Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
P.N. DESAI, J.
Babajan Modinsab Tahashildar - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Karnataka, Repd. By Annigeri P.S., Repd. By State Public Prosecutor - Respondent
Crl.A.No.2783 Of 2012
Decided On : 03-03-2022
IPC - Criminal Law - Section 307, Section 326 - The court re-evaluated the evidence and found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 324 of IPC. The conviction and sentence for Section 307 and 326 were set aside and modified to Section 324. The accused was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 9 months and a fine of Rs.1,000.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant/accused was convicted for the offence under Section 307 and 326 of IPC for assaulting his wife and sister-in-law. The prosecution's case was based on the quarrels between the women in the family and the injuries sustained by them, leading to the filing of the case.
Finding of the Court:
The court re-evaluated the evidence and found that the prosecution failed to prove the accused's intent to cause grievous hurt or death. The court concluded that the accused could be found guilty for the offence under Section 324 of IPC based on the evidence.
Issues: The main issue was whether the accused's actions constituted the offences under Section 307 and 326 of IPC, and if the prosecution had proved the accused's intent to cause grievous hurt or death.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the evidence did not support the conviction under Section 307 and 326 of IPC, but the accused could be found guilty under Section 324 based on the nature of the injuries and the circumstances of the incident.
Final Decision: The conviction and sentence for Section 307 and 326 were set aside and modified to Section 324. The accused was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 9 months and a fine of Rs.1,000.
JUDGMENT :
1. This appeal arises out of the judgment passed by the III Addl. District and C/C II Addl. District and Sessions Judge Dharwad in S.C.No.130/2010 by judgment dated 23.06.2012 wherein the appellant/accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code (In short ‘IPC’) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.1,000/-and in default of payment of fine he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. The appellant/accused is also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.
2. The appellant in this appeal was the accused before the trial Court. Appellant will be referred as per his rank before the trial Court for convenience. The brief case of the prosecution is that, the appellant/accused and PW.5 are husband and wife. PW.4Salma is the wife of brother of accused by name Imamsab, who is complainant (PW7) in this case. It is the case of prosecution that the wife of Imamsab–PW.7 by name Salma and the wife of accused by name Chandbee were quarreling everyday in the house for last two to three months before the date of offence in respect of some domestic work. Both the complainant and accused advised them not to quarrel with each other and not to bring disrespect to their house and cause disturbance in this family. PW.7-Imamsab and accused were frustrated by quarrel by their wives. It is the case of prosecution that on 16.08.2009 at about 12.30 midnight in the house of the accused which is situated at Annigere, the accused assaulted both PW.4Salma and PW.5-Chandbee with a sickle and caused them injuries. They screamed for help. At that time quarrel was pacified by complainantPW7. Then, accused fled from the house. Injured were taken to hospital at Annigere and subsequently, they were sent to KMC Hospital, Hubballi. Thereafter, the SHO received the information and sent police constable to hospital, who recorded the statement of complainant as per Ex.P5 and registered the case in Crime No.115/2009 for the offence punishable under Sections 324 and 307 of IPC and sent the FIR as per Ex.P.13 to the Court.
3. PW.16K.C.Rayamane, PSI who was working as SubInspector has received the phone call and he went to the said house and he found injured both CW.7 Chandbi and CW.6Salma and sent them in Ambulance to Annigere Hospital and thereafter to KMC Hospital, Hubballi. Their, he went to the scene of offence and drawn place of offence panchanama as per Ex.P.6 and seized sickle lying there as per M.O.4 and recorded statement of witnesses. He arrested the accused at Annigere cross. He also recorded the statement of injured witnesses. PW.16 seized the blood stained cloths of the injured under panchanama Ex.P.7 and sent the seized blood stained material for examination of forensic science laboratory. Thereafter, he received wound certificate from the doctor as per Ex.P9 and P10 and received statement from Tahasildar. PW16 also secured sketch of the place of offence, after completing investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence stated above.
4. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate after complying him the provisions of Section 207 committed the case to the Court of Sessions under Section 209 of Cr.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing both the parties framed the charge against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 307 and 326 of IPC. Then prosecution examined 16 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.16 and got marked fifteen documents as Exhibits P1 to P15 and got identified five material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.5. Thereafter, the statement of the accused as required under Section 313(a)(b) Cr.P.C. was recorded. Accused denied the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused has
The intent to commit murder must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, and in this case, it was established that the act fell under grievous hurt.
The court clarified that conviction under IPC Section 307 can be established not just through harm caused but also through the intent of the accused, underlined by consistent eyewitness accounts.
The court upheld the conviction under Section 324 IPC based on consistent eyewitness accounts, while acquitting one appellant due to evidence of his absence during the incident.
Point of Law : Evidence let in by the prosecution has to be assessed carefully and cautiously and it should not be brushed aside. [Para 30]
The judgment emphasizes the importance of corroborative evidence and the need for caution in evaluating the testimony of an inimical witness. It also highlights the impact of non-examination of the I....
Conviction for murder can be reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder if committed in a sudden fight without premeditation, as established in this case.
Intent to kill under Section 307 IPC necessitates specific evidence; absence of concrete proof results in acquittal for grievous intent while confirming lesser charges.
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
