Trial Court Erred In Ignoring Grievous Injuries On Neck: Karnataka High Court Convicts Husband For Attempting To Murder Wife Using Machete
The Karnataka High Court overturned a trial court order which had acquitted a husband for offence of attempt to murder his wife by attacking her with a razor blade and a chopper/machete, holding that the court had failed to note the nature of injuries on vital parts of the wife's neck.
It further said that the trial court had instead invoked Section 326 IPC (Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid, etc) while loosing sight of the "intention and knowledge" of the accused, specially when the injuries sustained by the victim were grievous in nature.
A division bench of Justice HP Sandesh and Justice Venkatesh Naik T in its order said:
"But the Sessions Court lost sight of the nature of injuries and sustained the injuries on both the left hand and right hand palms and also the injury to the eye and though injuries number 1 to 6 are simple in nature, but the Court has to take note of intention of the accused by inflicting injury on the face and also on the neck and there were three injuries on the neck in terms of injury number 5 and when the injuries are found on the neck, the neck is also a vital part. Apart from that it is emerged that both accused and also his wife i.e., injured were living separately from last 2½ years to 3 years. It is also important to note that accused went with razor and also the chopper and chopper also seized at the instance of the accused and mahazar witness also supports the case of the prosecution regarding recovery and FSL report also supports that MO.1 to MO.3 contains the 'O' blood group of the injured...
The scope and applicability of Section 307 of IPC is also very clear when an attempt was made that it is very clear that it is not necessary that injury capable causing death should have been inflicted what is material to attract, the provision of Section 307 of IPC is the guilty intention or knowledge which all was done, irrespective of result, the intention and knowledge are the matters of inference from totality of circumstances and cannot be measured merely from the results. The trial judge fails to take note of nature of injuries that too on the vital parts of the neck and also the attempt made by the accused and the injured made all her efforts to ward off the blow which the accused was intended to do and as a result, she has sustained injury to both left palm and also the right palm as mentioned in the wound certificate as well as Doctor has deposed the same"
The court was hearing two cross appeals, one filed by the State challenging the trial court order acquitting the accused for offence of attempt to murder (Section 307 IPC). The second appeal was filed by the accused challenging the same order convicting and sentencing him for Sections 498A (Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty and 326 of IPC.
The prosecution alleged that accused and his wife were married for 20 years, when a few years ago the accused started quarelling with his wife for silly reasons and would abuse and assault her.
It was alleged that the accused had assaulted his wife using a razor blade causing injuries on her neck, left jaw, below left eye, right cheek and eye. The alleged incident was witnessed by the neighbours and they pacified the quarrel and accused ran away from the spot and thereafter, they shifted the wife to a government hospital. The complainant–brother of the wife, along with his mother visited the hospital and noticed that the accused had assaulted the victim on 4 to 5 parts of the body using razor and chopper and also caused grievous injuries. Thus it was alleged that the accused with an intention to commit murder of his wife had assaulted her with deadly weapons.
The trial court however did not convict the accused for Section 307 but invoked Section 326 of IPC.
Taking note of the evidence and testimonies, the high court said that there was direct was a evidence against the accused that is P.W.5–the wife, as well as neighbouring witnesses who rushed to the spot and had noticed his role.
"When such being the case, the Trial Court lost sight of considering all these totality of circumstances while invoking Section 307 of IPC, but erroneously comes to the conclusion that it is a case of offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC that there was no any intention, but fails to take note of the intention and knowledge are the matters of inference for totality of circumstances and cannot be measured merely from results though sustained simple Injury Nos.1 to 6, but injury No.7 is grievous in nature that too she lost her vision in respect of her right eye. When such being the material on record, the Trial Court committed an error in coming to the conclusion that it is a case of 326 of IPC and not a case of 307 of IPC. The very approach is erroneous and it requires interference of this Court since the accused went with weapon and caused injury to neck," the bench said.
It further said that the "wound certificate" produced before the Court was very clear with regard to the nature of injuries along with the evidence of the Doctor and the wife.
The court allowed the State's appeal and convicted the accused for Section 307 sentencing him to 5 years in jail; the court also revoked the Section 326 conviction. It further upheld the conviction under Section 498A.
The court also dismissed the accused's appeal.
Case title: THE STATE BY SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE v/s SRI NAGESH S.V. AND CONNECTED PETITION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.104 OF 2018