HAMSAHEB NEERASAHEB MULTANI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard the appellant's learned Advocate and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor on merits. Once again, though technically this criminal appeal concerns an order of conviction dated 3/12/2001, effectively one needs to take note of certain other facts, the first of them being that the incident in question is alleged to have taken place on 17/10/1992. The appellant before us is the husband and the allegation against him was that he had severely assaulted his wife by the name of Tanima and that as a result of the injuries she died. The case has gone through several phases insofar as the accused was once acquitted, thereafter he came to be convicted by the High Court and on an appeal to the Supreme Court, the conviction of the High Court was set aside on the ground that he was originally charged with an offence punishable under S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the High Court had convicted him of the offence punishable under S. 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and that this conviction was bad in law because, there was no charge under the latter head. The Supreme Court therefore set aside the order of conviction recorded by the Trial Court and remanded the case to the Trial Court where upon the Trial Court framed a fresh charge against the accused under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. The Trial Court has finally through the present judgment dated 3/12/2001 convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and awarded a sentence of life imprisonment. The present appeal challenges that conviction and sentence. The appeal was admitted and the appellant's learned Advocate filed an application for release on bail. Certain very valid reasons were set out, the most important of them being that as of now, the appellant before us has undergone over six-and-a-half years in custody and the submission was that even if the Court were to sustain the conviction for purposes of argument, that the Court must take cognizance of the fact that the accused has virtually served the normal sentence which the Court would award for such an offence. At the same time, the appellant's learned Advocate advanced certain other submissions on merits and after hearing him and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor, the position that emerged was that this Court was of the view that the appeal itself would qualify for disposal. We have heard the learned Advocates on both sides. The record is before us, we have referred to the same and there was nothing really that survived for the stage of final hearing.

(2.) WE propose to summarise our findings with regard to the merits of the case for two reasons, the first of them being that a Division Bench of this Court on an earlier occasion has evaluated the facts of the case and the law and has recorded a conviction under S. 304-B of the Indian Penal Code against the accused. The Apex Court set aside that conviction and the judgment of the Apex Court very clearly points out that the only reason for interference was because, the Apex Court found that there was no charge against the accused for the offence under S. 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. The Apex Court has not interfered at all either with the reasoning or findings of the High Court except having pointed out to us that this conviction was technically and legally incorrect only for want of requisite charge. It was for this reason that the proceeding was remanded to the trial Court. We then have the next stage where the learned trial Judge has applied his mind to the facts of the case and he has once again recorded a conviction under S. 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. Though the appellant's learned Advocate has vehemently submitted that the findings recorded both by the trial Court on the earlier occasion as also by the Sessions Court on this occasion on merits are erroneous, we are not prepared to accept that submission because, there is overwhelming evidence on record to indicate that the injuries sustained by the deceased were at the hands of the accused. Under these circumstances, no interference is called for as far as the conviction under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code is concerned.

(3.) THE only area where we propose to exercise some level of discretion is on the question of sentence and the appellant's learned Advocate pointed out to us the age of the accused, he also pointed out to us the status of the accused that he is a poor tailor, and he also pointed out to us several other facts and circumstances from the record on the basis of which, he submitted that this is a case which will qualify for some reduction of sentence. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor has contested this position and his strongest argument was that the High Court itself on the earlier occasion awarded a sentence of imprisonment for life and that in this background, there is really no case made out to take any other view. As far as this submission goes, what we need to point out is that on the earlier occasion, when the appeal was allowed by the High Court, none of the special extenuating circumstances which have been pointed out to us today by the appellant's learned Advocate had been placed before the Court as is evident from the judgment and consequently, that submission canvassed will not hold good.