Allowed

Jayamma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC21 Jan 2022CRL.A/282/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal in part, modifying a conviction for murder (Section 302 IPC) to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 Part-I IPC). The court held that kicking and squeezing testicles caused death via shock rather than murder, and convicted the wife, who failed to explain the circumstances.

What did the court decide?

Accused convicted under Section 304 Part-I of IPC and sentenced to ten years' imprisonment; released forthwith pending fine payment.

Jayamma Vs the State of Karnataka — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶8

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.282/2019

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

JAYAMMA, W/O LATE THAMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT N.BELATHUR VILLAGE, H.D.KOTE TALUK - 571 114 MYSURU DISTRICT

¶11

... APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SMT. BUDRANNISA, ADV.,)

¶13

AND

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY S.P.P. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001 ... RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. VIJAY KUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP)

¶16

THIS CRL.APPEAL IS FILED U/S.374(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 28.02.2014 ON THE FILE OF THE S.C.NO.97/2012 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU FOR THE OFFENCE UNDER SECTION

¶17

¶18

302 R/W 32 IPC AND DIRECTION THE APPELLANT TO BE ACQUITTED UPON PERUSING THE RECORDS AND ON HEARING THE APPELLANT COUNSEL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, B.VEERAPPA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Though the matter came up for 'Memo for posting'

¶22

filed by learned counsel for the appellant, with the consent of both the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal.

¶23

Accused No.1 being the dutiful wife of the deceased filed the present appeal against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.02.2014 passed in S.C.No.97/2012 on the file of I Addl.Sessions Judge, Mysuru convicting accused Nos.1 and 2

¶24

for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C. to undergo life imprisonment with fine for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC and three years with fine for the offence punishable

¶25

¶26

under Section 201 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C. with default clause.

¶27

Facts of the case:

¶28

It is the case of the prosecution that the

¶29

complainant, who is the elder son of the deceased and accused No.1 that on 26.10.2011 at about 10.00 a.m., he received message from PW-3 - Prabhakara about death of his father. He immediately rushed to his village N.Belathuru and noticed the dead body of his father lying in the corner of the house. He further noticed blood oozed from his nose and ears. He suspected that somebody had killed his father by squeezing his testicles and neck and also by assaulting him with deadly weapon. It is further stated that accused No.2, who is a relative of PW-1 had developed illicit relationship with accused No.1 and on the previous night of the incident accused No.2 had come to N.Belathuru Village and stayed in the house of deceased. He suspected both accused Nos.1

¶30

¶31

and 2 might have killed his father. Accordingly, he lodged a complaint - Ex.P1.

¶32

Based on the complaint - PW-17 registered case against accused Nos.1 and 2 in Cr.No.167/2011 for the offences punishable under Section 302, 201 r/w with Section 34 I.P.C. Investigation Officer - PW-18 after conducting investigation filed charge sheet against the accused.

¶33

The learned Magistrate secured the presence of accused Nos.1 and 2 and by exercising Section 207 of Cr.P.C committed the case to the Prl.District & Sessions Judge, Mysuru, as the offence under Section 302 I.P.C is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court.

¶34

Learned Sessions Judge secured the presence of accused Nos.1 and 2 and framed the charge against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 r/w Section 34 I.P.C, which reads as under:

¶35

¶36

"Firstly, on 25.10.2011 at about 11.30 p.m. or 12.00 midnight, you both the Accused in furtherance of your common intention to commit the murder of one Thammaiah and to disappear the evidence, you the Accused No.2 by felling him down and strangulating him by closing his mouth and nose and pressing the neck forcibly, and you the Accused No.1 by kicking on his private part and squeezing his testicles by knowing fully well that your act would cause his death, committed his murder and thereby, you both have committed an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and within the cognizance of this Court.

¶37

Secondly, on the aforesaid date, time and place, you both the Accused in furtherance of your said common intention to commit the murder of Thammaiah and to screen your offence after committing his murder, you Accused No.1 tied one Saree to the beam of the house in order to show

¶38

¶39

that Thammiah had committed suicide at his own and as directed by you the Accused No.2, you the Accused No.1 also told the people of your village that Thammaiah had committed suicide by hanging himself to the beam with the help of a Saree and that you had untied the Saree and made him to lie on the ground and thereby, you tried to cause disappearance of the evidence by giving false information in order to screen your offence and thereby, you both have committed an offence punishable under Section 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and within the cognizance of this Court."

¶40

7. Learned Sessions Judge read over the charge to

¶41

the accused persons to the language known to them. Accused Nos.1 and 2 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶42

¶43

In order to prove the case of the prosecution, in

¶44

all 22 witnesses have been examined as PW-1 to 22 and got marked Ex.P1 to 30 and Material Object Nos.1 to 8. After closure of all the evidence of prosecution witnesses, statement of accused Nos.1 and 2 has been recorded as contemplated under the provisions of Section 313 Cr.P.C. But, they have not chosen to examine any of witness nor produced any documents, however, denied all the incriminating evidences put to them and defence of accused is one of total denial.

¶45

Based on the above pleadings, learned Sessions Judge framed following points for consideration:

¶46

"1. Whether prosecution has been able to prove that deceased Thammaiah met with homicidal death?

¶47

2. Whether prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that on 25.10.2011 at 11.30 p.m. or 12 O'clock in the midnight, when deceased Thammaiah came to the Hall of the house to answer nature-call, he found accused No.1 and 2

¶48

¶49

in a compromising position and when he told that he would intimate their illicit relationship to the villagers, with common intention to commit his murder, accused No.2 made him to fall on the ground and forcibly pressed his neck, mouth and nose, while accused No.1 squeezed and kicked his testicles and committed his murder and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C. ?

¶50

3. Whether prosecution has been further able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place, accused No.1 and 2, in furtherance of their common intention, after committing murder of Thammaiah, in order to screen the offence, accused No.1 as per the say of accused No.2, made body of the deceased to lie on the ground and tied her Sari to the beam of the house and gave false information to the complainant and others that deceased has committed suicide and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 201 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C ?"

¶51

Considering both oral and documentary evidence,

¶52

learned Sessions Judge answered all the points in the Affirmative holding that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased Thammaiah's death is

¶53

¶54

homicidal death and further prove that on 25.10.2011 at about 11.30 or 12'O clock in the midnight when deceased came to the hall of the house to answer nature-call, he found illicit relationship between accused Nos.1 and 2 and when he told that he would inform the same to the villagers, accused No.2 pulled him down and pressed his neck, mouth and nose and accused No.1 squeezed his neck and testicles and committed murder. Thereafter, accused Nos.1 and 2 made the body of the deceased lie on the ground and gave false information that deceased has committed suicide. Thereby, they have committed offences punishable under sections 302, 201 r/w Section 34 I.P.C.

¶55

Accordingly, learned Sessions Judge convicted both accused Nos.1 and 2 by impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C and sentenced to undergo imprisonment of life with fine for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 I.P.C and three

¶56

¶57

years imprisonment with fine for the offence punishable under Section 201 r/w Section 34 I.P.C with default clause.

¶58

The present appeal is filed by accused No.1 while accused No.2 had filed Crl.A.No.1138/2015 before this Court. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by judgment dated 18.01.2019 acquitted accused No.2 from the charges made against him. The said order has reached finality.

¶59

We have heard both learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the material including original records carefully.

¶60

Smt.Budrannisa, learned counsel for appellant vehemently contended that the impugned judgment of conviction passed by the Sessions Court against accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 r/w Section 34 I.P.C is erroneous, contrary to the material placed on record and is liable to be set aside.

¶61

¶62

Learned counsel has further contended that there

¶63

are no eye witnesses to the incident and the entire case of the prosecution is based on the circumstantial evidence. She would further contend that the homicidal death is not proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The alleged illicit relationship between accused Nos.1 and 2 for commission of offence is also not proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The medical evidence of PW-11 and 15 are inconsistent and two doctors have given different views. Therefore, learned Sessions Judge is not justified in convicting accused No.1. She would further contend that a common charge was framed by the learned Sessions Judge against accused Nos.1 and 2 and this Court vide judgment dated 18.01.2019 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in Crl.A.No.1138/2015 acquitted accused No.2. Hence, accused No.1 is also entitled to the similar relief, as this Court found that there are no materials against accused Nos.1 and 2. Therefore, she sought to allow the appeal.

¶64

¶65

Per contra Sri. Vijaykumar Majage, learned Addl.State Public Prosecutor while justifying impugned judgment of conviction, contended that PW-1 who is none other than son of deceased and accused No.1 as per Ex.P1 has specifically stated on oath that he has suspected accused Nos.1 and 2 and identified injuries and the same was reported in Ex.P1 so far as the case of prosecution.

¶66

Learned Addl.SPP would further contend that accused No.1 who is none other than the dutiful wife of the deceased ought to have offered explanation about what happened to her husband. Unfortunately, she has not explained as contemplated under the provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act nor had lodged any complaint. He would further contend that statement of accused No.1 under 313 Cr.P.C is totally denied. Therefore, the material on record clearly depicts the homicidal death of deceased.

¶67

¶68

Learned Addl.SPP would further contend that the

¶69

evidence of PWs-9 and 10 who are neighbours have specifically stated on oath that accused No.1 was sleeping in the house of PWs-9 and 10 and at about 12'O clock at midnight, Thammaiah came to their house and taken back accused No.1. PW-5 the second son of accused No.1 and deceased also stated that when he woke up at about 12'O clock midnight his mother was not in the house of PWs-9 and 10. When he enquired PWs-9 and 10, they informed that his father came and took his mother to their house. When on the date of incident, she was with her husband, she should have explained the circumstances of the death of her husband. In the absence of any circumstantial evidence offered, the prosecution is justified and learned Sessions Judge has passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence against accused.

¶70

Learned Addl.SPP would further contend that evidence of PW-11 Doctor Dinakar who issued Ex.P16 - Post

¶71

¶72

Mortem report has specifically stated that death could have been caused due to kicking or forcibly pressing on testicles. In the cross-examination, he has specifically stated that he has mentioned only the congestion of the testicle. The Post mortem report as per Ex.P16 also discloses that the death was due to Vaso-vascal shock, as a result of injury to testicle, exaggerated by hypoxia. He would further contend that PW-15 who also stated that death was due to congestion of the testicles. Thereby, prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt about the involvement of accused No.1.

¶73

Learned Addl.SPP would further contend that this Court by order dated 18.01.2019 in Crl.A.No.1138/2015 acquitted accused No.2 mainly on the ground that there were no substantive evidence against accused No.2. While disposing the said appeal, observation was also made by this Court that there are material as against accused No.1. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the appeal.

¶74

¶75

In view of the rival contentions urged by the

¶76

learned counsel for the parties, the only point that would arise for consideration in the present appeal is:

¶77

"Whether the accused No.1, wife of deceased has made out the case to interfere the judgment of conviction of life imprisonment under the provisions of Section 302 Cr.P.C. and tried to destroy the evidence under Section 201 Cr.P.C in the facts and circumstances of the case ?

¶78

This Court being the Appellate Court, it is relevant

¶79

to re-consider the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the material documents relied upon as under:

¶80

a) PW-1 Veerabhadra, who is elder son of deceased and accused No.1 who lodged complaint Ex.P1 has stated on oath that there was illicit relationship between his mother accused No.1 and accused No.2 since long time and used to come to their house frequently. He has suspected that because of this illicit relationship, accused No.1 and 2 might have killed his father. On the date of incident, accused No.2 was in their house and he further stated in his cross-examination that whatever information given

¶81

¶82

in Ex.P1 are true. He also identified injuries sustained by his father. In his cross-examination, he has stated that there was illicit relationship between accused Nos.1 and 2 and when his father had seen them, they have killed him. The said fact is admitted by him. He has further stated that on the date of incident at about 7.30 a.m, when he came to house, his mother accused No.1 told that his father was died due to hanging and she has released him. He supported the prosecution case. He has identified spot mahazar MOs-1 to 8.

¶83

b) PW-2 Krishnaiah, neighbour of deceased and accused No.1. He is a prosecution witness and he has identified the spot mahazar as per Ex.P2 and also MOs-1 to 9 and turned hostile.

¶84

c) PW-3 Prabhakara, who is relative of deceased and accused No.1 gave information to PW-1, who in turn lodged complaint Ex.P1 and he is inquest mahazar witness and he has also identified MOs-1 to 8. He partly turned hostile.

¶85

¶86

d) PW-4 Shambamma, daughter of deceased and accused No.1 has stated on oath that her father and mother used to have alcohol regularly and they used to quarrel. But, she is not aware of the illicit relationship between accused Nos.1 and 2 and she turned hostile.

¶87

e) PW-5 Ningaraju, the other son of deceased and accused No.1 has stated on oath that himself and his mother went to the house of PWs-9 and 10 to sleep. When he woke up at 12'O clock, his mother was not available with him. Then he asked PWs-9 and 10, they informed that his father came to their house and took back his mother accused No.1. He denied the fact that there was illicit relationship between accused Nos.1 and 2. He had also denied the fact that when his father had seen them together and for the reason that he might inform to others, accused Nos.1 and 2 might have killed. He has supported part of the case of prosecution.

¶88

f) PW-6 Sudeepa, the other son of deceased and accused No.1 has turned hostile.

¶89

¶90

g) PW-7 Raju, PW-8 Eraiah and PW-9 Bannaiah are all neighbours of deceased and accused No.1 and who have stated about the motive and ultimately turned hostile.

¶91

h) PW-10 Parvathamma, wife of PW-8 also turned hostile.

¶92

i) PW-11 Dr.Dinakar M.B, who examined the dead body of deceased Thammaiah has stated on oath that on the request made by Beechanahalli Police to conduct post mortem, he has conducted the same between 12.00 and 1.30 p.m. and issued Ex.P16 Post Mortem Report. He has stated that he has noticed that " bleeding is seen in the left ear, blood stain frothy discharge was seen in the nose and the mouth" . In his cross-examination, he has opined that death has been caused due to kicking or forcible pressing on testicles. Further, he has specifically stated that he has mentioned only congestion of the testicle in Post Mortem Report and denied that injury to testicle could be caused if the deceased in his attempt to commit suicide by hanging falls on hard surface and if testicle comes

¶93

¶94

into contact with the hard object. He further denied that since dead body of Thammaiah was in advance stage of decomposition, he cannot give his opinion as to cause of death. He further denied that he has given his opinion as to cause of death of deceased as per the say of Police. In his Re-examination, he has specifically stated that bleeding in the ear and blood stained frothy are not normally seen in case of natural death. Both external injuries No.1 & 2 relate to injury to the testicle. On external examination fracture of skull cannot be noticed. Further, he has stated that Testis does not normally get congested, it gets congested in certain conditions like, torsion of testis, infection of testis and trauma to the testis. In the present case both testis were congested and left one was more congested.

¶95

j) PW-12 Radha S, Scientific Officer, who received 8 sealed articles on 24.11.2011 from Dy.S.P, Hunsur and she has given her opinion that presence of blood was detected in all the 8 articles. She has identified Ex.P19 and also MOs-1 to 8. She has supported the case of prosecution.

¶96

¶97

k) PW-13 Ningachari, Panchayath Development Officer, who issued the Khatha report as per Ex.P21 and 22 in respect of property of accused No.1 and deceased Thammaiah.

¶98

l) PW-14 Kalachari, Photographer who supported the case of the prosecution.

¶99

m) PW-15 Nataraju G, Professor/Principal of Mysuru Medical College, who conducted scientific examination of testis supported the case of prosecution.

¶100

n) PW-16 Shobha M, Women constable who arrested accused Nos.1 and 2 on 27.10.2011 and produced them before the PSI and supported the case of prosecution.

¶101

o) PW-17 T.Govinda, Head Constable, Beechanahalli Police Station, who was present in the station and received the complaint Ex.P1 given by PW-1 and sent the FIR as per Ex.P26 and supported the prosecution case.

¶102

¶103

p) PW-18 Nanjappa, PSI who conducted spot mahazar and inquest mahazar Ex.P2 and Ex.P4 respectively and seized MOs-1 to 8 and supported the prosecution case.

¶104

q) PW-19 Venkatesh and PW-20 Venkatesh @ Dasaiah the owners of deceased and accused No.1, who turned hostile.

¶105

r) PW-21 C.Mallik, Police Inspector on whose direction Sannanaika and PW-16 have arrested accused Nos.1 and 2 and produced ASI report Ex.P30 and he identified the same and also supported the prosecution case.

¶106

s) PW-22 H. Govindaraju, Police Inspector who has conducted after investigation and filed charge sheet against the accused persons.

¶107

Based on the material placed on record, learned

¶108

Sessions Judge convicted accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences made out in the charge memo. A careful perusal of Ex.P1 complaint lodged by PW-1 clearly depicts that the

¶109

¶110

father and mother used to quarrel everyday, thereby he was frustrated and went to Mysuru and received information on 26.10.2011 at 10.00 a.m. from PW-3 Prabhakara that his father died. He came back to N.Belathuru Village and noticed dead body of his father lying in the corner of the house. In his cross-examination, PW-1 suspected that somebody killed his father by squeezing his testicles and neck and also by assaulting him with deadly weapon. He further stated that his mother accused Nos.1 and 2 had illicit relationship and thereby he stated that they might have killed his father. It is not in dispute that the jurisdictional police based on his complaint Ex.P1 have registered Cr.No.167/2011 against accused Nos.1 and 2.

¶111

The evidence of PWs-1, 5, 9 and 10 depicts there

¶112

was illicit relationship between accused Nos.1 and 2. It is also not in dispute that on the date of incident occurred, accused No.1 was very much available with the deceased in their house as spoken to by PW-5, 9 and 10 and other

¶113

¶114

witnesses. It is the duty of accused No.1, who is the dutiful wife of deceased to answer what happened to her husband, when she was with him in their house. The evidence on record clearly depicts accused No.2 was also in the house of accused No.1 and deceased on the unfortunate date of incident. Being the dutiful wife of deceased, burden lies on accused No.1 to explain the circumstances as contemplated under the provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act. But, the same has not done by accused No.1.

¶115

Even assuming that she went to the house of PWs-9 and 10 to sleep on the previous date of incident, the fact remains that on the basis of evidence adduced by PWs5, 9 and 10 which clearly depicts that she went along with deceased at about 12'O clock and according to her accused No.2 might have killed her husband, if it was so, then she ought to have lodged a complaint in police. But, she has not lodged complaint nor explained anything about the circumstances. This clearly indicates there was illicit

¶116

¶117

relationship between accused Nos.1 and 2. When the deceased went to the house of PWs-9 and 10 and taken back his wife accused No.1 to his house, there might have quarrel between accused Nos.1 & 2 and deceased with regard to illicit relationship, thereby accused Nos.1 and 2 joined together and might have pressed his neck and mouth and accused No.1 might have squeezed his testicles and neck and thereby they have committed murder of the deceased.

¶118

It is also not in dispute that out of wedlock

¶119

between accused No.1 and deceased, PW-1, 4, 5 and 6 were born. The unfortunate incident occurred as the deceased might have suspected the wife accused Nos.1 and 2 as admitted by PW-1 that accused Nos.1 and 2 had illicit relationship and they used to quarrel frequently, thereby the involvement clearly falls under Exception No.1 under the provisions of Section 300 of I.P.C.

¶120

¶121

A careful perusal of the said provisions makes it clear that Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes death of any other person by mistake or accident. In the present case when the husband of accused No.1 deceased might have observed both accused Nos.1 and 2 suspecting illicit relationship, thereby suddenly accused Nos.1 and 2 joined together and committed offence. Accordingly, having regard to the material placed on record, accused Nos.1 and 2 might have pressed the neck and mouth of deceased and accused No.1 might have squeezed and kicked his testicles, which is nothing but culpable homicide and not murder. Therefore, the offence clearly falls under the provisions of Section 304 Part-I of I.P.C and not under the provisions of Section 302 Cr.P.C. The said material facts has not been considered by the learned Sessions Judge while passing the impugned judgment of conviction.

¶122

¶123

The evidence of PWs-1, 5, 9 and 10 clearly depicts

¶124

that there was illicit relationship between accused Nos.1 and

¶125

The evidence of PW-11 Dr. Dinakar who conducted post mortem and issued Ex.P16 Post Mortem Report clearly depicts that on examination the body of the deceased with bleeding in left ear, blood stained frothy discharge was seen in the nose and the mouth and has specifically stated that the death could have caused due to kicking or forcible pressing on testicles, but he did not notice any external and internal injuries caused with weapon on testicles. He has specifically stated in his cross-examination that he has mentioned only the congestion of the testicles and denied the suggestion that injury to testicle could be caused if the deceased in his attempt to commit suicide by hanging falls on hard surface and if testicle comes into contact with the hard object. As seen from Ex.P16 Post Mortem Report, opinion clearly depicts that the death was due to "vaso-vagal shock, as a result of injury to testicles, exaggerated by hypoxia". He

¶126

¶127

has also given final report as per Ex.P18 opining that there is possibility of death due to forcibly pressing neck, mouth and nose and by squeezing or kicking the testicles.

¶128

PW-15 Nataraju G, Professor/Principal has also

¶129

given his opinion as per Ex.P17 as under:

¶130

”Multiple sections studied from both the testis shows seminiferous tubules showing varying stages of spermatogenesis and sperminogenesis with focal autolytic changes and occasional vessels showing mild vascular congestion."

¶131

As already stated supra , accused No.1 being the wife of deceased ought to have lodged a complaint, but she has not lodged any complaint nor discharged the burden under the provisions under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, thereby adverse inference has to be drawn against accused No.1 as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prahalad Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in ( 2019) 14 SCC 438 at para No.11, which reads as under:

¶132

¶133

"11. No explanation is forthcoming from the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C as to when he parted the company of the victim. Also, no explanation is there as to what happened after getting the chocolates for the victim. The silence on the part of the accused, in such a matter wherein he is expected to come out with an explanation, leads to an adverse inference against the accused."

¶134

It is also not in dispute that accused No.2 against whom a common charge against both accused Nos.1 and 2 has been framed under the provisions of Sections 302, 201 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C, has filed Crl.A.No.1138/2015 against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. The Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.01.2019 acquitted accused No.2. But the material on record clearly depicts the involvement of accused No.1, who is the wife of deceased, as she has not discharged the burden of proving the prosecution case, thereby it is clear case which attracts the provisions under Section 304 Part-I I.P.C as stated supra . The said material has not been considered by the

¶135

¶136

learned Sessions Judge while convicting accused No.1 for the offence punishable under the provisions of Section 302 I.P.C.

¶137

For the reasons stated above, the point raised in

¶138

the present appeal has to be answered in the Negative holding that the learned Sessions Judge is not justified in convicting accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 r/w Section 34 I.P.C and accused No.1 has made out the case to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction to modify the case of conviction for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 r/w Section 34 I.P.C to that of case under the provisions of Section 304 Part-I of I.P.C.

¶139

In view of the above, we pass the following:

¶140

ORDER

¶141

(i) The Criminal Appeal is allowed in part .

¶142

(ii) The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.02.2014 passed in

¶143

¶144

S.C.NO.97/2012 by the Sessions Court convicting

¶145

the appellant/accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C. and sentencing her to undergo life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC with fine and three years with fine for the offence punishable under Section 201 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C is hereby modified .

¶146

(iii) Accused No.1 is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-I of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of ten years with fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only), in default for a period of one year.

¶147

(iv) Since accused No.1 is in custody for a period of 11 years 3 months, she is ordered to be released forthwith, if she is not required in any other case,

¶148

¶149

after receipt of fine amount and in accordance with law by following the Standard Operating Procedure.

¶150

A copy of this order shall be sent to the jurisdictional Jail Superintendent forthwith.

¶151

Sd/JUDGE

¶152

Sd/JUDGE

¶153

Jayamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr.Shafiulla Baig Vs S.Ziyaullah IAS

N Chelavaraju Vs Sri. M Shivamurthy

Mr Madanraj Nahar Vs Sri Varun Kumar

Sri S.D. Avalappa Vs Sri K Ranganath

H R Ravichandra Vs Sri. Krishna

Jayarama M Vs Sri. Ramesh Desai