Krishna Prabhu Vs State of Karnataka

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.10.2012 PASSED BY THE P.O., F.T.C., UDUPI IN S.C.NO.68/2011 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 307 OF IPC. THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO S.I. FOR 5 YEARS AND TO PAY FINE OF RS.10,000/-, IN DEFAULT TO PAY FINE, HE SHALL FURTHER UNDERGO S.I. FOR 6 MONTHS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 307 OF IPC. THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED PRAYS THAT HE BE ACQUITTED.

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:18494 CRL.A No. 1273 of 2012

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

THIS CRL.A., COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

The appellant being accused in SC No.68/2011 on the file of the Fast Track Court, Udupi, is impugning the judgment of conviction dated 31.10.2012, for the offences punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC'), and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 5 years, and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months.

¶25

For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their rank and status before the Trial Court.

¶26

Brief facts of the case are that, PW1 being the complainant filed the first information with Karkala Town Police against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 326 and 307 of IPC. It is alleged that the accused is the husband of victim-PW6, and they married during the year 1982. However, they were quarreling with each other. On the fateful day i.e., on 30.11.2010, there was a quarrel between

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:18494 CRL.A No. 1273 of 2012

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

the husband and wife. The accused being the husband, assaulted her with a club marked as MO15, as a result of which, she sustained injuries. This fact was informed to the brother of victim-PW6, and he filed the complaint before the police. It is stated that the accused surrendered before the police on 02.02.2011, and was in judicial custody till 23.02.2011, on which date, he was released on bail.

¶30

The Investigating Officer has filed the charge sheet

¶31

against the accused for the above said offences. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 11, got marked Exs.P1 to 11 and identified MOs.1 to 15 in support of its contention. The accused has denied all the incriminating materials available on record. But he has not chosen to lead any evidence. The Trial

¶32

Court after taking into consideration all these materials on record passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC, and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period for 5 years, and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default, to under go simple imprisonment for

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:18494 CRL.A No. 1273 of 2012

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

6 months. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused is before this Court.

¶36

Heard Sri. Ravi Kiran C, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, learned ASPP for the respondent. Perused the materials including the Trial Court records.

¶37

In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶38

“Whether the appellant-accused has made out a case to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court?

¶39

My answer to the above point is 'partly in the Affirmative' for the following:

¶40

REASONS

¶41

The materials on record disclose that the accused married the injured-PW6 during the year 1982. They have begotten two children in the marriage. There used to be frequent quarrel between the husband and wife. On the date of

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:18494 CRL.A No. 1273 of 2012

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

incident i.e., on 30.10.2010, there was again quarrel between the spouses, which resulted in accused assaulting his wife with club-MO15. As a result, she sustained head injury. She was shifted to Prathiba Nursing Home, Karkala and later to Kasturba Hospital, Manipal.

¶45

PW1 being the brother of victim-PW6, rushed to the police station and filed the FIR. Spot mahazar was drawn, the weapon i.e., wooden club used in the commission of offence, blood stains at the scene of occurrence were seized under the mahazar.

¶46

Ex.P5 is the wound certificate pertaining to PW6, according to which, she sustained chopped head injury with right squamous temporal bone fracture, which is described as grievous injury, along with other two simple injuries.

¶47

PW6 being the victim has fully supported the case of the prosecution. Even though PW1 the informant is not the eye witness, PWs.2 and 7 have deposed before the Court that they came to the spot immediately after the incident and the accused was at the spot. Even though PWs.2, 6 and 7 have been cross examined at length, nothing has been elicited from

¶48

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:18494 CRL.A No. 1273 of 2012

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

them to disbelieve their version. The wound certificate Ex.P5 prima facie supports the contention of the prosecution. PW5 is the Doctor, who examined the injured and issued the wound certificate. As per Ex.P.5., MO15 is the wooden club used in the commission of the offence, which was seized by the Investigating Officer. Drawing up of panchanama and seizing of materials from the scene of occurrence is supported by PW3.

¶51

PW4 is the son of the accused, who speaks about

¶52

the frequent dispute between his parents and about the conduct of the accused. From all these materials, the contention of the prosecution that the accused being the husband of the victim-PW6 assaulted her with wooden club MO15 is proved beyond reasonable doubt. I do not find any reason to suspect the version of the prosecution to extend the benefit of doubt in favour of the accused.

¶53

On going through the impugned judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court, I find that the Court has appreciated the oral and documentary evidence placed before it and formed an opinion that prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under

¶54

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:18494 CRL.A No. 1273 of 2012

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

Section 307 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt. I do not find any reason to interfere with the same.

¶57

Even though the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC, it is stated that the accused, who was aged 40 years at the time of the commission of the offence is now aged 55 years. He is staying separately from his wife and children, all alone. From the materials it is found that he had voluntarily surrendered before the jurisdictional Magistrate on 02.02.2011, and was released on bail on 23.02.2011.

¶58

The appellant is physically present before the Court and submits that since he is staying all alone without any support, either financial or psychological, his case may be considered leniently.

¶59

Since the appellant has already undergone imprisonment for a period of 21 days, I deem it appropriate to set off the sentence, which he has already undergone. The Trial Court has imposed a fine of Rs.10,000/-. Looking to the nature and seriousness of the offence and the relationship of the accused with the victim, they being the husband and wife, I

¶60

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:18494 CRL.A No. 1273 of 2012

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

deem it appropriate to enhance the quantum of fine to Rs.50,000/-, out of which, PW6 the victim may be paid a sum of Rs.40,000/- as compensation. By such an order, the ends of justice would be met.

¶63

Accordingly, I answer the above point partly in the Affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶64

ORDER

¶65

(i) The appeal is allowed in-part.

¶66

(ii) The judgment of conviction dated 31.10.2012 passed in SC No.68/2011 on the file of the Fast Track Court, Udupi is confirmed.

¶67

(iii) The order of sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months is set aside.

¶68

(iv) The appellant-accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment, to the period which he has already undergone and he is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default, to undergo imprisonment for a period of 6 months.

¶69

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:18494 CRL.A No. 1273 of 2012

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

(v) Out of the fine amount to be deposited by the appellant, a sum of Rs.40,000/- is directed to be paid to the victim-PW6 on due identification, as compensation as provided under Section 357 of Cr.P.C. The balance amount is to be appropriated to the State.

¶72

Registry to send back Trial Court records along with copy of judgment for needful action.

¶73

Sd/(M G UMA) JUDGE

¶74

BH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23

Krishna Prabhu v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Prabhu v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Gowramma Vs State of Karnataka

Mahammed Aneesh Vs State of Karnataka

Shri Akhil Vishwanatham Vs State by Cubbon Park P S

Sri Kumara @ Mohan Kumara Vs State by Chikkamagalur Rural Police

The State of Karnataka Vs Lakshmisha

Taj Pasha Vs State of Karnataka