Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH
K.Somashekar, M.I.Arun, JJ.
Sunanda W/o. Manjunath Hubballi - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Karnataka by Kalaghatagi Police Station, R/By State Public Prosecutor – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.100302 of 2018
Decided On : 24-03-2021
MURDER - Evidence, Indian Penal Code - Section 302, Section 106, Section 134 - The court discussed the evidence presented, including witness testimonies, and found that the accused committed the murder of her husband. The court also referred to legal provisions such as Section 106 and Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act to establish the burden of proof and the quality of evidence required for conviction. The court cited a Supreme Court case to support its decision. The court concluded that the accused failed to discharge the burden of proof and proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was alleged to have committed the murder of her husband by assaulting him with a crowbar in their house. The trial court convicted the accused for the offence punishable under section 302 of IPC and sentenced her to life imprisonment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the accused failed to discharge the burden of proof. The court also concluded that the incident was a case falling under exception 4 to section 300 of IPC and should be considered as culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Issues: The issues included the delay in lodging the complaint, the quality of evidence presented by the prosecution, and whether the accused intended to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied legal principles such as the burden of proof under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act and the quality of evidence required for conviction. The court also considered exception 4 to section 300 of IPC to determine the nature of the offence.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal in part, reducing the conviction from section 302 to section 304 Part-I of IPC and the sentence from life imprisonment to ten years.
JUDGMENT :
M.I. ARUN, J.
Aggrieved by the judgment dated 20.4.2018, in S.C.No.147/2017, passed by the Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, the accused therein has preferred this appeal.
2. In the instant case the accused is alleged to have committed the murder of her husband.
3. Based on the case of prosecution, the trial Court framed the following charge against the accused.
4. The prosecution to prove its case examined 22 witnesses and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.28(a) and also MO.1 to MO.14. The defence did not examine any witnesses but got marked Ex.D.1 to D.3. Based on the evidence let-in, the trial Court convicted the accused for the offence punishable under section 302 of IPC and passed following sentence.
Accused is entitled to set off as contemplated under section 428 Cr.P.C.
M.O.Nos.2 to 14 being worthless shall be destroyed after expiry of the appeal period and if appeal is filed only after disposal of the appeal. MO No.1 shall be confiscated to the State after expiry of appeal period.
Free copy of the judgment be supplied to the accused. Issue conviction warrant accordingly.”
5. Aggrieved by the same, the accused has filed the above appeal. It is contended by the accused that, the trial Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence, has relied upon unreliable and interested witnesses, has failed to appreciate that majority of the witnesses have turned hostile and due to lack of proper appreciation of evidence has convicted the accused erroneously. On the said ground the appellant has sought for acquittal of the accused. It is further contended, though the accused does not admit as to commission of the offence even if this Court were come to the conclusion that the offence is proved as against accused, given the nature of the offence, she cannot be convicted for section 302 of IPC and her sentence has to be reduced to section 304 Part II of IPC.
6. Ex.P.1 is the complaint. The same is lodged before the jurisdictional police by the brother of the deceased (brother-in-law of the accused). In the said complaint it has been stated that the deceased was living with his wife and children in the house of his father-in-law. The deceased and the accused suspected each other and were quarrelling regularly. That the complainant used to advice and send them back. That on 14.6.2017 when the complainant was passing by the house of the deceased, he heard quarrelling going on in the house and he went inside the house and saw the accused assaulting the deceased with an iron crowbar, on his head, ear and back of the head. At that time when he asked why she was assaulting the deceased, she stated that there was a dispute as to withdrawal of money from the bank in respect of a land which resulted in a quarrel and with an intention of killing him, she was assaulting. That the deceased fell down crying and died. In his examination-in-chief he has stated similarly. However in the cross-examination he has stated that he heard quarrelling going on in the house of the deceased and by the time he went inside, the accused had completed the assault on the deceased and the deceased had already fallen to the ground.
7. The complainant thereafter has gone and lodged complaint before the jurisdict
The burden of proof, quality of evidence, and the application of exception 4 to section 300 of IPC in determining the nature of the offence.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between culpable homicide and murder under the Indian Penal Code, and the assessment of the accused's knowledge and intention in....
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.
In Exception 4-culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without offender having taken undue advantage or....
Section 299 relates to causing death by doing an act with intention of causing death or with intention of causing bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
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 ....
The court ruled that the offence committed was culpable homicide not amounting to murder due to mutual provocation and a sudden fight, thus altering the conviction.
Grave provocation by the deceased towards the accused's wife leads to a conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Exception I of Section 300 IPC.
The conviction for murder under Sec. 302 IPC can be sustained based on the testimony of a sole eyewitness, provided the evidence is credible and corroborated, and the intent to kill is established th....
The court determined that the accused's actions constituted culpable homicide not amounting to murder due to the absence of premeditation and the nature of the altercation, altering the conviction fr....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
