IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
K. SOMASHEKAR, T.G.SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
Sri Durugappa, S/o Hanumanthappa – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.800 of 2016
Decided on : 16-09-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302, 201, 300, 304(1), (II), 201 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 207, 209, 233 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 165 - Murder Offence – Appeal Against Conviction - Whether act of accused is a culpable homicide not amounting to murder - Whether prosecution is able to explain that accused has intentionally committed murder of his wife within ambit of Section 300 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. [Para 59]
Finding of the Court: Intention of accused to commit murder of deceased is not explained through required evidence - Therefore, trial court has lost sight that case falls within purview of Exception-1 of Section 300 of IPC, so as to bring home guilt of accused for offence punishable under Section 304 of IPC - In fact, evidence did point out and suggest that alleged incident was without any intention and it is because of fit of anger that has been created by deceased in refusing physical contact with accused - Thus, in Court opinion, offence committed by appellant/accused was only 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' - Under these circumstances, Court is inclined to bring down offence from first degree 'murder' to 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' punishable under Second Part of Section 304 of IPC - Having regard to age of accused, who is having two children to look after and accused is in incarceration and he has already undergone sentence from more than 8 years 5 months 12 days, which is sufficient sentence for offence under Part II of Section 304 and sentence of imprisonment awarded by trial court for offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC is sufficient and calls for no interference, therefore, period already undergone is sufficient sentence for accused to undergo and more so, shall be held to run concurrently.
Result: Appeal partly allowed.
JUDGMENT :
This Appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.10.2015 rendered by the Trial Court in Sessions Case No.102/2014, sentencing the appellant/accused to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC') and simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 201 of IPC.
2. Heard the arguments of Sri.Javeed.S., learned counsel representing the appellant/accused and Smt.Rashmi Jadhav, learned HCGP representing the respondent/State. Perused the impugned judgment and the evidence relied by both sides.
3. The case pleaded by the prosecution is that, the appellant/accused (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') was married to one Smt.Anitha. Both were residents of Hiremegalagere village of Davangere taluk. The accused was addicted to bad vices, such as, drinking alcohol, it was a routine everyday and for this reason, his wife was not entertaining him for physical contact and for this reason, he used to quarrel against her that she is not coming in contact physically with him and hence, he was suspecting her fidelity and doubted that she had an illicit relationship with some one else and due to this, he had a motive against her to commit her murder and was prosecuting ill-will.
4. On 02.04.2014 at about 7.00 p.m., when the deceased Anitha had gone to attend the nature call near tank canal, the accused in prosecution of his intention to commit her murder has purchased a blade from the shop of PW-16/Parashurama and followed the deceased and on canal bund, he took out a quarrel against her that she is not coming for physical contact and that she had an illicit relationship with someone else and caught-hold of her and pushed her to the ground and by means of blade purchased from the shop of PW-16, he slit the throat and committed her murder. In order to destroy the evidence so as to screen from the allegation of murder, he thrown the dead body near a tree and put weeds and concealed the dead body and had returned back to village. From there, the accused came to Renuka Bar and Restaurant situated at Hiremegalagere village, at that time, while he was purchasing liquor, PW-14/Ninganagouda Patil observed that there were bloodstains on his cloth and he was keeping 'Thali' in his shirt pocket. PW-13/Nagappa Chandrappa had seen the deceased going to attend the nature call towards the canal and PW-7/Bullapurada Mallikarjuna and PW-12/Swandera Ningappa had seen the accused following the deceased towards canal bund.
5. PW-10/Shasappa, the father of the deceased on the next day morning came to know about the incident and set the criminal law into motion by filing a complaint under Ex.P2. PW-18/Gururaja, PSI of Arasikere Police Station registered the FIR/Ex.P8 and apprehended the accused, recorded voluntary statement of the accused, bloodstained cloths of accused was seized under Ex.P14/mahazar, later conducted the spot panchanama in the presence of PW-1/K.Basavarajappa and PW-2/Kariya Dandeppa and thereafter, conducted the inquest in the presence of PW-4/Hanumanthamma. The accused took the Police to the spot and shown the blade used for commission of the offence as per M.O.3/blades where mahazar/Ex.P3 was drawn and blood stained soil was also collected. During the course of investigation, spot mahazar was drawn as per Ex.P6 in the presence of PW-9/Anjinappa and PW-10/Shasappa, where the betel lime-box used by the accused as per M.O.4, bloodstained broken bangle pieces of the deceased as per M.O.5 and bloodstained soil as per M.O.6 were also seized under Ex.P6/mahazar. The accused is in judicial custody since 05.04.2014.
6. PW-23/R.Hanumanthappa is the Investigating Officer, who recorded the statement of the witnesses and PW-19/Rudrappa, CPI collected th
Shivappa Budappa Kolkar @ Buddappagol -vs-State of Karnataka and Others
Part II of Section 304 of IPC comes into play when the death is caused by doing an act with knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but there is no intention on the part of the accused either to ....
Section 106 of the Evidence Act reads Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge – When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.
Section 304 of IPC, 1860 which reads as Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Section 304 Part II IPC relates to punishment but without any intention to cause death.
The judgment emphasizes the high standard of proof required in cases based on circumstantial evidence and the need for a complete chain of events connecting the accused with the crime.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the evidence of eyewitnesses, the injured witness, and the medical evidence played a crucial role in establishing the guilt of the accused bey....
The court reaffirmed that, in criminal cases, the prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in circumstantial evidence cases. Failure to meet this standard leads to acqui....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.