State of Karnataka vs G. Praveen

N. Ananda, J.—The respondent (accused) was tried and acquitted of offences punishable under Sections 341, 504 and 307 IPC. Therefore, the State has filed this appeal.

We have heard Sri. Vijaykumar Majage, learned Government Pleader for the State and Sri. R.B. Deshpande, learned counsel for accused.

It is the case of prosecution that P.W.1-Ganesh Kumar and accused were natives of Sarigere village. They had hired a paddy thrashing machine from one Nagappagowda of Umblebylu village. They had taken paddy thrashing machine to the fields of several farmers to thrash paddy and collected charges from them. On 17.12.2006, some differences arose between the two, regarding priority in providing paddy thrashing machine to farmers. On 19.12.2006 at about 12.00 in the afternoon when P.W.1 was coming near the land of one Fakkirappa where paddy thrashing machine was kept, the accused confronted him and assaulted him with a chopper and caused grievous injuries to him with such intention and knowledge that if he had caused death of P.W. 1 he would have been held guilty of an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.

The prosecution has relied on evidence of injured witness namely P.W.1-Ganesh Kumar and evidence of P.W.5-Lakshmana, P.W.6-Thimmappa and P.W.14-Dr. R.N. Raikar.

P.W.14- Dr. R.N. Raikar had examined P.W.1-Ganesh Kumar in Mc. Gann Hospital at Shimoga. P.W.14 has deposed that on 19.12.2006 at about 2.00 p.m., he examined P.W.1-Ganesh Kumar in Mc. Gann Hospital at Shimoga and found following injuries:

"1. Incised wound (penetrating) over the left side of forehead, two in numbers each of size of 2" x 1" outer table of bone fracture seen.

Incised wound over the left leg middle two in number each of size of 3" x 2" with both bones fracture

Lacerated wound over the terminal phalanx of left thumb measuring 1/2" x 1/2"

Penetrating wound over the right thigh lateral aspect measuring 1" x 1"

Incised wound over the left upper arm measuring 2" x 1/4."

When P.W.1 was being treated in Mc. Gann Hospital at Shimoga, the jurisdictional police inspector came and recorded his statement in the presence of Medical Officer, on the basis of which crime was registered. The statement of injured is marked as per Ex. P1. In Ex. P1, the injured (P.W.1) has given details of assault and he has stated that when he was returning from the field at about 12.00 noon in the afternoon, the accused confronted and assaulted him with a chopper. He fell down and he was rescued by the witnesses.

P.W.1-S.Ganesh Kumar has deposed about the incident of assault. P.W.1 has deposed; that accused and P.W. 1 were providing thrashing machine to the farmers which they had hired from one Nagappagowda of Umblebylu village; they were collecting charges from farmers; on 17.12.2006 they had completed thrashing of paddy in the land of one Gundappa; P.W.1 told the accused that they should shift paddy thrashing machine to the land of one Fakkirappa; the accused did not agree and he insisted that paddy thrashing machine should be taken to the field of some other farmers; P.W. 1 told accused that Fakkirappa is a big farmer and he should be given priority; there was exchange of words between P.W.1 and the accused; on 19.12.2006, they started thrashing paddy with the help of paddy thrashing machine in the land of Fakkirappa; the accused also came to the place at about 9.00 a.m.; they completed thrashing of paddy by 12.00 noon; P.W.1 was proceeding towards his house; when P.W.1 walked a distance of 200 feet, the accused confronted him and assaulted on his head and left lower limb with a chopper; P.W.1 cried for help; some of the witnesses came there; the accused threw the chopper and ran away from that place.

P.W. 1 has deposed; that he had suffered fracture of left lower limb and injuries on other parts of the body; he was taken to Umblebylu on a motorcycle and thereafter, he was taken in a car to Mc.Gann Hospital at Shimoga; the jurisdictional police officer came to the hospital and recorded his statement; P.W.1 had given his bloodstained clothes to the police.

During cross-examination, the defence has made an unsuccessful attempt to establish that P.W. 1 had enmity with his brothers and other villagers, therefore, P.W. 1 had been assaulted by some others and he has falsely implicated the accused.

The learned trial judge has accepted the defence version.

The law is fairly well settled that injured person would not spare the real assailant to implicate the accused. Therefore, we have no reasons to suspect the evidence of P.W.1.

In the pre-paragraph, we have narrated the injuries suffered by P.W.1. The medical evidence would lend substantial corroboration to the evidence of P.W. 1.

P.W.2-Prashanth has deposed about the incident of assault. He has stated that he came near the place of incident and found that P.W.1 had suffered injuries on his head and also on his lower limb and he had fallen down. He shifted him from the place of incident at the first instance to Government Hospital at Umblebylu and later to Mc.Gann Hospital at Shimoga.

P.W.2 was declared as hostile witness for resiling from part of his statement. Yet, his evidence would lend corroboration to the evidence of P.W. 1 that he had suffered injuries at the time and place of incident put forth by the prosecution.

The evidence of P.W.3-Shivaram and P.W.4-Chandra is more or less similar to the evidence of P.W.2.

P.W.5-Lakshmana has deposed; that on the date of incident, they had gone to land of one Fakkirappa for thrashing paddy; the paddy was thrashed before 12.00 noon; P.W. 1 left the thrashing floor; the accused followed him; after walking to a short distance, P.W.1 raised hue and cry; P.W.5 and other witnesses came there; the accused was cutting P.W. 1 with a chopper; P.W. 1 had suffered injuries to his head and also on his left lower limbs; P.W.5 and others shifted him to Government Hospital at Umblebylu and later to Mc.Gann Hospital at Shimoga and for further treatment to Manipal Hospital at Mangalore.

During cross-examination, he has reiterated the version given in examination-in-chief. P.W.5 has denied the suggestion that brothers of P.W. 1 had property dispute with P.W.1, therefore, they had assaulted P.W.1.

In the discussion made supra, we have assigned reasons to reject such defence. In our considered opinion, the same reasons hold good to reject the defence version.

P.W.6-Thimmappa had witnessed the incident of assault. He was the operator of paddy thrashing machine of one Nagappagowda of Umblebylu village.

P.W.6 has deposed; that on the date of incident by 12.00 noon, they had completed thrashing work; P.W.1 was going towards his village; the accused also followed him; within few minutes, P.W. 1 raised hue and cry; P.W.6 reached the place of incident; accused was cutting P.W.1 with a chopper; after seeing P.W.6 and other witnesses, accused threw the chopper and left that place; P.W.1 had suffered injuries on his head, left lower limb, left palm and right thigh; at the first instance, P.W. 1 was shifted to Government Hospital at Umblebylu and later to Mc.Gann Hospital at Shimoga.

P.W.6 is an independent witness. He was neither related to P.W. 1 nor he had enmity against the accused. We have no reasons to discredit the evidence of P.W.6.

Thus, from the evidence of injured and other witnesses and also medical evidence, the prosecution has proved that on 19.12.2006 at about 12.00 noon in the afternoon, accused assaulted P.W.1 with a chopper and caused multiple injuries with a chopper in the paddy field of one Fakkirappa of Sarigere village.

The learned Sessions Judge has assigned untenable reasons to discredit the evidence of injured witnesses. The learned Sessions Judge has ignored settled principle of law that injured person will not spare the real assailants to falsely implicate some other persons. The learned Sessions Judge has failed to notice that first information was promptly recorded. The learned Sessions Judge has failed to notice that evidence of P.W.1 is fully supported by medical evidence. Therefore, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained.

The next point for consideration is whether the acts committed by accused would attract an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC.

It is established from evidence on record that P.W. 1 and accused were business partners. They had hired paddy thrashing machine from one Nagappagowda of Umblebylu village and they were using paddy thrashing machine to thrash paddy grown by other villagers by taking the machine to their field and they were collecting charges from farmers. They were in this business/activity since 15 days prior to the date of incident. On 17.12.2006, there was some dispute between P.W.1 and the accused whether they should shift paddy thrashing machine to the land of one Fakkirappa or to the land of some other farmers as suggested by the accused. P.W.1 insisted and shifted the paddy thrashing machine to the land of one Fakkirappa. On the date of incident, at about 12.00 noon, they completed thrashing of paddy in the land of Fakkriappa. The incident had taken place when P.W. 1 was returning from the land of Fakkirappa. But for the above differences, P.W.1 and accused were not in inimical. It is probable that incident of assault was preceded by a brief quarrel between P.W. 1 and the accused. In the circumstances, it is not possible to hold that by acts committed by accused, if he had caused the death of deceased, he would have been held guilty of an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. But the fact remains that P.W. 1 had suffered fractures due to assault by the accused with a chopper, which is a dangerous weapon. Therefore, we hold the accused guilty of an offence punishable under Section 326 IPC.

On careful consideration of evidence on record, we do not find any material to hold the accused guilty of offences punishable under Sections 341 and 504 IPC.

We have heard Sri. R.B. Deshpande, learned counsel for accused and learned Government Pleader regarding sentence.

Sri. R.B. Deshpande, learned counsel for accused would submit that P.W.1 and accused were friends. The incident of assault had taken place in a sudden quarrel due to differences that arose between them regarding shifting of paddy thrashing machine. In other words, P.W.1 and accused who were friends and business partners had fallen apart due to above differences. The accused does not bear criminal antecedents. The accused was in judicial custody for a period of 71 days during trial. Therefore, a lenient view may be taken in the matter of sentence.

The learned Government Pleader would submit that this court has taken into consideration the conduct of parties while altering the offence from 307 IPC to 326 IPC. Therefore, there are no mitigating circumstances in favour of the accused.

After hearing learned counsel for parties and taking into consideration background of incident, the relationship between P.W.1 and accused and reason for quarrel, we deem it proper to sentence the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and pay fine of Rs. 50,000/- in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for an offence punishable under Section 326 IPC. We direct payment of compensation of Rs. 40,000/- to P.W.1-Ganesh Kumar out of fine amount to be deposited by the accused.

In the result, we pass the following:

ORDER

The appeal is accepted in part. The impugned judgment is modified.

The acquittal of accused for offences punishable under Sections 341, 504 and 307 IPC is confirmed.

The accused is convicted for an offence punishable under Section 326 IPC. The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and pay fine of Rs. 50,000/- in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for an offence punishable under Section 326 IPC. Out of the fine amount, a sum of Rs. 40,000/- shall be paid as compensation to P.W.1-Ganesh Kumar.

The period of detention undergone by the accused during trial is given set off as provided under Section 428 Cr.P.C.

Office is directed to send back the records along with a copy of this judgment. The learned Sessions Judge shall secure the accused and implement the sentence in terms of this judgment.