STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. KRISHNAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a State appeal challenging the acquittal of the accused-respondent for offences under Sections 326 and 307, IPC who was charged with attempting to commit murder of his wife P.W. 1 on 4-5-1986 at about 6.30 a.m. in his house at Benganuru village, Bangarpet Taluk, by assaulting her with a matchu on her head and hands. P.W. 2 is the father of the accused. Till the first child was born he was living with his father P.W. 2, thereafter they were divided and the accused started living in a room of the same house separately with his wife and two children, they were about 6 and 4 years of age being a daughter and a son respectively. The room was independent, whereas the parents of the accused and the brother continued to live in the family house. The accused was suspecting fidelity of his wife P.W. 1 imputing illegitimate connection with his younger brother Sampangi. He used to illtreat her and assault her frequently for this reason. According to the prosecution on 4-5-1986 in the early morning P.W. 1 had gone to fetch water. The accused and the two children were in the house. When she returned with water the accused and the children were in the room and on her entering into the house the accused assaulted her with the chopper or matchu on her head and hands. While so doing he closed the door and kept a bag containing ragi against the door and then assaulted her, as a result of which three of her right hand fingers were cut, two were severed and fell down whereas the left hand middle finger was cut and hanging. When she shouted, again she was assaulted on her head. There were bleeding injuries and her parents-in-law as well as husband's brother came there, shouted from outside, the accused opened the door and went away. Other family members removed her to the hospital at Bangarpet. P.W. 13 the Medical Officer, Combined Hospital, Bangarpet examined her at 7.55 a.m. and found as many as eight injuries. She was referred for further treatment to S.N.R. Hospital, Kolar where she was treated by P.W. 12. Before that P.W. 13 sent intimation to the police station about P.W. 1 having been admitted in the hospital as per Exhibit P. 18. P.W. 15 the Sub-Inspector incharge of Bangarpet Police station received it at 8.45 a.m. and then proceeded to the hospital. There he recorded the statement of P.W. 1 as per Exhibit P. 21 and then registered a case in Crime No. 88 of 1986 and forwarded FIR to the jurisdictional Magistrate. At about 10 a.m. the accused surrendered before him with matchu and he found his clothes stained with blood. The same were seized under a mahazar. He arrested the accused and kept him in custody. He thereafter proceeded to the spot of the incident. From the spot, that is, in the house of the accused he seized two cut fingers lying on the floor and kept them in a bottle. He also seized broken bangles from the spot. Material witnesses were examined and after completion of due investigation charge sheet came to be filed. Though both the charges under Sections 326 and 307, IPC were framed it was wholly unnecessary to frame both the charges. P.W. 1 partly supported the prosecution story but did not specifically state that it was the accused who assaulted her. She was cross-examined by the prosecution. The evidence given by the father of the accused, P.W. 2 is circumstantial in nature inasmuch as he saw the accused going out of the house immediately he came out. Mother and brother of the accused did not speak even on they seeing the accused. The trial court acquitted the accused on the ground that there was no clinching evidence and only from preponderance of probability he could not be convicted. The lapses on the part of the Investigating Officer were, not sending the blood-stained articles like clothes and matchu for chemical analysis and not examining the two children aged 6 and 4 years said to be present at the time of the incident. Thus the trial court found that the prosecution did not prove the guilt beyond doubt. The learned Government Pleader urged that this approach of the trial court is wholly unsupportable inasmuch as even the evidence of a hostile witness could be relied upon partly and cannot be thrown out in toto. There is strong circumstantial evidence to show that it was the accused and the accused alone who caused these injuries to the complainant P.W. 1. The lapses on the part of the Investigating Officer should not defeat justice. The learned counsel for the accused-respondent however supported the judgment of the trial court and highlighted the lapses referred to above on the part of the Investigating Officer. According to him non-examination of the two children in the house goes against the prosecution and the evidence of P.W. 1 is not to the effect that it was the accused and accused alone who caused injuries to her. Rest of the evidence does not directly connect the accused with the injuries sustained by her. Therefore according to him the trial court was justified in acquitting the accused. We have reappraised the evidence in the light of the arguments advanced. That P.W. 1 sustained grievous injuries is evident and proved from the medical evidence of P.Ws. 13 and 12 who examined her immediately after the incident at Bangarpet and thereafter at Kolar respectively. The incident is said to have occurred at about 6 a.m. or so. The accused did not take the injured to the hospital. P.Ws. 2 and 4 have deposed about it. According to P.W. 2, the father of the accused, having seen P.W. 1 lying on the floor of the house with her fingers cut and seeing blood on the floor removed her in a cart to Bangarpet Hospital and on the advice of the Doctor thereafter in a car to the hospital at Kolar. Having so admitted he went back to his village. P.W. 4 younger brother of the accused also swears about he taking the injured in a cart to the Bangarpet Hospital and asserts that the accused never came to the hospital. As advised by P.W. 13 he removed her to Kolar Hospital. Then he returned to the village at about 3 p.m. There is no dispute over this fact of she having been removed to the hospital by these two witnesses. P.W. 13 noticed the following injuries on her : "1. One cut injury 'K' shaped measuring about 4" x 3" x 2" in deep, present over the left partial bone.

(2.) Cur injury measuring about 2" x 1 1/4 present justmedial to the injury No. 1.

(3.) . Cut injury 2" x 1" detached from the root of the left earpresent.