STATE OF MYSORE Vs. UPPARAGATTI HANAMANTHAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An unfortunate incident has resulted in the death of one Neerakallappa at the hands of the accused under a rather tragic circumstance. A certain quarrel took place on 18-6-1960 at about 6 P. M. between the parents of the deceased on one side and the accused's brother namely, Kanchappa on the other. During the course of that quarrel, the deceased Neerakallappa beat Kanchappa with a stick causing him an injury. Kanchappa was admitted into the Government Hospital at Kudligi as an in-patient on 19-6-1960. With the innocent purpose of finding out how Kanchappa was on the next day viz., on 20-6-1960 at about 10 a. m., the accused, the deceased and his father and a few other residents of Chikkakereyaginahalli called on the injured Kanchappa in the ward room of the hospital at Kudligi. There, a quarrel took place between the accused and the deceased. Thereafter, the accused took an axe belonging to one of the visitors viz., one Maliyappa, which had been left outside the ward room and assaluted the deceased causing him a bleeding injury. As a result thereof, the deceased fell down unconscious and later on, on the same night he died.

(2.) That such an incident took place is amply proved by the evidence in the case. The learned Sessions Judge after taking into consideration all the evidence available on record came to the conclusion that there was no intention on the part of the accused to deal a death-blow on the deceased causing his death. He, therefore, held that the case came within the purview of second part of Section 304 Indian Penal Code and convicted the accused for that offence and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. The accused has neither appealed against this conviction nor is he represented before this Court. The revision petition, however, is filed by the State and the only ground taken by it is the gross inadequacy of the sentence awarded to the accused.

(3.) Certain factors have to be taken into consideration to find out whether this sentence awarded by the learned Sessions Judge is grossly inadequate or not. That there was no intention on the part of the accused to inflict any injury on the deceased, much less was there any idea in his mind to kill him is amply borne out by the records in the case. Hence I accept the learned Judge's finding that the accused is guilty not Under Section 302 Indian Penal Code but only Under Section 304, Part II, Indian Penal Code, The only point that requires determination is whether the sentence of two years awarded by the learned Sessions Judge is grossly inadequate or not. Certain circumstances impel me to come to the conclusion that the sentence awarded is not grossly inadequate. Firstly in the heat of the moment with out any kind of fore-thought catching hold of a weapon which was not taken by the accused him self but by somebody else and kept outside the ward room, the accused used the same, dealt one blow on the deceased with the back of the axe mot realising that fatal consequences would result.