Dismissed

Bhaskara v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Feb 2024CRL.A/118/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed an appeal against conviction for attempted murder (Section 307 IPC). The court held the appellant set the victim alight and failed to render aid, finding the life sentence proportionate and the trial court's reliance on victim's evidence correct.

What did the court decide?

The criminal appeal was dismissed, affirming the conviction for attempt to murder and the sentence of life imprisonment.

Bhaskara Vs the State of Karnataka — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:5587-DB CRL.A No. 118/2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.118/2018

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

BHASKARA S/O. SHIVAPPA NOW AGED 47 YEARS LABOURER, R/O. KOTETHOTA BYREDEVARAU VILLAGE, KOPPA TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 546 …APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI D. NAGARAJA REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY JAYAPURA POLICE REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU PIN-560 001 …RESPONDENT

¶14

Digitally signed by PRABHU KUMARA NAIKA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

(BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, S.P.P-II)

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.06.2017 AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 28.06.2017 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU, IN S.C. NO.113/2016, CONVICTING THE APPELLANT-ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 307 IPC.

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, K.S. MUDAGAL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:5587-DB CRL.A No. 118/2018

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

Challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against him, the accused in S.C.No.113/2016 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru has preferred this appeal.

¶22

The appellant was tried in S.C.No.113/2016 for the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 504 of IPC on the basis of the charge sheet filed by Jayapura Police in Crime No.41/2016 of their Police Station. Crime No.41/2016 was registered against the appellant on the basis of the complaint/statement of PW1 as per Ex.P1.

¶23

The appellant was the sole accused in

¶24

S.C. No.113/2016. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to henceforth according to their ranks before the trial Court.

¶25

The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

¶26

(i) The first husband of PW.1 and her two children out

¶27

of the said marriage had died about nine years prior to 28.03.2016. The accused also had wife and two children and they had deserted him long back. About one year prior to

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:5587-DB CRL.A No. 118/2018

¶30

28.03.2016, the accused and PW.1 developed live-in relationship. For sometime, they used to stay in the house of PW.1 and sometime they used to stay in the farm land of the accused situated in Kotethota within the jurisdiction of Jayapura Police Station.

¶31

(ii) The accused was addicted to alcohol. Everyday, he used to come home drunk and ill-treat PW1. On 28.03.2016 at 2.00 p.m., the accused asked PW.1 to fetch provisions from the shop and she returned home at 3.00 p.m. The accused stating that she returned late quarreled with her upto 10.00 p.m. At 10.30 p.m., the accused doused her with kerosene which was kept in the house and set her on fire. She suffered burn injuries. She poured water on herself and put off the fire. Though she was suffering from injuries, he did not take her to the hospital. In the morning, he left the house.

¶32

(iii) In order to go to the hospital, PW.1 reached Kogre Village, where PW5, on seeing her, summoned the ambulance. She was shifted to the Government Hospital, Koppa, where PW.8-Medical Officer got her admitted and treated her. PW.8 intimated the Police. On direction of PW.7, PW.6-Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police of Jayapura Police Station visited the hospital and recorded the statement of PW.1 as per Ex.P1.

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:5587-DB CRL.A No. 118/2018

¶35

Based on the said complaint, he registered the FIR as per Ex.P8 and handed over further investigation to PW7. PW7 visited the scene of offence, conducted spot mahazar, recorded the statements of the witnesses, collected the medical certificate. etc. and filed the charge-sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 307 and 326B of IPC.

¶36

The trial Court on hearing the parties framed the charges against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 307 of IPC. As the accused denied the charges, trial was conducted. In support of the case of prosecution, PWs.1 to 8 were examined, Exs.P1 to P11 and MOs.1 to 3 were marked. The accused on his examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, neither filed defence statement nor led defence evidence.

¶37

The trial Court on hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment and order, acquitted the accused of the charge for the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC, but convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC on the ground that the said charge is proved by the evidence of the injured eyewitness-PW1 and her evidence was corroborated by other evidence on record. Further, the trial

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC:5587-DB CRL.A No. 118/2018

¶40

Court sentenced him to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5,000/- for the said offence, in default to pay the fine amount, he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

¶41

Assailing the said judgment and order, the accused has preferred the above appeal.

¶42

Sri D. Nagaraja Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for High Court Legal Services Committee submits that the victim had suffered injuries due to stove burst and the Police have manipulated the case against the accused. He further submits that as per the evidence of PW.1-victim and PW.8-Doctor, the victim was not in a position to give statement, therefore, Ex.P1 is a doubtful document and the trial Court committed error in relying on the same. He further submits that the evidence of PWs.2 to 5 was also not reliable and PW.5 sighting the victim itself was doubtful. He submits

¶43

that the trial Court was not justified in convicting the accused solely based on the evidence of PW1 and other official witnesses. He submits that sentence of imprisonment is also disproportionate.

¶44

Per contra , Sri Vijayakumar Majage, learned State Public Prosecutor-II, submits that PW1 was the injured

¶45

¶46

NC: 2024:KHC:5587-DB CRL.A No. 118/2018

¶47

eyewitness and the accused did not dispute that himself and PW1 were living together. She suffered injuries in his house. He further submits that though the accused claimed PW1 suffered accidental burn injuries due to stove burst, nothing was elicited in the cross-examination of the witnesses to substantiate the said contention nor the accused in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. stated so. The evidence of PWs.1 and 8 that PW1 was not in a position to give statement was with reference to her condition at the time of admission into the hospital and not at the time of recording her statement. He further submits that the statement of the victim was recorded on 30.03.2016 at 8.30 a.m. and by that time, she was treated. If really the victim suffered accidental burn injuries, the accused in the normal course should have attended to her medical needs, which he did not do. Such conduct of the accused shows that he is author of the burns. The trial Court on judicious appreciation of the evidence has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused. Having regard to the gravity of the offence and conduct of the accused, the impugned judgment and order does not warrant any interference.

¶48

¶49

NC: 2024:KHC:5587-DB CRL.A No. 118/2018

¶50

On considering the submissions of both side and materials on record, the question that arises for consideration is “ Whether the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence is sustainable?”

¶51

Analysis

¶52

The accused did not dispute the fact that PW.1 and himself were in live-in-relationship since one year prior to the incident i.e., 28.03.2016. The accused did not even dispute that the victim suffered burn injuries in his house and she was treated in the hospital for the said burn injuries. He did not even dispute the injuries mentioned in Ex.P9 as stated by the doctor PW.8. Throughout, his defence was that PW.1 suffered those injuries due to stove burst. Whereas the prosecution claimed that the accused used to come home drunk everyday and ill-treat PW.1 and on the date of incident he quarreled with PW.1 for petty matter, splashed kerosene on her and set her ablaze. The prosecution has not questioned acquittal of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC, therefore that finding attained finality.

¶53

To prove the charge against the accused, the

¶54

prosecution relied on:

¶55

(i) Evidence of PW.1-the injured victim;

¶56

¶57

NC: 2024:KHC:5587-DB CRL.A No. 118/2018

¶58

(ii) Evidence of PWs.1 to 4 that the accused and the

¶59

victim-PW.1 were living together;

¶60

(iii) Medical evidence;

¶61

(iv) The evidence of police officers; and

¶62

(v) Conduct of the accused.

¶63

PW.1 reiterated what was stated in the complaintEx.P1 including the accused tormenting her everyday, coming home drunk and on the date of incident picking up quarrel with her on the ground of she returning late. She further deposed that on 28.03.2016 at 10.30 p.m., all of a sudden he poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze. She herself rushed to douse the fire with water and put off the fire. She further deposed about the accused not taking her to the hospital saying that he will take her on the next day and in the morning, he left the house. Being unable to bear the pain, she proceeded towards the road. Some persons going on the road secured the ambulance, shifted her to the hospital where she was treated. She further deposed about the police recording her statement as per Ex.P1.

¶64

PW.2 the sister of PW.1 speaks about the death of first husband of PW.1 and two daughters born out of the said

¶65

¶66

NC: 2024:KHC:5587-DB CRL.A No. 118/2018

¶67

marriage and then the accused and PW.1 living together. She further deposed that on getting information about hospitalization of PW.1 due to burn injuries, she visited Koppa hospital where PW.1 revealed to her about overt acts of the accused. Since she was not an eyewitness to the incident, her evidence regarding overt acts of the accused is of not much help to the prosecution, except for the purpose of corroboration of the evidence of PW.1.

¶68

PW.8 the doctor who treated PW.1 in Koppa hospital deposed that on 29.03.2016 at about 3.00 p.m. PW.1 was brought in the ambulance with burn injuries. On examining her he intimated the police and issued wound certificate Ex.P9. PW.7-PSI/Investigating Officer and PW.6 ASI of Jayapura Police Station at the relevant time deposed that on receipt of intimation from the hospital, PW.7 deputed PW.6 to visit the hospital and record the statement and accordingly, PW.6 visited the hospital and recorded the statement of PW.1 as per Ex.P1 in the presence of the doctor PW.8.

¶69

The main ground of challenge regarding recording of the statement Ex.P1 was that PW.1 was not fit to give statement. It is true that PW.1 in the cross-examination stated

¶70

10 -

¶71

NC: 2024:KHC:5587-DB CRL.A No. 118/2018

¶72

that in the hospital she was not in a position to give statement. Similarly, PW.8 the doctor in the chief-examination stated that when he first examined the victim on 29.03.2016 at 3.00 p.m., she was not in a position to give statement. As per Ex.P1 that was recorded on 30.03.2016 at 8.30 a.m., PW.8 states that when the police came to record Ex.P1, the victim was in a condition to speak and Ex.P1 was recorded in his presence and he has subscribed his signature on the same. It is material to note that the victim despite suffering such injuries on 28.03.2016 at 10.30 p.m., till next day afternoon she sustained those injuries. Her evidence that since the accused failed to take her to the hospital, she alone walked and reached the Kogre village road was not impeached.

¶73

The evidence of PW.5 shows that on 29.03.2016 at 2.00 p.m. when he was proceeding on his bike on Kogre Bilalkoppa road he found the injured PW.1 on Kogre road and on calling for the ambulance, he secured the same and ambulance staff took the victim to the hospital. His evidence was sought to be impeached on the ground that, that was a public road and several other two wheelers, buses and cars were moving on that road etc., Merely because the other

¶74

11 -

¶75

NC: 2024:KHC:5587-DB CRL.A No. 118/2018

¶76

travelers on the road ignored PW.1, the humane acts of PW.5 taking cognizance of the injured victim lying on the road and initiating the kind act of securing the ambulance for the purpose of shifting her to the hospital cannot be doubted. Thus, the evidence of PWs.1 and 5 shows that though PW.1 suffered burn injuries, she was in a position to move from her house to the road. The evidence of PW.8 shows that when the victim was brought to the hospital, she was not in a position to speak. From 3.00 p.m. of 29.03.2016 till 8.30 a.m. of 30.03.2016 the victim was given medical treatment in the hospital. PW.8 denied the suggestion that even on the next day, the victim was not in a position to speak. PW.8’s evidence that the victim had suffered 40% injuries was not disputed. The injuries were on chest, abdomen, neck and back. Ex.P10 is the photograph of the victim which was marked without objection and in the examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused admitted the said document.

¶77

It is not the case of the accused that the victim had suffered 100% burns. Therefore, at the most the evidence of PWs.1 to 8 shows that when the victim was brought to the hospital on 29.03.2016 at 3.00 p.m. she was not in a position

¶78

12 -

¶79

NC: 2024:KHC:5587-DB CRL.A No. 118/2018

¶80

to speak and on 30.03.2016 at 8.30 a.m. her statement was recorded. The accused made vague and omnibus suggestion to PW.1 that in the hospital she was not in a position to give statement. Considering the aforesaid facts, the trial Court rightly rejected the contention of the accused that when Ex.P1 was recorded, the victim was not in a position to speak.

¶81

By the evidence of PWs.1, 6 and 8 it becomes clear that PW.1 implicated the accused as the author of the burn injuries. It is settled position of law that the injured eyewitness stands on a higher pedestal in the criminal adjudication system. Unless there are strong grounds to disbelieve her evidence, the evidence of the injured eyewitness has to be accepted. Even the accused himself did not dispute that the victim suffered injuries in his house when he was present there. Therefore he has to explain how she suffered the injuries. His explanation was that she suffered those injuries due to stove burst, which was denied by the prosecution witnesses.

¶82

PWs.3 and 4 the pancha witnesses supported the proceeding under Ex.P2 the spot mahazar. In the crossexamination, for none of the witnesses it was suggested that there was kerosene stove at the scene of offence. Even in his

¶83

13 -

¶84

NC: 2024:KHC:5587-DB CRL.A No. 118/2018

¶85

examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused did not state that there was kerosene stove in his house and PW.1 suffered the injuries due to stove burst. His only explanation was that he is totally unconnected to the crime.

¶86

If at all the injuries were accidental injuries, the accused should have first attended to the victim. Therefore, his conduct assumes significance. He does not shift the injured to the hospital nor visits her in the hospital. That shows his guilty mind and that was rightly appreciated by the trial Court.

¶87

The incident had taken place when PW.1 and accused alone were in the house. Therefore, to decide how PW.1 suffered injuries, the evidence/conduct of both of them matters. PW.1 was a woman who was struck with misfortune of losing her first husband and both children. She had nobody to support her. Trusting the accused, she lived with him for one year. His implication in the case, snatches that support also. Therefore, there was no reason for her to falsely implicate the accused in the case.

¶88

The conduct of the accused namely evading to take care of PW.1 or accompanying her to the hospital speaks against him. A stray statement in the evidence of PW.1 that in

¶89

14 -

¶90

NC: 2024:KHC:5587-DB CRL.A No. 118/2018

¶91

the hospital she was not in a position to give statement cannot be taken out of context to reject her entire evidence. Neither that amounts to contradiction as that did not demolish the core case of the prosecution. The accused not attending to injured PW.1 goes to show that he had intention to inflict injuries in an attempt to commit her murder. If he had inflicted the injuries in fit of anger or without intention, he would have attended to her as she needed medical care. Therefore, the trial Court was justified in convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC.

¶92

The next question is “Whether the sentence of life imprisonment handed over by the trial Court is disproportionate?”.

¶93

Section 307 of IPC prescribes that, if the acts amount to attempt of murder without injuries, the accused is liable to imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and fine and if hurt is caused by any such attempt, the accused shall be sentenced either to imprisonment for life or imprisonment prescribed in the earlier part of the said Section that means up to ten years.

¶94

15 -

¶95

NC: 2024:KHC:5587-DB CRL.A No. 118/2018

¶96

To exercise discretion to hand over lesser

¶97

punishment, there should be some mitigating circumstance. In the case on hand, the victim was a woman who was struck with misfortune of losing her first husband and two children. At the time of offence, she was aged 40 years and accused was aged 45 years. They were not in their teens. In the crossexamination of PW.1, the accused himself suggested that he was related to her. PW.3 who was then aged 65 years deposed that the accused happens to be his grandson distantly. Despite being his close relative PW.3 deposed that he came to know that the accused is the culprit. In the natural course of events, the accused being the relative of PW.1 a woman struck with misfortune of losing her husband and children and was virtually destitute should respect her and take care of her. The fact that PW.1 started cohabiting with the accused goes to show that she trusted him as her asylum. He eroded such trust of PW.1.

¶98

Since PW.1 had suffered 40% burns, if left untreated, that could have been fatal to her life and consciously the accused wanted that to happen. Therefore he left her to her fate and escaped. At that time, he was aged 45 years and it cannot be said that he was not in a position to understand the implications of his acts. That shows his attitude towards the

¶99

16 -

¶100

NC: 2024:KHC:5587-DB CRL.A No. 118/2018

¶101

people who trust him more particularly women. It is unfortunate that often helpless women are treated in such an inhumane way, despite the world claiming applause for it reaching Mars and Moon. Under the circumstances, the accused does not deserve leniency in the sentence. There are no grounds to interfere in the matter. Hence the following:

¶102

ORDER

¶103

The appeal is dismissed.

¶104

The Court places on record its appreciation for the able assistance rendered by Sri D Nagaraja Reddy, learned Standing

¶105

Counsel for the High Court Legal Services Committee.

¶106

Sd/JUDGE

¶107

Sd/JUDGE

¶108

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4

¶109

KVK/PKN

Bhaskara v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhaskara 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Abdul Fareed Vs the State of Karnataka

Sathisha @ Rangaiah Vs State by Koppa Police Station

Sri Ramesh Vs State by Channagiri Police

Azam Pasha @ Azam Vs State by T Narasipura Police

Paniyaravara Chinnappa Vs State of Karnataka

Narayana Vs State by Aldur Police Station