STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. BHADRAYYA ALIAS BHASKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard the learned Counsel on both sides on merits. We have also reviewed the entire record of this case. The prosecution alleges that at about 7.30 p.m. on 7-9-1997 that the accused had inflicted certain knife injuries to the deceased K. Anand as a result of which the Injured person was removed to the hospital. From the description of the injuries, we find that they were relatively of a minor nature but since they were on the abdominal area Anand was admitted to the hospital. Apparently, there was some level of negligence or, the wounds were not properly attended to or there is a possibility that certain complications arose because of the conditions in the hospital etc., but the fact that remains is that Anand died on 21-9-97 which is two weeks after his admission to the hospital. What is also material is that the cause of death was Gangrene despite which the accused faced a dual charge under Sections 323 and 302, Indian Penal Code Originally, the offence was registered under Sec. 323 Indian Penal Code as the injuries were of minor nature but after the death of Anand the charge was altered to one under Sec. 302. Indian Penal Code The learned trial Judge has after a detailed analysis of the evidence recorded the finding that the death was not due to the injuries inflicted by the accused, that the cause of death was very clearly because of Gangrene and has consequently acquitted the accused. It is against this order of acquittal that the present appeal has been filed.

(2.) The principal submission canvassed by the learned State Counsel is that we have on record the almost immediate complaint of the deceased Anand wherein he has very clearly implicated the accused. Apart from this, the prosecution evidence conclusively establishes that the accused did inflict the injuries on Anand on the evening of 7-9-1997. The learned counsel submitted that it was because of these injuries that Anand was admitted in hospital and it is his submission that it is because of these very injuries that the accused ultimately died. His submission is that insofar as it was these injuries that led ultimately to the death of Anand that a conviction under Sec. 302 Indian Penal Code is fully justified.

(3.) As against this position, learned Counsel Sri. R. B. Deshpande who represents the accused points out to us that the argument is fallacious for the reason that it is well settled law that the accused can only be held liable for the consequences of his act. The learned counsel points out to us that the principles of criminal jurisprudence very clearly postulate that where an accused person inflicts certain injuries that the liability which the law postulates on the accused is limited to the consequences of those injuries. He has then taken us through the medical evidence in this case which clearly establishes that the accused had sustained two injuries, the first one was an incised wound near the midline over the right side of the abdomen measuring 2.5 x 1 x 1 Cms and the second injury was an incised wound measuring 2.5 x 1 x 1 Cms over the right hypo chondrium. Learned Counsel has then taken the trouble to bring it to our notice from the post-mortem evidence also that these injuries were superficial and that there was no damage to any internal areas or vital areas nor were the injuries of such a gravity that they were life threatening. His submission is that if in law these injuries are required to be categorised, that at the very highest they would come under Sec. 324 Indian Penal Code.