STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. NARASANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard the learned Addl. SPP at length and on merits in both these appeals. The principal grievance is that even though the trial Court has convicted the accused under Sec. 304, Part I, i. P. C. and awarded a sentence of 7 years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default S. I. for 6 months, that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case that the acquittal under Sec. 302, I. P. C. was unjustified. The second submission is that the facts of this case are rather gross and even if for any reason the Court were to convict under a lesser charge that the sentence awarded is inadequate and requires to be enhanced. In one of these appeals earlier the learned Single judge had issued notice to the respondentaccused but that notice has not so far been served and consequently, we dispense with the service of notice in view of the order that has been passed by this Court.

(2.) IT is well settled law that in a case where the trial Court exercises judicial discretion, where the trial Court has adduced valid reasons and where those reasons meet with the approval of the appeal Court, that no interference is warranted.

(3.) IN this case, undoubtedly as a result of the injuries that were inflicted, the deceased has met with a homicidal death. That would not ipso facto justify a conviction under Sec. 302, I. P. C. It is true that by virtue of the death the original charge was one under Sec. 302, I. P. C. , but it is the duty of the trial Court to very carefully examine the facts and circumstances and if the record so justifies then the conviction will have to be under a lesser offence. In the present case despite what has been pointed out by the learned Addl. SPP we do find that the trial court has given very valid reasons both factually and legally for justifying conviction under Sec. 304, I. P. C. and for not convicting under Sec. 302, I. P. C. No fault can be found with regard to those conclusions.