State of Karnataka Vs Indramma

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1) (3) CR.P.C BY THE S.P.P FOR THE STATE PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO MAY BE PLEASED TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 04.11.2023 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA SITTING AT SRIRANGAPATNA S.C.NO.5037/2019 ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED/RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHBALE UNDER SECTION 114, 504, 307, 326 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC, ETC.

¶31

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶32

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and

¶33

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶34

3 -

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:27463-DB CRL.A No. 1876 of 2024

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶38

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD)

¶39

The State is in appeal calling in question the judgment dated 04.11.2023 in S.C.No.5037/2019 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya sitting at Srirangapatna [for short, ' the Sessions Court' ]. The Sessions Court has acquitted the respondent of the offences punishable under Sections 114, 504, 307, 326 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶40

Briefly stated the prosecution’s case is as follows. The jurisdictional police began an investigation on the information lodged by the informant. The respondent [a lady] was in a relationship with the first accused [Mr. Babu]. The respondent and the first accused hatched a plan to do away with the injured’s life because he was also pursuing a relationship with the respondent. The

¶41

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:27463-DB CRL.A No. 1876 of 2024

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

informant is the brother of the injured. On 26.04.2019, when the injured and the respondent were sitting at the entrance of the respondent’s house, the first accused came with a knife and tried to slit the throat of the injured with the respondent holding the hands of the injured.

¶44

The police have filed a charge sheet against the respondent and the first accused, but because the police could not secure the first accused’s participation in the trial, the same is split. The respondent has stood trial for the said offences, which include the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. The prosecution has examined the informant as PW.1, and the injured as PW.2. An alleged eyewitness is examined as PW.3 apart from other official witnesses, including the doctor who has treated the injured.

¶45

The Sessions Court has disbelieved the evidence of the informant [PW.1 - the injured's

¶46

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:27463-DB CRL.A No. 1876 of 2024

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

brother] and the alleged eyewitness concluding that there is no material whatsoever against the respondent to hold, beyond all reasonable doubt, that she held the hands of the injured and abetted the commission of the offence. This Court must examine whether the Sessions Court's finding in this regard is perverse to justify an interference.

¶49

The material witnesses examined by the prosecution are the informant [PW.1] and an alleged eyewitness. Admittedly, the informant has not witnessed the commission of the offence, and he has come to the place of the offence when he is informed of the same over telephone by Umesh [PW.3] - the alleged eyewitness. However, this witness has stated that when he and one Arun were proceeding in front of the respondent's house, they heard the scream and when they reached the place of offence, they saw the first accused holding a knife and had stabbed the injured and the respondent was holding a hands of

¶50

6 -

¶51

NC: 2025:KHC:27463-DB CRL.A No. 1876 of 2024

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

the injured. The Sessions Court has disbelieved this

¶54

evidence because there is no reference to this alleged overt act by the respondent in the FIR.

¶55

This Court must observe that if the

¶56

prosecution’s case against the respondent is to be believed, then the alleged overt act by the respondent should have been mentioned in the FIR because it is the prosecution's case that the FIR is registered on

¶57

the information given by this eyewitness to the informant. The next witness is the injured himself, and he has stated that on the fateful day, he was chatting with the respondent at her place around 9.00 p.m. when the first accused joined them and he suddenly removed a knife from his pocket and the respondent held his hands aiding the first accused in assaulting him with a knife.

¶58

The Sessions Court has considered this

¶59

evidence by the injured in the light of the admission

¶60

7 -

¶61

NC: 2025:KHC:27463-DB CRL.A No. 1876 of 2024

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

that he was in a relationship with the respondent and that he had instructed the first accused to stay away from the respondent. In addition this Court must observe that if there was a sudden attack by the first accused, no inference of any prior plan between the respondent and the first accused can be implied in the absence of positive evidence on meeting of minds between them, and crucially, it has come on record that the injured has not stated about the overt act by the respondent in the statement to the police.

¶64

Thus, neither the evidence of the injured nor the purported eyewitness [who has admitted that he reached the place of the offence only on hearing the scream and that the neighbours have also come to the place of the offence] can assist the prosecution. Further, though this witness states that neighbours had also assembled. The prosecution has not examined the neighbours. This Court, in the light of the aforesaid, is not persuaded to opine that the

¶65