less causing any grievous injuries except voluntarily causing hurt as such, the offence would boil down to one under S. 325 in stead of S. 324 and 326, IPC. Since there is scope for compromise and courts do permit the parties to go for some settlement. Since both the parties are relatives, the complainant who is before the court expressed his consent to acquit the accused. Though the accused are held guilty of the offence as noted above, permitting the accused to compound the offence, accused are acquitted. Ordered accordingly. Appeal is allowed. Order of the Sessions Court is modified acquitting the accused in view of compounding of the offence.