Rajesab Alias Raju S/O Imamsab Manikbhai, Vs the State

RAJESAB @ RAJU S/O. IMAMSAB MANIKBHAI, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER, R/O. GANJIGATTI VILLAGE, TQ. KALAGHATAGI, DIST. DHARWAD, PIN 580114, (NOW IN JC, DHARWAD CENTRAL PRISON)

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

Digitally signed byYASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGH YASHAVANTNARAYANKAR COURT OFKARNATAKADHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD Date: 2025.07.25 15:17:56 +0530

¶12

(BY SRI. NEELENDRA D. GUNDE, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE BY KALAGHATAGI POLICE, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD - 580001.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI. A.M.GUNDAWADE, ADDITIONAL S.P.P)

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S. 374(2) OF CR.P.C 1973., SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.01.2022 PASSED IN SC NO.45/2020, PASSED BY III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS AND SPECIAL JUDGE AT DHARWAD AND SENTENCE DATED 02.02.2022, PASSED IN THE SAME CASE PASSED BY THE SAME JUDGE CONVICTING THE APPELLANT FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302 OF IPC, AND SENTENCING LIFE IMPRISONMENT AND TO PAY FINE

¶18

2 -

¶19

CRL.A No.100280 OF 2022

¶20

OF RS.10,000/- ID TO UNDERGO SI FOR 6 MONTHS AND TO ACQUIT THE APPELLANT FROM THE ALLEGED OFFENCE.

¶21

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K , DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶23

CAV JUDGMENT

¶24

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K)

¶25

This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 24.01.2022 and order of sentence dated 02.02.2022 passed in S.C.No.45/2020 by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge at Dharwad (hereinafter referred to as ‘ the learned Sessions Judge’ for short), whereby the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.

¶26

The briefly stated facts of the prosecution case, that the accused-Rajesab @ Raju had married one Nasreenbanu 16

¶27

3 -

¶28

CRL.A No.100280 OF 2022

¶29

years prior to 2019. They had no children from the marriage and as such he married deceased-Haseenabanu in the year 2011. From the wedlock with deceased, he had begotten 2 daughters. Accused was residing with his parents, his first wife, deceased and his two children. The accused used to quarrel with the deceased as she was not good at cooking and was not doing the household works. Later, the deceased was driven out from the house by the accused. However, at the intervention of the elders of the village, the deceased rejoined the matrimonial house. On 24.09.2019 at about 6.30 a.m., PW.2-brother of deceased informed the complainant-PW.1 that the accused murdered the deceased on the previous night and escaped from the house. Immediately, PW.1 along with PWs.5 and 6 rushed to the house of deceased and found the body of the deceased in the house in a pool of blood. On enquiry by PW.1 with the parents of accused, they informed that on 24.09.2019 in the early morning at about 3.00 a.m., the accused and deceased were quarrelling with each other inside the room of their house and when they tried to enter the room, the accused ran away from the house and they found bleeding stab injuries on the deceased and she succumbed at the spot. Further, on enquiry with PW.3-the daughter of deceased, she informed that the

¶30

4 -

¶31

CRL.A No.100280 OF 2022

¶32

accused murdered by stabbing her. Hence, PW.1 lodged a complaint before the respondent-Police on 24.09.2019 against the accused as per Ex.P1. Based on Ex.P1, the respondentpolice registered FIR against the accused in crime No.122/2019 dated 24.09.2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 of IPC as per Ex.P37. Subsequently, PW23 conducted the investigation, drawn relevant mahazars, recorded the statement of witnesses and on obtaining necessary documents from the concerned authorities, laid charge-sheet against the accused for the aforementioned offences before the Committal Court.

¶33

After committal of the case before the Sessions Court, the learned Sessions Judge framed the charges against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498(A) of IPC and read over the same to accused. The accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

¶34

In order to prove the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution examined 23 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.23, marked 51 documents as Ex.P1 to P51 and identified 14 material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.14. The accused did not

¶35

5 -

¶36

CRL.A No.100280 OF 2022

¶37

choose to lead any evidence in defence, but marked two documents as Exs.D1 and Ex.D2.

¶38

After assessing oral and documentary evidence, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A of IPC and convicted him for the offence punishable under Sections 302 of IPC and sentenced him as stated supra . The said judgment is under challenge in this appeal.

¶39

We have heard the learned counsel Sri Neelendra

¶40

D. Gunde, for the appellant-accused and learned Additional SPP Sri A.M. Gundawade for the respondent-State.

¶41

The primary contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the judgment under this appeal suffers from perversity and illegality, since the learned Sessions Judge failed to appreciate the evidence on record in the right perspective. He contended that the genuineness of the prosecution case itself is in doubt since PW.1 lodged a complaint only against the appellant. However, in oral evidence of PWs.1 to 3, they made an allegations against appellant and his first wife Smt.Nasreenbanu. Moreover, the prosecution filed an application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. to array her as

¶42

6 -

¶43

CRL.A No.100280 OF 2022

¶44

accused. However, the said application was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge. In such circumstance, the prosecution itself was not sure whether the accused alone was the perpetrator of the offence or someone else was involved. He further contended that the learned Sessions Judge predominantly relied on the evidence of PW.3-child witness to convict the accused. However, the child witness categorically admitted in her cross-examination that at the time of incident she was sleeping and on the following day morning, she came to know about the death of her mother. The child also admitted, at the time of incident there was no electricity in the house, but she saw the incident with the help of a torch light. However, she did not mention who lit the torch light to see the incident. Further, the child was in the custody of PW.1 and was aged about 5 years at the time of her deposition. In such circumstance, there was possibility of tutoring the child by PW.1. As such, without corroborative evidence, the testimony of PW.3-child witness cannot be relied. He also contended that the remaining witnesses PWs.1, 2, 4 to 6 are close relatives of the deceased and hearsay witnesses to the incident. As such, their evidence also cannot be relied to prove the charges levelled against the accused. He further contended that the

¶45

7 -

¶46

CRL.A No.100280 OF 2022

¶47

prosecution also failed to prove the motive for the alleged incident and the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused for the charges punishable under Section 498(A) of IPC. In such circumstance, the charge against accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC is also liable to be set aside.

¶48

Alternatively, he contended, on perusal of the evidence on record, the motive for the incident as alleged by prosecution, the voluntary statement of accused, the relationship of accused and deceased and the manner in which alleged offence committed by the accused, squarely falls under the exception 1 to Section 300 of IPC which is punishable under Section 304 part I or II of IPC. According to the learned counsel, the incident was caused in a sudden quarrel between husband and wife due to sudden provocation and in a fit of rage. The accused might have stabbed the deceased in the night without knowing the consequences and without any intention or motive to murder her. Hence, the learned counsel prays to modify the sentence to Section 304 Part I or II of IPC instead of Section 302 of IPC.

¶49

8 - CRL.A No.100280 OF 2022

¶50

Per contra , the learned Addl. SPP contended that

¶51

the learned Sessions Judge after meticulously examining the evidence on record passed a well reasoned judgment which does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. He contended that PW1-the complainant, PW.2-the brother of deceased, PWs.5-sister of deceased and PW.6-the husband of PW.5 clearly supported the case of prosecution and deposed about the strained relationship of accused and deceased and the presence of the deceased in the house at the time of incident. Moreover, the deceased was murdered in the matrimonial house, which belongs to the accused, as such; the accused was bound to have special knowledge about the incident. Hence, burden lies on the accused to explain the circumstances as to how his wife died a homicidal death in his house. But, the accused failed to give any explanation for the death of his wife. According to him, on the fateful day someone entered his house and murdered the deceased for gain. Hence, he contends that the defence of the accused is baseless and presumption can be drawn against him under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act.

¶52

He further contended, the daughter of accused and deceased PW.3-the child witness clearly stated in her evidence

¶53

9 - CRL.A No.100280 OF 2022

¶54

that on the fateful day the accused stabbed the deceased with a knife and murdered her. There is no reason for the daughter to give evidence against her father. In such circumstance, the evidence of PW.3 cannot be discarded. Further, the prosecution also proved the recovery of knife and the clothes worn by the accused at the time of incident under mahazar-Ex.P21 as per M.Os.7 to 9. In such circumstance, the prosecution proved the charges levelled against accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶55

Having heard the learned counsel for the respective

¶56

parties and also on perusal of the entire evidence on record including the impugned judgment, the following points arise for our consideration:

¶57

Whether the judgment under this appeal suffers from any perversity or illegality?

¶58

Whether the learned Sessions Judge is justified in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC?

¶59

To prove the homicidal death of deceased-

¶60

Haseenabanu, the prosecution significantly relied on the evidence of PW.14-Doctor who conducted the autopsy on the body of deceased and the post-mortem report as per Ex.P26.

¶61

10 -

¶62

CRL.A No.100280 OF 2022

¶63

On perusal of Ex.P26, the Doctor gave his opinion as to cause of death is due to “hypovolumic shock due to haemorrhage due to injuries to heart and great vessels of heart”. The Doctor also stated that the injuries are ante-mortem in nature. Further, the prosecution also relied on the inquest panchanama drawn on the body of deceased by PW.23-Investigation Officer as per Ex.P16. PW.8 was the witness for the same who identified the injuries on the body of deceased along with PW.23. Hence, on a careful reading of Ex.P26 and Ex.P16, together with the evidence of PWs.8, 14 and 23, we are of the view that the prosecution has proved the homicidal death of deceased.

¶64

To connect the accused with the homicidal death of deceased, the prosecution predominantly relied on the evidence of PW.1-complainant, PWs.2, 5 and 6-the family members of deceased who are hearsay witnesses to the incident and evidence of PW.3-the child witness i.e., eyewitness to the incident. Apart from the above evidence, the prosecution also relied on the evidence of PWs.10 and 11-recovery mahazar witnesses. Among these witnesses, PW.1 is the sister of deceased, who set the criminal law into motion by lodging complaint Ex.P1 on 24.09.2019 at about 11.00 a.m. She stated that the deceased was given in marriage to the accused as his

¶65

11 - CRL.A No.100280 OF 2022

¶66

second wife and they begotten two children. The accused used to quarrel with the deceased as she was not good at cooking and she did not know to do household works properly. On the date of incident, she was informed by PW.2-brother of her and deceased about the incident and immediately, she rushed to the house of deceased and on enquiry with the parents of accused and the child-PW.3, she came to know that the accused murdered the deceased. PW.1 reiterated the contents of her complaint-Ex.P1 in her evidence before the Court. PW.5brother-in-law of deceased and PW.6-sister of deceased also deposed similarly as that of PW.1 in their evidence. They also visited the spot of incident immediately after the incident and came to know that the accused murdered his wife. It is the specific case of the prosecution that the homicidal death of Haseenabanu occurred at her matrimonial home i.e., in the house of accused. To prove the same, the Investigation OfficerPW.23 drawn the spot mahazar as per Ex.P17 and the hand sketch of the scene of occurrence as per Ex.P18. PWs.2, 9 and 15-the panch witnesses for Exs.P17 and 18, supported the case of prosecution.

¶67

The defence of accused is, the deceased might have been murdered by some miscreants while committing robbery

¶68

12 -

¶69

CRL.A No.100280 OF 2022

¶70

in the house. However, the accused failed to produce any evidence/document to prove the said defence. Even he has not stated the said defence in his 313 statement. In such circumstance, the accused is bound to explain the cause of homicidal death of his wife in his house. Though PWs.20 and 22-the parents of the accused turned hostile to the prosecution case, both of them deposed in their evidence that their daughter-in-law Haseenabanu died a homicidal death in their house. Further, the prosecution examined PW.3-child witness i.e., the daughter of accused and deceased. PW.3 categorically stated in her chief-examination that her father i.e., the accused murdered her mother by stabbing her. No doubt in the crossexamination she admitted that she was sleeping at the time of incident and she woke up on the next day morning and came to know about the incident. However, it can be gathered that the PW.3 was in the house on the date of incident and no one other than the accused was with the deceased. As such, there is no possibility of committing murder of deceased by anyone other than the accused.

¶71

The learned counsel by placing reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pradeep vs. State of Haryana reported in 2023 SAR (CRI) 784 and in

¶72

13 - CRL.A No.100280 OF 2022

¶73

the case of Ramesh Kumar vs. State of NCT of Delhi reported in 2023 SAR (CRI) 790 argued that though the law recognize the child is competent witness but a child particularly of a tender age of six years who is unable to form a proper opinion about the nature of incident because of immaturity of understanding, such evidence of child witness to be evaluated carefully and cannot be solely relied without adequate corroboration from other evidence. However, as discussed supra , in the instance case, the homicidal of death of deceasedHaseenabanu caused in the matrimonial home and the other inmates of the house PWs.20 and 21 who are none other than the parents of the accused admitted the same. In such circumstance, the evidence of child witness-PW.3 corroborates the testimony of PWs.20 and 21-the parents of accused and PWs.1, 2, 5 and 6. Hence, the evidence of PW.3-child witness can be relied as a corroborative piece of evidence to prove that the accused alone is the perpetrator of the offence. The prosecution proved the recovery of weapon used for the commission of offence by accused i.e., M.O.7-knife and clothes of the accused worn at the time of incident i.e., one T-shirt and lungi as per M.Os.8 and 9 under seizer mahazar-Ex.P21. PWs.10 and 11-panch witnesses for Ex.P21 supported the case

¶74

14 -

¶75

CRL.A No.100280 OF 2022

¶76

of prosecution. In such circumstance, we are of the considered view that the learned Sessions Judge rightly appreciated the evidence and held that the accused is solely responsible for the homicidal death of deceased.

¶77

The alternative contention of learned counsel for

¶78

the accused is concerned, on a careful examination of the evidence on record, the motive put forth by the prosecution that the accused married the deceased 8 years prior to the incident and they begotten two children and accused used to quarrel with the deceased as she was not good at cooking and she did not know to do the household works properly. This appears to have instigated him to murder the deceased. Though the Investigation Officer filed charge-sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 of IPC, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 498(A) of IPC. Admittedly, the State has not preferred any appeal against the said order of acquittal. Even otherwise PWs.1, 2, 5 and 6 have not deposed against the accused that he harassed the deceased either physically or mentally for dowry. The child witness-PW.3 also not stated in her evidence about the harassment meted out by the accused to deceased. Further, the incident was

¶79

15 - CRL.A No.100280 OF 2022

¶80

committed in the early morning at about 03:00 a.m. The child witness-PW.3 also stated that there was no electricity at the time of incident. The incident was caused in a sudden quarrel between the accused and deceased in the night. Admittedly, there was no preparation by the accused to kill the deceased. Hence it can be gathered, due to a sudden quarrel between the accused and deceased, the accused might have picked a knifeM.O.7, which would be readily available in the house i.e., the place of incident and might have stabbed the deceased repeatedly in the dark. The said aspect was stated by the accused in his voluntary statement also. No doubt the voluntary statement cannot be relied for any purpose; however, the evidence available on record clearly proves that the accused stabbed the deceased without any preparation or intention to murder her . It is vehemently contended by the learned Addl. SPP that the post-mortem report discloses multiple injuries on the body of deceased, as such; the intention of the accused can be gathered that he had repeatedly stabbed with the intention to murder her. As discussed supra , the incident was caused inside the house in the night when there was no electricity, the number of injuries itself cannot be a factor to prove that the accused had the intention to murder his wife. The Hon’ble Apex

¶81

16 - CRL.A No.100280 OF 2022

¶82

Court in the case of Surinder Kumar vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh reported in 1989 (2) SCC 217 held that, merely because three injuries were inflicted on the deceased by the accused is insufficient to establish that the accused acted in a cruel manner. Where, on a sudden quarrel, a person in the heat of moment, picks up a handy weapon thereby causing injuries, one of which is fatal, he would be entitled to the benefit as stipulated in exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC. The number of wounds inflicted during the altercation is not a decisive factor.

¶83

Further, while interpreting exception 1 to Section 300 of IPC, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dauvaram Nirmalkar vs. State of Chhatisgarh reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 955 held in paragraphs No.8, 9, 10, 12 and 13 as under:

¶84

" 8 . However, in our opinion, this case will fall under Exception 1 to Section 300 of the IPC8. Bhagwati Prasad Nirmalkar (PW-3), the younger brother of the appellant and the deceased, had deposed that the deceased used to frequently drink alcohol, barely interacted with the family, and used to debate and quarrel with the appellant. Nakul Ram Sahu (PW-4), the neighbour of the appellant, had similarly testified that the deceased was addicted to alcohol and his wife had left him. Dashrath Nirmalkar's addiction to alcohol, and that he was extremely abusive and ill-tempered is the common narration by Geeta Bai (PW-8), wife of Bhagwati Prasad Nirmalkar

¶85

17 - CRL.A No.100280 OF 2022

¶86

(PW-3), and Kumari Shanti Nirmalkar (PW-9), and Kumari Madhu Nirmalkar (PW-10), nieces of the appellant and Dashrath Nirmalkar. The prosecution does not dispute this position and in fact, has relied upon these facts to show motive.

¶87

9 . Exception 1 differs from Exception 4 of Section 300 of the IPC9. Exception 1 applies when due to grave and sudden provocation, the offender, deprived of the power of self-control, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation. Exception 1 also applies when the offender, on account of loss of self-control due to grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident. Exception 4 applies when an offence is committed without premeditation, in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and the offender commits culpable homicide without having taken undue advantage of acting in a cruel and unusual manner. The Explanation to Exception 4 states that in such cases it is immaterial which party gives the provocation or commits the first assault.

¶88

10 . Interpreting Exception 1 to the Section 300 in K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra, 10 this Court has held that the conditions which have to be satisfied for the exception to be invoked are (a) the deceased must have given provocation to the accused; (b) the provocation must be grave; (c) the provocation must be sudden; (d) the offender, by the reason of the said provocation, should have been deprived of his power of selfcontrol; (e) the offender should have killed the deceased during the continuance of the deprivation of power of self control; and (f) the offender must have caused the death of the person who gave the provocation or the death of any other person by mistake or accident. For determining whether or not the provocation had temporarily deprived the offender from the power of self-control, the test to be applied is that of a reasonable man and not that of an unusually

¶89

18 -

¶90

CRL.A No.100280 OF 2022

¶91

excitable and pugnacious individual. Further, it must be considered whether there was sufficient interval and time to allow the passion to cool. K.M. Nanavati (supra) succinctly observes:

¶92

“84. Is there any standard of a reasonable man for the application of the doctrine of “grave and sudden” provocation? No abstract standard of reasonableness can be laid down. What a reasonable man will do in certain circumstances depends upon the customs, manners, way of life, traditional values etc.; in short, the cultural, social and emotional background of the society to which an accused belongs. In our vast country there are social groups ranging from the lowest to the highest state of civilization. It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any standard with precision: it is for the court to decide in each case, having regard to the relevant circumstances. It is not necessary in this case to ascertain whether a reasonable man placed in the position of the accused would have lost his self-control momentarily or even temporarily when his wife confessed to him of her illicit intimacy with another, for we are satisfied on the evidence that the accused regained his self-control and killed Ahuja deliberately.

¶93

85. The Indian law, relevant to the present enquiry, may be stated thus :

¶94

(1) The test of “grave and sudden” provocation is whether a reasonable man, belonging to the

¶95

19 - CRL.A No.100280 OF 2022

¶96

same class of society as the accused, placed in the situation in which the accused was placed would be so provoked as to lose his self-control. (2) In India, words and gestures may also, under certain circumstances, cause grave and sudden provocation to an accused so as to bring his act within the First Exception to Section 300 of the Penal Code, 1860. (3) The mental background created by the previous act of the victim may be taken into consideration in ascertaining whether the subsequent act caused grave and sudden provocation for committing the offence. (4) The fatal blow should be clearly traced to the influence of passion arising from that provocation and not after the passion had cooled down by lapse of time, or otherwise giving room and scope for premeditation and calculation.”

¶97

11. XXXX

¶98

12 . The question of loss of self-control by grave and sudden provocation is a question of fact. Act of provocation and loss of self-control, must be actual and reasonable. The law attaches great importance to two things when defence of provocation is taken under Exception 1 to Section 300 of the IPC. First, whether there was an intervening period for the passion to cool and for the accused to regain dominance and control over his mind. Secondly, the mode of resentment should bear some relationship to the sort of provocation that has been given. The retaliation should be proportionate to the provocation. The first part lays emphasis on whether the accused acting as a reasonable man had time to reflect and cool down. The offender

¶99

20 - CRL.A No.100280 OF 2022

¶100

is presumed to possess the general power of self-control of an ordinary or reasonable man, belonging to the same class of society as the accused, placed in the same situation in which the accused is placed, to temporarily lose the power of self-control. The second part emphasises that the offender's reaction to the provocation is to be judged on the basis of whether the provocation was sufficient to bring about a loss of self-control in the fact situation. Here again, the court would have to apply the test of a reasonable person in the circumstances. While examining these questions, we should not be short-sighted, and must take into account the whole of the events, including the - 27 - events on the day of the fatality, as these are relevant for deciding whether the accused was acting under the cumulative and continuing stress of provocation. Gravity of provocation turns upon the whole of the victim's abusive behaviour towards the accused. Gravity does not hinge upon a single or last act of provocation deemed sufficient by itself to trigger the punitive action. Last provocation has to be considered in light of the previous provocative acts or words, serious enough to cause the accused to lose his selfcontrol. The cumulative or sustained provocation test would be satisfied when the accused's retaliation was immediately preceded and precipitated by some sort of provocative conduct, which would satisfy the requirement of sudden or immediate provocation.

¶101

13 . Thus, the gravity of the provocation can be assessed by taking into account the history of the abuse and need not be confined to the gravity of the final provocative act in the form of acts, words or gestures. The final wrongdoing, triggering off the accused's reaction, should be identified to show that there was temporary loss of self-control and the accused had acted without planning and premeditation. This has been aptly summarised by Ashworth13 in the following words:

¶102

21 -

¶103

CRL.A No.100280 OF 2022

¶104

“The significance of the deceased's final act should be considered by reference to the previous relations between the parties, taking into account any previous incidents which add colour to the final act. This is not to argue that the basic distinction between sudden provoked killings and revenge killings should be blurred, for the lapse of time between the deceased's final act and the accused's retaliation should continue to tell against him. The point is that the significance of the deceased's final act and its effect upon the accused - and indeed the relation of the retaliation to that act - can be neither understood nor evaluated without reference to previous dealings between the parties.”

¶105

In the above case, the Hon'ble Apex Court held, for

¶106

clarity the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused i.e., it must establish all the ingredients of the offence with which the accused is charged, but this burden should not be mixed with the burden of the accused to prove that the case falls within an exception. However, to discharge his burden, the accused may rely upon the case of the prosecution and the evidence adduced by the prosecution in the Court.

¶107

22 - CRL.A No.100280 OF 2022

¶108

Thus applying the findings of the Hon’ble Apex

¶109

Court in the above judgment to the fact and circumstance of the case, we are of the view that the accused murdered his wife in a grave and sudden provocation in a fit of rage in the night hours. The said act falls under exception 1 to Section 300 of IPC which is punishable under Section 304 Part I of IPC. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court deserves to be modified for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part I of IPC instead of Section 302 of IPC. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the accused that the accused had already undergone 6 years imprisonment. By considering the facts and circumstance of the case, we deem it appropriate to sentence the accused to 10 years imprisonment with a reasonable fine and this would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, we answer point No.1 in the ‘negative’ and point No.2 in ‘partly affirmative’ and proceed to pass the following order:

¶110

ORDER

¶111

i. The Criminal Appeal No.100280/2022 is allowed in part .

¶112

ii. The judgment of conviction dated 24.01.2022 and order of Sentence

¶113

23 -

¶114

CRL.A No.100280 OF 2022

¶115

dated 02.02.2022 passed in SC No.45/2020 by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge at Dharwad is hereby modified to 304 Part I of IPC instead of Section 302 of IPC

¶116

iii. The accused is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,00,000/- in default of payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment for a period of 2½ years for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part I of IPC.

¶117

iv. The accused is entitled for benefit under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.

¶118

v. If the fine amount is deposited by the accused before the trial court, the learned Sessions Judge is directed to intimate the same to parents of deceased-Haseenabanu and disburse the said amount to them on due identification with a condition that the said amount shall be kept in Fixed Deposit in the name of two children of the deceased in a Nationalized Bank till they attain the age of majority.

¶119

24 -

¶120

CRL.A No.100280 OF 2022

¶121

vi. Registry is directed send back the trial Court records along with certified copy of this judgment to the Session Court, forthwith.

¶122

SD/(R.NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶123

SD/(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE

¶124

HKV CT:PA

Rajesab Alias Raju S/O Imamsab Manikbhai, v. the State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesab Alias Raju S/O Imamsab Manikbhai, v. the State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abhishek S/O Kallappa Javoor Vs the State of Karnataka

City Union Bank Ltd. Vs Karnataka Sahakari Sakkare

Shankara S/O. Hanumantappa Sali Vs State of Karnataka through

Sabu S/O Paragond Jakati Aliyas Katageri Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.T.M.Kotraiah S/O T.M. Shivamurtaiah Vs Sri.K. Venkatesh S/O K. Marisiddappa

Basavaraj S/O Veerappa Ankali Vs Basavarajeppa Urf Basavaraj