Back
2018 Supreme(Kar) 325
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH
G. NARENDAR, K.SOMASHEKAR, JJ.
Moulasab S/O Hussainsab Shiggavi – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka R/By Its Addl. State Public Prosecutor – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 100035 of 2015
Decided On : 31-08-2018
For the Appellant :Sri. Mahesh Wodeyar, Advocate
For the Respondent: Sri. V.M. Banakar, Addl. Sppl.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the re-evaluation of the offence from murder under Section 302 of the IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II of the IPC.
Headnote:
Conviction - Murder - IPC Section 302 - The court found the accused guilty of murdering his wife by assaulting her with a stone. The judgment was challenged, and the court re-evaluated the evidence and concluded that the offence fell under Section 304 Part II of the IPC instead of Section 302. The accused's period in custody was considered as service of sentence.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was convicted for the murder of his wife, who sustained fatal injuries and died at the scene of the crime. The prosecution relied on witness testimonies and evidence of the assault with a stone.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence did not prove the accused's guilt beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. It concluded that the offence fell under Section 304 Part II of the IPC and set aside the original conviction.
Issues: The main issue was whether the accused's actions constituted murder under Section 302 of the IPC or fell under Section 304 Part II of the IPC due to lack of intention to cause death.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the evidence, including witness testimonies and the nature of the injuries, and determined that the offence did not meet the criteria for murder under Section 302 of the IPC. It re-evaluated the legal provisions and concluded that the offence fell under Section 304 Part II of the IPC.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed in part, and the accused's conviction under Section 302 of the IPC was set aside. The court convicted the accused under Section 304 Part II of the IPC and considered the period in custody as service of sentence.
This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned 1st Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Dharwad, sitting at Hubli, in S.C. No. 34/2007 dated 30.01.2008 convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. By its said judgment and sentence, the accused is sentenced and directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to pay the fine amount, he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months.
2. The factual matrix of the appeal is as under :
The accused is the husband of the deceased Gudumabi. That the accused as well as his wife including their children were residing in the house bearing no. 295/2 situated at Kubihal village, Taluk Kundagol. For the last two years the accused was suspecting the fidelity of his wife Gudumabi and he intended to do away with her life. On the intervening night of 30.10.2006 and 31.10.2006 the accused along with his wife was sleeping inside a portion of their house. P.W.6 and P.W.7 were also sleeping in the front yard of the said house. That at about 1:30 hours the accused is held to have committed murder of his wife, Smt.Gudumabi by assaulting her with a stone marked as M.O.1, i.e., he assaulted on a part of her head. Due to the assault made by means of a stone, his wife Gudumabi sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to the injuries at the scene of crime which is within the house of accused.
In pursuance of the act of the accused and on filing of the complaint by the complainant, i.e., P.W.1, being the brother of the deceased a crime came to be registered for the offence punishable u/S 302 of IPC. Subsequently the case has been taken up for investigation by the Investigating Officer and after a detailed investigation of the case has laid the charge sheet against the accused before the committal Court for the aforesaid offences.
The trial Court framed charge for an offence u/S 302 of IPC and as the accused did not plead guilty but claimed to be tried. The prosecution in order to establish the guilt of the accused, in all examined P.Ws.1 to 17 and got marked several documents as per Exs.P.1 to 15 and material objects as M.Os.1 to 14 were got marked. Subsequently the incriminating statements recorded against the accused were examined as contemplated u/S 313 of Cr.P.C. as wherein the accused has denied the truth of the evidence, the prosecution adduced so far. Subsequently heard the arguments advanced by the prosecution and the learned counsel for the accused. On appreciation of the entire evidence on record relating to the commission of murder of Gudumabi being the wife of the accused, the trial Court was convinced with the evidence putforth by the prosecution and held him guilty and convicted him for the offence u/S 302 of IPC. It is this judgment which is under challenge in this appeal.
3. In this appeal we have heard arguments of learned counsel appointed by the Karnataka State Legal Services Committee, Dharwad, namely, Sri Mahesh Wodeyar and the learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the records of the case.
4. Whereas the learned counsel for the appellant-accused in this appeal has taken us through the evidence of P.W.1-Moulali Sattarsab Sunkad, who being the brother of the deceased Gudumabi and P.W.2-Hatelsab Moulasab Mulla, P.W.4-Mukthumsab Hussainsab Shiggavi, P.W.6-Dilshadbegum, P.W.7-Mehaboobsab Moulasab Shiggavi. These witnesses have been examined by the prosecution relating to the motive for commission of the offence. The prosecution has placed much reliance on this evidence to prove the charge against the accused. That the accused had confessed before P.Ws.1 and 4 that he has committed murder of his wife Gudumabi by assaulting her by means of M.O.1-stone. P.W.1 is none other than the younger brother of the deceased.
5. He is residing in Panigatti village of Shiggavi taluk. The said taluk is situate
