Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Karnataka heard a criminal appeal filed by the appellant who was convicted by the trial court for offences under Sections 498A, 307, and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case was that the accused was addicted to alcohol and harassed his wife for money and property, which led to panchayats and assurance of good behavior. On 4.3.2011, the accused purchased insecticide tablets containing organo-phosphorous poison with the intention to kill his wife. On 5.3.2011, the wife prepared tamarind rice (puliogare) for the family and took it for her lunch at her workplace. Taking advantage of her absence from the kitchen, the accused powdered the tablets and mixed them into the tamarind rice meant for his wife. Unaware of the contamination, the wife consumed the food and also shared it with a co-worker, Smt. Jayasheela. Both developed symptoms of vomiting and giddiness; they were taken to the hospital. The wife survived, but Jayasheela died due to the poison. The trial court convicted the accused, sentencing him to life imprisonment for murder, rigorous imprisonment for five years for attempt to murder, and one year for cruelty. The accused appealed, challenging the conviction. The appellant's counsel argued that the prosecution failed to prove motive, that the investigation was flawed as tiffin boxes and residual food were not sent for forensic examination, and that contradictions existed in witness statements. He further submitted that the accused had no intention to kill the deceased and that at most the offence would fall under Section 304 Part II IPC. The respondent State contended that lapses in investigation did not weaken the case as the post-mortem and FSL reports clearly indicated organo-phosphorous poisoning. It was argued that the accused intended to kill his wife and had knowledge that anyone consuming the poisoned food could die, thus attracting Section 302 IPC. The High Court, after noting the competing arguments, embarked upon examining the evidence to determine whether the prosecution proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt and particularly whether the conviction under Section 302 IPC was appropriate or if Section 304 Part II was applicable. The extract of the judgment ends before the court's final determination on these issues.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 498A, 307, and 302 IPC is sustainable, and whether the offence of murder of the deceased coworker falls under Section 302 IPC or only under Section 304 Part II IPC given that the accused intended to kill his wife, not the deceased.
Law Points
- Intention to kill a specific person may satisfy the mens rea for murder of another if the act was directed at a person and the accused had the necessary intention or knowledge under Section 300 IPC. In the absence of intention
- if the act is done with knowledge that it is likely to cause death
- Section 304 Part II IPC may apply.
Case Details
2018 LawText (KAR) (11) 12
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 941/2013 (C)
K.N. Phaneendra, K. Somashekar
Sri. A.N. Radhakrishna, Sri. Vijayakumar Majage
Eregowda @ Kulla S/o Chikkiremadaiah
The State of Karnataka by Arakere Police Station
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction for offences under Sections 498A, 307 and 302 IPC.
Remedy Sought
Appellant prayed to set aside the conviction and sentence, alternatively for reduction of sentence, arguing that the offence under Section 302 IPC is not made out and at most falls under Section 304 Part II IPC.
Filing Reason
Appellant convicted by Trial Court for poisoning death of co-worker and attempt to murder wife, filed appeal challenging conviction.
Previous Decisions
Trial Court (III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya) in S.C.No.228/2011 convicted the appellant on 20.06.2013 and sentenced him to life imprisonment for murder, 5 years for attempt to murder, and 1 year for cruelty.
Issues
Whether the prosecution has established the charges under Sections 498A, 307, and 302 IPC beyond reasonable doubt?
Whether the conviction under Section 302 IPC is sustainable when the accused intended to kill his wife but the deceased co-worker accidentally consumed the poisoned food, and whether the offence falls under Section 304 Part II IPC instead?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the prosecution failed to prove motive, there were lapses in investigation (non-seizure of tiffin boxes, non-sending of food for forensic examination), contradictions in witness statements regarding movements, and the conduct of accused in taking victims to hospital and not absconding shows innocence. Alternatively, even if prosecution case is accepted, the offence under Section 302 is not made out because accused had no intention or knowledge to cause death of the deceased, and at most it falls under Section 304 Part II IPC.
Respondent argued that lapses in investigation do not paralyse the case, as material objects and post-mortem report, FSL report unequivocally prove poisoning. The accused intended to kill his wife, and he had the knowledge that any person consuming the food may die; thus the offence falls under Section 302 IPC, not 304. The contradictions do not disturb the core of the prosecution case.
Judgment Excerpts
the accused purchased some insecticide tablets containing Organo-phosphorous poison and he was waiting for an opportunity to administer the same to kill his wife.
the offence precisely falls under Section 302 IPC and not under Section 304 IPC.
the accused had never intended to kill the deceased Jayasheela. That he had committed the act of causing the death of deceased Jayasheela without his knowledge or intention
Procedural History
Trial Court framed charges; appellant pleaded not guilty; prosecution examined 27 witnesses and marked 15 documents; defence marked Ex. D1 and D2; Trial Court convicted and sentenced on 20.06.2013; Appellant filed appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. before High Court; High Court heard arguments.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 299, 300, 302, 304 Part I, 304 Part II, 307, 498A
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 374(2), 313
