Insufficient evidence for attempted murder and arson led to acquittal, while conviction for remaining offences upheld, with sentence modified based on custody period.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard Sri. A. V. Ramakrishna, learned counsel for the appellant and learned High Court Government Pleader for the State.

2. The appellant-accused by name Kumara who has been convicted in S.C.No.96/2009 vide judgment dated 03.10.2013, and sentenced by order dated 11.10.2013, for the offence punishable under Sections 448 , 504, 307, 324 , 427 and 436 of IPC , has questioned the validity of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence in this appeal. The appellant was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four years for the highest offence under Sections 307 and 436 of IPC and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- with a default sentence.

3. Essential factual matrix required for the disposal of the appeal on merits are as under:

3.1. A complaint came to be lodged with Chikmagalur Rural Police by the complainant PW-1 Smt. Sharadamma contending that her daughter Mamatha was sought to be given in marriage to a distant relative by name Kumara (appellant herein).

3.2. However, there were some differences in the said alliance and there was a decision not to marry Mamatha to the appellant. Being enraged with the said decision, on 05.06.2009, at about 12.30 p.m., when complainant was in their house at Malledevarahalli Village, Chikmagalur, along with Mamatha, the accused trespassed into the house of the complainant through cattle shed and picked up quarrel with the complainant, abused her in filthy language and demanded that Mamatha should be given in marriage to him. So demanding, he suddenly attacked the complainant with kathi (chopper) and stabbed on her ribs and caused injury. When Mamatha came to rescue the complainant, the accused attacked Mamatha also with the help of a knife and caused injuries.

3.3. At that juncture, Mamatha dragged her mother outside the house so as to save her life and being further enraged, the accused set fire to the house and destroyed the clothes, cash of Rs.10,000/- and valuable articles like silk sarees, watch, mobile phone, etc.

3.4. Based on the complaint, police registered criminal case against the accused for the offence under Sections 324 , 448, 307, 436 , 504 and 427 of IPC .

3.5. After thorough investigation, charge sheet came to be filed by the police for the aforesaid offences and inter alia arrested the appellant and sent him to judicial custody.

3.6. On receipt of charge sheet, learned Trial Magistrate took cognizance of the offences alleged against the appellant herein and committed the case to learned District Court. The learned District Judge made over the case to I Addl. District Judge who took cognizance of the aforesaid offences and secured the presence of the accused from the judicial custody and framed the charges.

3.7. The accused pleaded not guilty. Therefore, trial was held.

3.8. In order to bring home the guilt of the appellant, prosecution proceeded to examine 11 witnesses as PW-1 to PW-11. Prosecution also placed on record 16 documentary evidence which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P1 to P16.

4. Prosecution also placed on record 13 material objects which were marked as MO-1 to MO-13 consisting of steel knife with black hand, kathi, blue colour blouse, violet colour petticoat, broken steel knife, saree, cement flake with bloodstain, cement flake without bloodstain, etc.

5. During the course of cross-examination of PW- 4, contradictions were elicited which were marked as Ex.D1 and D1(a). A photo was also marked as Ex.D2.

6. On conclusion of recording of evidence, learned Sessions Judge proceeded to record the accused statement as is contemplated under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C ., wherein accused has denied all the incriminatory circumstances put to him which were found in the case of the prosecution, but failed to lead any defense evidence.

7. Thereafter, learned Trial Judge heard the arguments of the parties in detail and on cumulative consideration of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record in a cumulative manner, convicted the appellant for the offence