Hanamantappa Chalawadi v. The State of Karnataka

Headquarters and he was residing there with his mother Smt. Gyanavva, his wife Parvathi, son Baskar and his elder sister P.W. 1 Renuka. ii) A sum of Rs.1 1,000/- was received by P.W. 1 Renuka towards the pensionary benefits of her husband late Durgappa Chalawadi and it was credited to the S.B. account of P.W. 1 in the State Bank of India. The appellant-accused wanted that money. Three days prior to the alleged incident, the appellant-accused demanded P.W. I over the passbook. P.W. I refused to give the money credited to her account. On 10.6.2006, at about 9.00 p.m, the appellant-accused came to to hand the house of P.W.6 Mahantesh. P.W. 1 Renuka, P.W.6 Mahantesh and their mother Gyanavva were taking food. The accused demanded p.w. 1 to give the passbook. P.W.6 told him why he is doing like that. The accused saying, if passbook is not given he would finish them off tried to assault with Then, Gyanavva, the deceased intervened. The accused assaulted her with the knife. She collapsed. The accused assaulted P.W.6 with the knife on his neck, chest and abdomen. .w. 1 Renuka cried. The accused knife. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ i U D C D C J - D C 0 ± - D C - 2 ( D C D C D C D C . ) c D C t - 0 . D C j — D C 0 D C D C Q D C D C i D C Q T ( Q 2 0 - D C 1 D C D C h T ( : i 3 — D C r D C D C D C - D C - D C D C D C Y D C D C - : t ( ‘ D C X D C ( . , X 2 ) 1 < D I ( D C ‘ D C t - c 00 ) \ t D C - r c + - ) 2 / ( D C 0 - D C D C , ) C ( D C 0 V ) r D C D C D C 0 D C D C D C D C 2 / ( 2 i ( D C D C ) C o - - ) C 0 ‘ D C < Q T C D C D C D C V V D C D C c — 2 / ( r D C D C D C - - - D C D C D C D C 2 - C + r D C D C - Q D C D C D C D C m c , ) - D C 2 / ( D C 2 ) 1 o r ) C ‘ i p ; ; _ C — r D C J - D C . V V . - C c

7. The trial Court appreciation of evidence on record has convicted and sentenced the appellantaccused for the offences punishable under Secs302, 307 and 324 of IPC.

8. Aggrieved by that, the appe11antaccused has filed this appeal. 9, The learned counsel appe1lant accused contended that the impugned Judgment and order cannot be sustained in law He also submitted that the trial Court has failed to consider the evidence on record in proper perspective. Further he submitted there is no motive for the offence and the relationship between accused, the deceased and Lhe inj ured was cordial. Further he submitted that recovery of MO3 Knife has not been proved. Re also submitted that the appellant did not intended to cause the death 7 of the deceased and therefore, the trial Court was not justified in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Sec.302 of IPC. He also submitted that P.Ws.8 to 11 have turned hostile. Further he submitted that at the most the offence may fall under Sec.304 part I and not under section 302 of IPC. He therefore, submitted that the impugned Judgment and Order cannot be sustained in law.

10. As against this, the leaned Addl. S.P.P. submitted that the impugned Judgment and Order does not call interference. He also submitted that the Trial Court on proper consideration of the material on record has rightly convicted the accused and therefore, impugned Judgment and Order does not call interference. He also submitted that the case does not fall under section 304 Part I of IPC. He also submitted that the appellant-accused has quarreled with P.W. 1 three days prior to the alleged incident and the 8 prosecution has established motive. Further he submitted the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W.6 is consistent and cannot be disbelieved. Further he submitted that though P.Ws.8 to 11 have turned hostile, P.W.5 and P.W. 18 have supported the prosecution. He also submitted that P.W.6 has suffered injuries to the vital parts of the body and the deceased sustained injuries to her neck and therefore, the impugned Judgment and order does not call for interference.

11. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned Additional SPP.

12. The points that arise for our consideration are: 1) Whether the trial Court was justified convicting appellant-accused offences punishable under Secs. 302, 307 and 324 of PC? 9 2) Whether the offence falls under Sec.304 Part I and not 302 of IPC?

13. The deceased has died homicidal death. Ex.P 7 is the inquest report. Ex.P-38 is the Post Mortem Report. It reveals the following injuries: 1) Abrasion of size /2” x ¼” at the right upper eye-lid. 2) Stab wound transversely situated at the right side of the supra sterna notch, 1 1/2w x 3’/2” deep. On finger examination and inspection, blood clot is seen inside the wound with cut jugular vein and carotid artery which are the main blood supply to the head and neck on right side. 3) Abrasion at the right dorsum of the wrist of size 2” x 1”. The above injuries are ante mortem injuries.

14. P.W.31 -Medical Officer has opined that the death was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of I0 injury No.2 noted in the post mortem report. Therefore, the death was homicidal.

15. P.W.1 and P.W.6 are the injured witnesses.

16. P.W. 1 has deposed that on the date of alleged incident, at about 9 p.m., herself, her mother, brother Mahantesh and his two children were in the house. They were taking food. At that time, the appellant- accused came there. P.W. I asked the accused to take food with them. The accused refused to take food and demanded passbook. P.W.6 told the accused that the passbook is with his mother and asked the accused to go from that place. The accused started quarreling with P.W. 1. At that time, the deceased Gyanavva intervened and advised the accused not to quarrel and go away. The accused took out knife from his packet and stabbed deceased Qyanavva on the front portion of her neck and she collapsed. In the mean while P.W.6 came. The _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ) 0 O C ’ C a ’ C ’ C o D C Q ’ C . — O C ’ ) C C 0 O C ) ’ C ° D C D C O C ) C D C C - - — O C ) ) C 4 O C - ’ C O C ’ C , 4 - ’ C D C ’ C D C - D ) C O C C • O C • 4 - < t r . 4 - C ) C 3 4 - D C ’ ) C O C C ) C D C O C C - 2 O C 0 ) l C ) C 2 3 — ‘ • • D C ) C ’ ) C O C C ’ C D C D C ’ C . i ’ O C D C C ) C ’ C — D C 2 ÷ C - ’ C D C O C ’ C C H O C D C ) C ) C a ’ C “ — O C ’ C ’ C D C — Q • o ’ C 0 ’ C O C D C C Q C . • ’ C ’ ° C — ) C ’ C ) C C O C ’ C D C ) C O C 4 - O C - ) - C D C . - o O C 2 - ) l C C ) ‘ r D ) C ) C ’ o C ’ C ) C o ) C ’ ) C C o ) C ’ C - D C o C ’ C ) C O C ’ D C C ’ C r - D C - ’ O C O C C - Q ’ C ) C O C O C o ) C • ’ O C C D C 4 J \ t r Q ) ) C C ) ) C r c — ‘ ) ’ C C O C r D C L D C O C o J - _ 4 - ’ C 0 , — o a 2 ’ C O C ) C ’ D C C _ o ’ C ’ C ) C * r ’ C 0 , - 0 ’ C ’ C o ) C - 12 intervened and asked the accused not to shout and the passbook will be with his stepmother. The accused got angry. He removed knife from his pant pocket saying “zth z sa”. Thinking that the accused would stab, P.W.6 got up immediately. The deceased Gyanavva intervened. The accused stabbed the deceased with the knife on her neck and she collapsed. Thereafter, the accused stabbed P.W.6 on his chest, abdomen and thighs. P.W. 1 came to the rescue of P.W.6. The accused stabbed P.W. I with the knife on her chest. The accused assaulted Baskar the son of P.W.6. On hearing the cries, the neighbours came there and on seeing them, the accused ran away from the spot with the knife.

18. From the evidence of P.W. I and P.W.6, it is the appellant-accused has stabbed the deceased Qyanavva on her neck, P.W.6 on his chest, a r t I W ) C a W a D C ) 2 D C D C Z 0 . 2 S D C ‘ D C . P D C s a r a . . s 0 D C D C o 0 m 0 D C t 0 P t a m i b a t D C C D C D C D C D C C a y o I D C m D C ’ à o D C a ’ D C D C ‘ 0 D C 0j D a C m ) 2 D C s a . 14

21. Ex.P-32 is the wound certificate of P.W.6 Mahantesh. It is issued by P.W.27. It shows that P.W.6 has sustained stab injuries on his abdomen and left lumbar region. The doctor has opined that the injuries sustained by P.W.6 are grievous in nature and could be caused by sharp weapon like M.O.39.

22. P.W.26 Dr.H.M.Subhashini has deposed that she examined P.W. 1 Renuka on 10.6.2006. There was a stab injury on the right side of the chest measuring 2 cms., muscle deep. She issued wound certificate Ex.P.27. The injury sustained by P.W. 1 was simple in nature.

23. P.W.27 Dr.Sattebod has deposed that P.W.6 was inpatient in KIMS hospital Hubli from 10.6.2006 till

23.6.2006. He was treated in male surgical S Unit. The injuries sustained by P.W.6 are grievous in nature. 15

24. From the evidence of P.Ws.26 and 27 and Exs.P27 and 32, it is clear that P.W. I has sustained simple injuries and P.W.6 has sustained grievous injuries.

25. No doubt, P.Ws. 16 and 29 have not supported the recovery of M.O.3. However, P.W.32, the

1.0. has deposed regarding recovery of M.O.3 at the instance of the appellant-accused. We believe the evidence of P.W.32 and hold that recovery of M.0.3 has been proved.

26. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant-accused that there was no motive for the offence and the accused did not intended to cause the death of deceased and therefore, the offence falls under Sec.304 Part I and not 302 of IPC. We do not find any in this contention. The appellant-accused has I 16 quarrelled with P.W. I three days prior to the alleged incident. Thereafter, on the date of alleged incident, the appellant-accused has gone with the knife and without any provocation has stabbed the deceased and the injured including the child. The circumstances indicate that there was no provocation or heat of passion to commit the crime. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the contention that the offence falls under Sec.304 Part I and not 302 of IPC and accordingly, it is rejected.

27. The evidence on record clearly establishes the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable tinder Sections 302, 307 and 324 of IPC. The trial Court on proper consideration of the material on record has rightly convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 324 of IPC and it does not call for interference. Point Nos. 1 and 2 answered accordingly. 17

28. The sentence imposed by the Trial Court is reasonable therefore, interference. There is rio merit in this appeal and therefore, the appeal is liable to he dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Misc.Crl. 1 582 5/ 1 0 survive consideration and accordingly, it is rejected. Sd/ JUDGE Sd! 3UDGE Lr/ -