SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ramu
Vs.
State of Karnataka
Crl.A.No.837 of 2003
(Doraiswamy Raju and Arijit Pasayat JJ.)
20.04.2004
JUDGMENT
1. Heard Mr. K. Ramamoorthy, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. Sidharth Dave, learned counsel for the respondent-State.
2. The appellant questions the legality of judgment rendered by a Division
Bench of the High Court of Karnataka which upset the judgment of acquittal
rendered by learned Trial Judge and held the appellant-accused to be guilty of
offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in
short 'IPC'). The accused was tried for allegedly causing homicidal death of
one Savitha (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') being unsuccessful in
his love for her. P.Ws. 1, 3 and 5 were examined claiming that they were
eye-witnesses who had witnessed the occurrence of stabbing. P.Ws.2, 4 and 6
were also stated to be persons before whom the accused admitted to have
inflicted the injuries on the deceased. It is to be noted that the prosecution
version itself is to the effect that after inflicting injuries on the deceased,
the appellant-accused stabbed himself. The Trial Court found the evidence of
P.Ws.1, 3 and 5 to be not believable and recorded acquittal. The State of
Karnataka preferred an appeal before the High Court of Karnataka which, as
noted above, found the judgment of Trial Court to be not in order, set aside
the acquittal, recorded conviction under Section 302 IPC and sentenced the
appellant to undergo imprisonment for life.
3. In support of the appeal, it has been pointed out that the view taken by the
learned Trial Judge was a possible view and since the judgment of acquittal was
challenged before the High Court, the same should not have been reversed
without clinching material to show that appellant-accused was the author of the
crime. It was submitted that several inconsistencies and contradictions were
noticed by the trial Court to record acquittal. In response, learned counsel
for the respondent-State submitted that the analysis made by the Trial Court
was clearly erroneous and the conclusions were contrary to evidence on record
and, therefore, the High Court, after analysing the evidence, came to hold that
the conclusions of the Trial Court were erroneous.
4. We have gone through the judgments of the courts below and the evidence. We
find that the evidence clearly shows that the appellant-accused was responsible
for the death of Savitha. The only question which remains is about the
applicability of Section 302 IPC. Taking note of the circumstances and the
description of the scenario, as done by the witnesses, we feel that appropriate
conviction would be under Section 304 (Part-I) IPC and not under Section 302
IPC. Custodial sentence of ten years' would meet the ends of justice.
5. We notice that the High Court had directed payment of compensation under
Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the
Cr.P.C.). The records do not reveal that the accused was heard before the
compensation was imposed. In view of a decision of this Court in Mangilal Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh , the compensation could not have been awarded
without hearing the accused on the question of grant of compensation. In the
present case, the direction was that the compensation was to be paid to PW-11,
who is not a party in the present appeal. We remit the matter back to the High
Court to hear the accused and PW-11 on the question of grant of compensation,
if any. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the
question as to whether compensation is to be awarded or not and the matter is
remitted for this limited purpose only.
The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.