Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 5789
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR, MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND, JJ
Shivappa, S/o Lokappa @ Lokeshappa – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka, R/by Cpi, Harihara Rural Police Station – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1626 OF 2018 (C)
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :SRI J. S. HALASHETTI, ADVOCATE
For the Respondent: SMT. K. SOWMYA, HCGP
The court affirmed the conviction under Section 302 IPC, ruling that the accused's actions were deliberate and not provoked, rejecting claims for lesser punishment.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 506 - Conviction for murder and criminal intimidation - Accused sentenced to life imprisonment and fine for killing wife during a quarrel over compensation money - Evidence from eyewitnesses established guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 1, 3, 9, 10)
(B) Culpable Homicide - Exceptions to Section 300 - Court found that the accused's actions were premeditated and not provoked, rejecting claims for lesser punishment under Section 304 Part II. (Paras 11, 12)
Facts of the case:
The accused killed his wife during a quarrel over money he received as compensation for an accident. The assault involved multiple attacks with an axe and a crowbar, leading to her death. (Paras 2, 3)
Findings of Court:
The trial court found the prosecution established the accused's guilt through credible eyewitness testimony and corroborative evidence, leading to a conviction under Section 302 IPC. (Paras 9, 10)
Issues: The main issues were whether the conviction under Section 302 IPC was justified and if exceptions to culpable homicide applied. (Paras 11, 12)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the accused's actions were deliberate and not provoked, affirming the trial court's conviction under Section 302 IPC. (Paras 12, 12.1, 12.2)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. ARAVIND)
The accused in S.C. No.72/2017 has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 29.01.2018, passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere. He is sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 302 of IPC , and term sentence for six months with fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 506 of IPC .
2. As per the case of the prosecution, the accused and the deceased were husband and wife. On 04.01.2017, at approximately 4:00 p.m., a quarrel ensued between them, during which the accused sat on the deceased and pressed her neck. The relative of complainant intervened, rescued the deceased and offered her water. However, as the relative of complainant was taking the deceased out of the house, the accused inflicted an injury on her neck with an axe, causing her to collapse. Thereafter, the accused further assaulted the deceased with a crowbar, inflicting injuries on her head. When the relatives of complainant, Latha and Hemakshi, attempted to intervene, the accused chased them away. Hemakshi managed to escape to her house, but the accused followed and damaged her door using the crowbar. As per the complaint, the accused had sustained injuries in an accident and had received compensation. He was demanding the said compensation amount for the purchase of alcohol. Upon the refusal by the deceased to provide the money for this purpose, the accused inflicted grievous injuries upon her, resulting in her death.
3. The police registered the complaint as per Ex.P1 and charge sheet was filed against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of IPC . Upon considering the testimonies of eyewitnesses PWs.6, 8, and 9, the complainant (PW.1) who is the son of the accused, PW.2, the brother of the deceased, PW.10, the brother of the accused, PW.4, the daughter of the accused, along with other circumstantial evidence, the trial court held that the prosecution had established that the accused killed his wife using M.Os.1 and 4. As a result, the trial court convicted the accused under Section 302 of the IPC . Furthermore, the accused was convicted under Section 506 of the IPC for the attack and threats to the lives of PWs.6 and 8.
4. Heard Shri J.S.Halashetti, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-accused and Smt.K.Sowmya, learned HCGP appearing for the respondent-State.
5. Shri J.S. Halashetti, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, contends that the conviction recorded by the trial court is primarily based on the testimonies of eyewitnesses PWs.6, 8, and 9. He argues that their testimonies do not find corroboration from any other evidence. The learned Counsel further submits that the accused did not intend to kill his wife. The quarrel began with the accused manhandling the deceased while demanding money that he had received as compensation for the accident that the accused had been involved in. The actions of accused were driven by anger and frustration when the deceased refused to share the compensation amount. The death of the deceased, according to the learned Counsel, was unfortunate and unintentional. He asserts that the case falls under exceptions to Section 300 of the IPC , and thus, the appropriate punishment should be under Section 304 Part II of the IPC . The learned Counsel concludes that the trial court erred in imposing a sentence under Section 302 of the IPC .
5.1. It is submitted that the oral evidence is not corroborated, except for the testimonies of PWs.6, 8, and 9 concerning the alleged threat made to them. The testimonies of PWs.6, 8, and 9 are inconsistent and contain contradictions. As such, the conviction under Section 506 of the IPC for the offence of criminal intimidation is without foundation and cannot be sustained.
5.2. Smt. K. Sowmya, learned HCGP appearing for the respondent-State, submits that the homicidal death of the deceased,
