- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5390 CRL.A No. 155 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 155 OF 2013 BETWEEN: K. RAMACHANDREGOWDA S/O LATE JANARDHANAGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURAL COOLIE, R/O KUNCHADKA, BILLURA, MAJULA MANE, ALATTI VILLAGE AND POST, SULYA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 239. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. UMESH P.B., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. R.B. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BASAVANAHALLI POLICE STATION, CHIKKMAGALUR DISTRICT - 577 101. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.374(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 01.02.2013/04.02.2013 PASSED BY THE PRL. S.J., CHIKMAGALUR IN S.C.NO.39/2012 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 307 AND 309 OF IPC. THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5390 CRL.A No. 155 of 2013 UNDERGO R.I. FOR 3 YEARS AND PAY FINE OF RS.25,000/-, IN DEFAULT TO PAY FINE, HE SHALL UNDERGO S.I. FOR 1 YEAR FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 307 OF IPC AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri. Umesh P.B., learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri. Channappa Erappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State. 2. Accused in S.C.No.39/2012 having suffered an order of conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 309 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was sentenced by the judgment dated 01.02.2013/04.02.2013 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Chikmagalur. 3. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, he has filed the present appeal. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5390 CRL.A No. 155 of 2013 4. Essential facts which are utmost necessary for the disposal of the present appeal are as under: 5. Appellant is the father of PW.2, who is the injured in the incident. Prosecution reveals that PW.2 had a love affair with Mohammed Mohiddin. PW.2 was working as a Staff Nurse in Narayana Hrudayalaya, Bengaluru. The appellant is said to have objected for inter-religion marriage. The said Mohammed Mohiddin used to speak to PW.2 over mobile/telephone as he had been to Saudi Arabia and working in Zidda. PW.2 left Narayana Hrudayalaya, Bengaluru and joined a hospital for Nursing Course in Mangalore. The love affair of said Mohammed Mohiddin with PW.2 continued even in Mangalore and there used to be frequent telephonic calls. 6. During the Bakrid festival, PW.2 visited the house of Mohammed Mohiddin at Chikmagalur, who had returned to Chikmagalur from Zidda. Even in the holiday period, Mohammed Mohiddin used to meet PW.2. When the matter stood thus, on 04.12.2011, when the said Mohammed Mohiddin came to Mangalore and met PW.2 and there they decided to marry each other. On the same day, they came to Chikmagalur - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5390 CRL.A No. 155 of 2013 and declared their intension to marry each other to the family members of the said Mohammed Mohiddin. PW.2 was aware of the fact that the appellant and his family members would oppose for the said marriage proposal. 7. When the matter stood thus, on 12.12.2011 at about 8:00 a.m., Mohammed Mohiddin and others went to Basavanahalli Police Station and lodged a request to accord police protection for the intended marriage of Mohammed Mohiddin with PW.2. 8. Based on such petition, relatives of PW.2 were secured to the police station and the police wanted to iron out the differences between Mohammed Mohiddin family members and PW.2 family members. When the said reconciliation meeting was going on, the police personnel enquired Mohammed Mohiddin and PW.2 and they expressed their willingness to marry each other. At that juncture, the appellant said to have agitated and with an intension to kill her, took out a knife, which he had carried and hidden with him and assaulted her on her neck region. He also tried to commit suicide with the same knife. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5390 CRL.A No. 155 of 2013 9. The sudden attack of the appellant was witnessed by CW.23 and immediately, he shifted PW.2 to M.G. Hospital and she was admitted there. CW.24 took the appellant in Autorickshaw and he was also admitted to M.G. Hospital. With regard to the incident, a complaint came to be lodged, it was registered in Crime No.172/2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 309 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 10. After registering the case, the police conducted thorough investigation and filed the charge sheet. The presence of the accused were secured after compliance of necessary formalities, charges were framed for the aforesaid offences by the learned Principal Sessions Judge. Accused pleaded not guilty. Therefore, the trial was held. 11. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, 18 witnesses have been examined on behalf of prosecution as PWs.1 to 18 and 20 documentary evidence were placed on record and marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P20. Besides marking 4 material objects as M.O.Nos.1 to 4 comprising of knife and the clothes worn by PW.2 which was blood stained as on the date of incident and the shirt worn by the appellant himself. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:5390 CRL.A No. 155 of 2013 12. On conclusion of recording of evidence, the learned Trial Judge recorded the accused statement as is contemplated under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 wherein the accused has denied all the incriminating materials and did not choose to place any defence evidence on record. 13. Thereafter, the learned Trial Judge heard the arguments of parties in detail and on cumulative consideration of oral and documentary evidence placed on record, convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offences and sentenced as referred to supra. Being aggrieved by the same, appellant is before this Court. 14. Sri.Umesh P.B., learned counsel for the appellant reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum vehemently contended that the incident had occurred at the spur of the moment. He further contended that at present, the victim - PW-2 is leading a happy married life and is now, in pregnancy period. 15. He also pointed out that after the incident, appellant realized his mistake and got PW-2 married to some - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:5390 CRL.A No. 155 of 2013 other person of her choice and now, they are leading a happy married life. Therefore, the isolated incident which occurred at the spur of the moment needs to be considered in the background of the attendant facts and circumstances of the case and acquit the appellant. 16. Alternatively, Sri.Umesh P.B., learned counsel for the appellant contended that in the event, this Court upholding the order of conviction, the injury caused to PW-2 can be traced to offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC and not under Section 307 of IPC. 17. He also pointed out the injury that is caused to the appellant is while snatching the knife from the hands of the appellant which should not be treated as offence punishable under Section 309 of IPC. Therefore, appellant needs to be acquitted for the offence under Section 309 of IPC and custody period already undergone by the appellant be treated as period of imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount reasonably. 18. Per contra, Sri.Channappa Erappa, learned HCGP opposes the appeal grounds in toto. He would further contend - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:5390 CRL.A No. 155 of 2013 that admittedly, the appellant was opposing the inter religion marriage which was sought to be conducted between PW-2 and CW-3 Mohammed Mohiddin. 19. He also pointed out that the action i.e., attributable to the appellant is that of honour killing which is a social menace and appellant assaulted PW-2 only with an intention to take away her life in order to maintain his dignity in the society. Therefore, arguments put forth on behalf of the appellant cannot be countenanced in law. 20. Insofar as alternate submission is concerned, learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that people like appellant if shown mercy and leniency, it would send a bad message to the society and similarly placed perpetrators of the crime would get encouraged by showing such leniency and thus, sought for dismissal of the appeal in toto. 21. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. On such perusal of the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:5390 CRL.A No. 155 of 2013 material on record, following points would arise for consideration:- 1. Whether the material evidence placed on record would be sufficient enough to maintain the conviction of the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 309 of IPC? 2. Whether appellant makes out a case that the impugned judgment is suffering from legal infirmity or perversity and thus, calls for interference? 3. Whether the sentence needs modification? 4. What order? Regarding Point Nos.1 to 3:- 22. In the case on hand, injury caused to the appellant and injury caused to PW-2 is established by the prosecution by placing cogent evidence on record. PW-2 being the daughter of the appellant did not support the case of the prosecution and she has turned hostile. PW-1 is K.G.Jayadevappa, who is the one who lodged the complaint with regard to the incident that occurred in the Basavanahalli Police Station on 12.12.2011. Mohammed Mohiddin is examined as PW-3. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:5390 CRL.A No. 155 of 2013 23. It is the case of the prosecution that PW-3 and PW-2 had a love affair. PW-2 was working as a Staff Nurse in Narayana Hrudayalaya. PW-3 came in contact with PW-2. The acquaintance then turned out itself into a love affair. Later on, PW-3 went to Saudi Arabia and was working at Zidda. Even though PW-3 went to Zidda, love affair continues with PW-2 by frequently conversing over mobile phone. Later, PW-2 left the job of Staff Nurse in Narayana Hrudayalaya and joined a Nursing College at Mangaluru. Even after she shifted to Mangaluru, the love affair continued between PW-2 and PW-3. 24. When the matter stood thus, in the year 2011, PW-3 visited India for Bakrid festival and at that juncture, he went to Mangaluru and met PW-2. On the said meeting, they decided to marry each other. On the same day, PW-2 and PW-3 visited Chikmagalur to the house of PW-3 and declared their intention to marry. 25. PW-2 entertained a doubt that her family members would not approve the said love affair as it is an inter religion marriage and therefore, PW-2 and PW-3 went to Basavanahalli police station seeking protection. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:5390 CRL.A No. 155 of 2013 26. On 12.12.2011 at 8.00 a.m., they went to the Basavanahalli police station, seeking protection. Police secured the presence of appellant and his family members to reconcile the differences between the two families. According to PW-1, it is at that juncture, appellant took out M.O.1 Knife, which was hidden by him and assaulted PW-2. 27. It is his specific case that PW-1 wanted to slit the throat of PW-2 and while so doing, injury caused on the neck and immediately, she was shifted to M.G.Hospital, Chikmagalur. Soon thereafter, appellant also wanted to end his life and got injured himself with the very same knife is the case of the prosecution. Appellant was also shifted in an Auto Rickshaw to the very same M.G.Hospital, Chikmagalur. In respect of the incident, PW-1 reported to the Station House Officer and case came to be registered against appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 309 of IPC in Crime No.172/2011. 28. PWs-4 to 9 are the eye witnesses and all of them have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. Therefore, what remains before the Court is oral evidence of PWs-1 and 3 - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:5390 CRL.A No. 155 of 2013 and other incidental witnesses including the testimony of police personnel, who are present in the Basavanahalli police station. Injuries sustained by appellant as well as PW-2 is reflected in the wound certificates marked at Exs.P.15 and 16. 29. Learned Trial Judge thereafter, considered aforesaid evidence and has recorded an order of conviction both for the offences under Sections 307 and 309 of IPC. 30. This Court in light of the appeal grounds, re-appreciated the material evidence on record. Further, injuries noted in Ex.P.15 is as under:- "Tracheo esophageal cut injury", The above said injury is grievous in nature. 31. As per Ex.P.16, injury caused to the appellant is simple in nature. Taking note of the aforesaid injuries in Exs.P.15 and 16, it is crystal clear that all ingredients required to attract offences under Sections 307 and 309 of IPC are not made out by the prosecution. Even according to the prosecution, the incident had occurred at the spur of the - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:5390 CRL.A No. 155 of 2013 moment when there was a query made by the police as to whether PW-2 and PW-3 are having a true love affair and when they answered to the police that out of their volition, they had decided to marry each other, appellant got enraged and assaulted PW-2. It is pertinent to note that he did not choose to assault PW-3 but he assaulted only PW-2. 32. Noting the fact that aforesaid injury in Ex.P.15 is a grievous injury, offence under Section 307 should be scaled down to offence under Section 326 of IPC. Insofar as the injury caused to the appellant being simple in nature, ingredient to attract the offence under Section 309 of IPC are not made out. The alternate theory put forward on behalf of the accused that while snatching the knife from the hands of the appellant, injury mentioned in Ex.P.16 could have been caused to the appellant. 33. Taking note of the fact that PW-2 is now married to some other person and she is now pregnant, the custody period already undergone by the appellant if treated as period of imprisonment by enhancing fine amount in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, ends of justice would be met. Awarding the - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:5390 CRL.A No. 155 of 2013 sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as the compensation to the PW-2 would also serve the ends of justice inasmuch as the life security would be available to PW-2 and her child. Accordingly, point Nos.1 to 3 are answered partly in the Affirmative. Regarding point No.4:- 34. In view of the finding of this Court on point Nos.1 to 3 as above, I proceed to pass the following:- ORDER i. Criminal appeal is allowed in-part. ii. Accused is acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 309 of IPC but convicted for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC. iii. Sentence ordered by the Trial Judge is modified as under:- a. For the offences punishable under Section 326 of IPC, custody period already under gone by the appellant is treated as period of imprisonment and directed to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- in addition to the fine imposed by the trial Court on or before 10.03.2025. - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:5390 CRL.A No. 155 of 2013 Failing which, appellant shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 years. b. Out of enhanced fine amount, entire sum of Rs.1,00,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to PW-2. iv. Office is directed to return trial Court records with copy of this order forthwith for issue of modified conviction order. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SJK,MH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33 CT: BHK