LAWS(KAR)-2010-4-102

Y B RAMESH Vs. SMT VARALAKSHMI

Decided On April 23, 2010
MAHENDRA NAIKA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the judgment dated 31-7-2004 passed by the first Fast Track Court, Shimoga in S.C.No.46 of 2006 convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 304, Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month, the appellant has filed this appeal.

(2.) THE facts of the case are: That the appellant is charge-sheeted for the offence under Sections 302 and 324 of the IPC alleging that on 1-11-1998 with all preparation and pre-mediation, the accused had put up a small hut in the property, which is disputed between himself and the complainant, which property is situated adjacent to each other in Survey No.36 of Honagala Bylu Village, Thirthahalli Taluk of Shimoga District. It is charged against the appellant that on 2-11-1998 at about 11.00 a.m. when the complainant Kadappa came to his land bearing Survey No.36 to remove the weeds in the garden, the appellant started abusing the complainant and his men for entering the land of the appellant and attempted to assault the deceased Gundanaika with the sickle who was accompanying the complainant which caused grievous injuries on the left thigh of the deceased, just below the private part. THE deceased succumbed to the injuries thereby the appellant has been charged for having committed offence under Section 302 of the IPC. It is further stated that the appellant in the said place and time assaulted complainant Kodappa, Shivappanaika and Gangadharanaika with knife, thereby he is alleged to have committed offence under Section 324 of the IPC.

(3.) SRI A.H. Bhagavan, learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that insofar as finding of fact is concerned, he will not urge and he is only concerned with the quantum of sentence imposed on the appellant. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, he submits that the said sentence deserves to be reduced on the following grounds.-