Karnataka High Court Hears Appeal Challenging Conviction Under Sections 307 and 448 IPC. The Appellant Contends That the Trial Court Erred in Relying on Interested Witnesses and Failing to Consider Lack of Intention to Kill.

Criminal appeal against conviction for offences under Sections 307 and 448 IPC.

The appellant sought to set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 07.12.2010 passed by the Fast Track Court, Channarayapatna, in S.C.No.23/2008.

The appellant contended that the trial court erroneously convicted him based on interested witnesses, overlooked lack of intention to kill, ignored material contradictions, and relied on insufficient evidence without FSL report.

The Fast Track Court, Channarayapatna, convicted the appellant in S.C.No.23/2008, sentencing him to five years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000 under Section 307 IPC, and three months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.250 under Section 448 IPC.

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant committed criminal trespass with intent to commit murder under Section 448 IPC. Whether the evidence established the essential ingredient of intention to kill or knowledge that the act was likely to cause death under Section 307 IPC. Whether the trial court erred in relying on the testimony of interested witnesses without independent corroboration. Whether the absence of a Forensic Science Laboratory report linking the blood-stained clothes and weapon to the victim entitled the appellant to acquittal. Whether the contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and medical evidence vitiated the conviction.

Appellant argued that all prosecution witnesses were interested and politically motivated due to rivalry over a Taluka Panchayat presidential election in which the complainant did not support him. Appellant contended that the complainant (P.W.1) did not state any intention to kill, which is an essential ingredient of Section 307 IPC, and that the prosecution built its case on improvements. Appellant pointed out contradictions in the evidence of P.Ws.2, 3, and 4, and between P.W.1 and P.W.7 (doctor), and challenged the genuineness of the x-ray report and the doctor’s specialisation. Appellant submitted that no FSL report was produced despite seizure of blood-stained clothes and iron rod, and that the seizure itself was not proved as per Ex.P.2 and P.W.2’s testimony. Appellant relied on Sarju Prasad v. State of Bihar to argue that intention must be clearly proved, on Govindaraju v. State to argue that absence of FSL report is fatal, and on Nagaraj v. State to argue that silence under Section 313 CrPC does not fill gaps in prosecution evidence. Appellant also urged that the sentence be limited to the period already undergone, relying on Balram Bama Patil, noting that he had been in custody for 4 months 10 days. Respondent State argued that all 11 prosecution witnesses supported the case and that motive was proved through the political enmity arising from the election.

It is the case of the prosecution before the Trial Court that the complainant Smt. N.T. Jayalakshmamma lodged the complaint against the appellant that on 22.11.2007 when she was alone in the house at around 12.00 noon, the accused trespassed the house of the complainant with an intention of taking her life and in furtherance of the same, he has assaulted her by means of iron rod and caused injuries on her head and other parts of the body. In the appeal memorandum, it is contended that the Fast Track Court has failed to take note of the fact that all the witnesses examined by the prosecution are interested witnesses, who are having political vengeance against the appellant, who is presently belonging to BJP. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that in order to attract Section 307 of IPC, three factors are essential - intention, nature of injury and nature of weapon used. P.W.1 complainant herself has not spoken anything about the intention of the accused in attempting to take away the life of the complainant. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of GOVINDARAJU ALIAS GOVINDA v. STATE BY SRIRAMAPURAM POLICE STATION AND ANOTHER reported in (2012) 4 SCC 722 ... that no effort made by the prosecution to prove that it was human blood and blood group of the deceased was also same blood group and no reliance can be given on recoveries.

On 22.11.2007, a complaint was lodged by Smt. N.T. Jayalakshmamma alleging criminal trespass and assault with an iron rod with intent to kill. The police registered a case under Sections 448 and 307 IPC, investigated, and filed a charge sheet. The case was taken on file as C.C.No.46/2008 and later committed to the Sessions Court as S.C.No.23/2008. The Fast Track Court, Channarayapatna, conducted the trial, examined 11 prosecution witnesses, and admitted documents Exs.P.1 to P.9 and material objects M.Os.1 to 3. By judgment dated 07.12.2010, the trial court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to five years rigorous imprisonment for Section 307 IPC and three months for Section 448 IPC. The appellant preferred Criminal Appeal No.1309/2010 under Section 374(2) CrPC before the High Court of Karnataka. The appeal was heard on 05.11.2020, and judgment was pronounced on 20.11.2020. The text of the final judgment is incomplete in the provided extract, omitting the court’s analysis and final order.

• Indian Penal Code, 1860: 307, 448
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 374(2), 313