The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3680 CRL.A No. 323 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRL.A.No. 323 OF 2021 BETWEEN: PANIYARAVARA PUTTA @ CHIMMANNA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, S/O BELLI, R/O C/O MANIYAPPANDA NAVEEN NANJAPPA KARADIKOPPA, NOKYA, THITHIMATHI VILLAGE, VIRAJPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT-571218 (BY SRI NAGARAJA REDDY D., ADV.) …APPELLANT AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY GONIKOPPAL POLICE, REP BY SPL PP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGLAORE-560001. (BY SRI CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP) …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 21.01.2020 AND SENTENCE DATED 01.02.2020 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KODAGU-MADIKERI, SITTING AT VIRAJPET Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3680 CRL.A No. 323 of 2021 IN S.C.NO.5014/2019, CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 304(II) OF IPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Though the matter is listed for admission, by consent of
Legal Reasoning
the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. The appellant herein is challenging the validity of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed in S.C.No.5014/2019 on the file of the II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Kodagu-Madikeri, sitting at Virajpet, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304(II) of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.30,000/- with default sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and out of the fine amount, Rs.20,000/- has to be paid as compensation to the father of the deceased. 3. Facts in nutshell for disposal of the appeal are as under: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3680 CRL.A No. 323 of 2021 A complaint was lodged with Gonikoppal Police stating that the complainant was residing with the deceased and accused along with children in the line house situated at Karadikoppa of Nokya Thithimathi village belonging to Naveen Nanjappa. On 10.02.2019, accused and the deceased had been to Thithimathi village. Accused returned at 9.00 p.m. along with Jenukurubara B.Muthanna and told CW-3 that if his elder sister (deceased) does not return home early, he would kill her. At about 9.30 p.m., deceased came home after purchasing few essential things and was in the process of cooking food in the kitchen. At that juncture, all of a sudden, accused picked up quarrel with the deceased and abused her in filthy language alleging infidelity. The quarrel flared up and in the process, the accused is said to have assaulted the deceased with a billhook in between 9.30 p.m. and 10.30 p.m. in the kitchen. Deceased tried to escape from the assault and the accused followed her and further assaulted her in front yard of the house and she was done to death. 4. After registering the case, Gonikoppal police investigated the matter, inter alia arrested the accused and completed the investigation and filed charge sheet. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3680 CRL.A No. 323 of 2021 5. Learned Trial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence alleged against the appellant and committed the matter to the Sessions Court for trial. 6. On committal, the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Kodagu-Madikeri, made over the case to II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Kodagu-Madikeri, sitting at Virajpet. The learned Sessions Judge, thereafter, secured the presence of the accused who was in custody and after compliance of Section 207 Cr.PC, framed the charge for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. 7. Accused pleaded not guilty. Therefore, trial was held. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution in all examined 16 witnesses as PWs-1 to 16, and placed on record 49 documents which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P-1 to P-49, besides marking 10 material objects as MOs-1 to 10. 8. On conclusion of recording of evidence, accused statement as is contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.PC was recorded, wherein accused has denied all the incriminatory circumstances and did not choose to place any written - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3680 CRL.A No. 323 of 2021 submission on record placing his version as is contemplated under Section 313(4) of Cr.PC. 9. Subsequent thereto, learned Trial Judge heard the parties in detail and on cumulative consideration of oral and documentary evidence on record, found that the material required to attract the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC was not made out by the prosecution, but incident has occurred at the spur of moment resulting in loss of a human life. Therefore, convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 304(II) IPC and sentenced him to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and imposed fine of Rs.30,000/-, of which, a sum of Rs.20,000/- was ordered to be paid as compensation to the father of the deceased. 10. Being aggrieved by the same, appellant is before this Court.
Legal Reasoning
11. Sri Nagaraja Reddy, learned Counsel for the appellant reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum, contended that the whole incident has occurred at the spur of the moment, which resulted in loss of life of the deceased who is none other than the sister of the accused. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:3680 CRL.A No. 323 of 2021 12. He further contended that when once the Trial Court has scaled down the offence from 302 IPC to 304(II) IPC, ordering rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and fine of Rs.30,000/- is on the higher side and accused has already spent 5 years 11 months 14 days in custody as of December 2024 and taking note of the same, the sentence ordered by the learned Trial Judge needs to be modified and suitable orders be passed in that regard. 13. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader Sri Channappa Erappa opposes the appeal grounds and also the alternate submission canvassed on behalf of the appellant by contending that the accused was suspecting the fidelity of the deceased and he had already proclaimed with CW3 that if his elder sister (deceased) does not come home early, he would kill her. 14. He further pointed out that accused was well prepared to pick up quarrel. When deceased came home at 9.30 p.m. and was in the process of cooking, and in furtherance to such intention, he picked up quarrel with the deceased and assaulted her with the billhook and the postmortem report injuries would - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:3680 CRL.A No. 323 of 2021 go to show that accused had deliberately assaulted the deceased with an intention to end her life. Therefore, no mercy can be shown to the appellant, and sought for dismissal of the appeal in toto. 15. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. On such perusal of the material on record, the following points would arise for consideration: (1) Whether the prosecution evidence placed on record would be sufficient enough to maintain the conviction of the appellant under Section 304(II) IPC? (2) Whether the appellant has made out a case that the impugned judgment is suffering from legal infirmity and perversity, and does call for interference? (3) Whether the sentence needs a modification? (4) What order? 16. Point nos.1 to 3:- In the case on hand, the material evidence on record would sufficiently establish the homicidal death of the deceased who is none other than the elder sister - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:3680 CRL.A No. 323 of 2021 of the accused. Postmortem report would conclusively establish homicidal death of Parvathi. 17. The prosecution evidence also reveal that accused was suspecting the fidelity of the deceased time and again. The material evidence placed on record would go to show that even on the date of incident, accused has told the other inmates of the house that if the Parvathi does not come home early, he would take away her life. When Parvathi came home at 9.30 p.m. after securing essential household materials and was in the process of cooking, accused went there and picked up quarrel suspecting her fidelity and assaulted her with a billhook. 18. Parvathi sustained blood injuries and in order to escape from further assault, she ran out of the house. Accused chased her and assaulted her further and whereby Parvathi fell down on the front yard. Within 15 minutes therefrom, she died and the incident was intimated to the police. 19. Gonikoppal police visited the spot, conducted inquest mahazar and shifted the dead body to the hospital and postmortem examination was conducted. Blood samples found - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:3680 CRL.A No. 323 of 2021 in the kitchen as well as in the front yard were collected. Blood stained mud were also collected. The incident has been witnessed by Praveen. He has supported the case of the prosecution. He has also stated that since the accused was holding billhook in his hand, with fear they did not rescue Parvathi. 20. All these aspects of the matter when viewed cumulatively, the homicidal death of Parvathi on account of the assault made by the accused stands established by placing cogent and convincing evidence on record. 21. However, the learned Trial Judge is of the opinion that weapon like billhook would be available in the houses of the coffee planters is natural. Therefore, there was no preparation and motive established by the prosecution by placing cogent evidence on record and therefore, all ingredients to establish the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC is not made out by the prosecution and has rightly convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304(II) IPC. 22. Learned High Court Government Pleader, however tried to impress upon the Court that the incident is tracable under - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:3680 CRL.A No. 323 of 2021 Section 304(I) IPC instead of Section 304(II) IPC, inasmuch as, the accused had proclaimed with the other inmates of the family that he had every intention to take away the life of the deceased as he was suspecting her fidelity. 23. However, in an appeal by the accused, this Court cannot convict the appellant for the higher offence. The prosecution for the reasons best known to it did not choose to file appeal challenging the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 304(II) IPC. 24. In order to appreciate the alternate submission on behalf of the appellant, it is just and necessary for this Court to cull out Section 304 IPC, which reads as under: "304. Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.- Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:3680 CRL.A No. 323 of 2021 with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death." 25. On meticulous consideration of Part II of Section 304 IPC, makes it very clear that the Court has got discretion to impose imprisonment or fine in case the offence is under Part II of Section 304 IPC. 26. In other words, under Section 304(I) IPC, there is a compulsion for the convicting court to impose both imprisonment and fine, but in case of Section 304(II) IPC, the court has got discretion to impose punishment or fine, or both. 27. Therefore, the learned Trial Judge has deemed it fit to impose sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment and pay fine of Rs.30,000/-. Sri Nagaraja Reddy impressed upon the court that till the end of December 2024, the accused has already undergone imprisonment for a period of 5 years 11 months 14 days and in view of Prison Rules, he is entitled to 11 months 12 days as remission period. Therefore, suitable orders be passed by modifying the sentence from 10 years to reasonable period. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:3680 CRL.A No. 323 of 2021 28. Taking note of the attendant circumstances of the case, since the deceased was a widow and was taking shelter in her parental house and the accused being the inmate of the house, this Court is of the considered opinion that for the offence punishable under Section 304(II) IPC, 10 years of rigorous imprisonment is on the higher side. 29. Therefore, this Court needs to exercise its discretion in the appellate jurisdiction in modifying the sentence. 30. Taking note of the attendant facts and circumstances of the case, if the imprisonment period is reduced till end of April 2026, ends of justice would be met by maintaining the fine amount of Rs.30,000/- taking note of the fact of the financial conditions of the appellant. 31. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the material on record would be sufficient enough to maintain the conviction and there is no legal infirmity or perversity in the impugned judgment, but sentence needs a modification. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:3680 CRL.A No. 323 of 2021 32. Accordingly, point no.1 is answered in the affirmative, point no.2 in the negative and point no.3 partly in the affirmative. 33. Point no.4:- In view of the finding of this Court on point nos.1 to 3 as above, the following order is passed. (i) Criminal appeal is allowed in part; (ii) While maintaining the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 304(II) IPC, the sentence imposed by the learned Trial Judge ordering rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years is modified and appellant is directed to serve sentence till 30.04.2026; (iii) The fine amount, if not already deposited, the appellant is required to undergo default sentence as ordered by the learned Trial Judge; (iv) Office is directed to return the Trial Court records with a copy of this order for passing the modified conviction warrant. KK Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE