26 Jun 2023 2:16 PM GMT
The Karnataka High Court recently modified the conviction handed down to an accused for attempt to murder charge and convicted him for a lesser charge of grievous hurt under Section 325, for squeezing the testicles of the complainant during a fight. A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan partly allowed the appeal filed by convict Parmeshwarappa who was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for...
The Karnataka High Court recently modified the conviction handed down to an accused for attempt to murder charge and convicted him for a lesser charge of grievous hurt under Section 325, for squeezing the testicles of the complainant during a fight.
A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan partly allowed the appeal filed by convict Parmeshwarappa who was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 7 years for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. It sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for three years under Section 325 of the IPC.
The bench held, “There was a quarrel between the accused and the complainant on the spot. During that quarrel, the accused chose to squeeze the testicles. Therefore, it cannot be said that the accused came with an intention or with preparation to commit murder. If at all, he has prepared or attempt to commit murder, he could have brought some deadly weapons with him in order to commit murder.”
As per the complainant, on 15.03.2010 accused was staring at him and in the night, the accused with an intention to commit murder, came and picked up quarrel with him, abused him in filthy language and squeezed his testicles and caused inner injuries to the vital part.
During the trial the prosecution examined 10 witnesses and based on which the trial court convicted the accused.
In appeal the accused contended that the alleged eye witnesses had not seen the incident and they came after the victim fell down and therefore, it cannot be said that they are the eyewitnesses. It was further contended that doctors had not stated anything about the injury caused to the complainant as it would endanger his life.
On going through the evidence of the witnesses and the reasoning given by the trial court the bench said, “The injury caused to the testicals of PW.1 (complainant), it is admittedly a vital part of the body and in a general view, if any injury caused to the testicles, if he has not treated, it leads to the death, therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant have no knowledge about causing injury to the private part which may leads to the death.”
However, Court said it cannot be said that the accused as a pre-plan brought any deadly weapons with an intention to commit murder. It added that testicles is a vital part of the body which may cause death and since complainant had to undergo surgery and the testicles was removed, Court passed an order for grievous hurt.
“This is the case which is clearly falls under the category of grievous hurt caused by the accused during the quarrel without using any deadly weapons. Therefore, I am of the view, the sentence passed by the trial Court finding guilty for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC is not correct and the offence committed by the accused is clearly falls under Section 325 of IPC.”
Following which it partly allowed the appeal.
Case Title: Parameshwarappa And The State
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 242 OF 2012
Citation; 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 239
Date of Order: 01-06-2023
Appearance: Advocate Rajendra S Ankalkoti for Appellant.
HCGP Rashmi Jadhav for respondent.
Click Here To Read/Download Judgment