(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., seeking to set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence Dated 15.03.2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 326, 307, 452 & 504 of Ipc.)

1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment whereby the accused is convicted and the order of sentence dated 15.03.2016 dated 03.09.2015 passed by the learned VII Addl. Sessions Judge, Belagavi sitting at Chikodi, in S.C.No.47/2013 for the offence punishable under Sections 326, 307, 452 & 504 of IPC. Wherein the accused therein was sentenced to undergo SI for six months for the offence punishable u/s 452 of IPC and he shall pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo S.I. for one month. For the offence punishable u/s 326 of IPC, accused shall undergo SI for 1 years and shall pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo S.I. for two months. For the offence punishable u/s 307 of IPC, accused shall undergo SI for 2 years and shall pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo S.I. for six months. For the offence punishable u/s 504 of IPC, accused shall undergo SI for three months and shall pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo S.I. for one month.

2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties herein after are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant absent. There is no representation on behalf of the appellant. Learned High Court Government Pleader is present.

4. The brief facts of the case are that;

One Smt. Sunanda W/o: Shrishail Doddamani, is the complainant in this case. The parental place of complainant is Telsang. About 20 years back, the complainant-Sunanda got married one Shrishail Doddamani of Chikkapadasalagi village & led marital life with him for 10 years. Through the wedlock, complainant gave birth to three sons viz., Hanumant, Santosh and Prakash. All the three sons are residing with their father at Chikkapadasalagi Village. Since 10 years from the date of this complaint, relationship between complainant and her husband was strained. Therefore, the complainant left her husbands place Chikkapadasalagi village and started to stay in her parents house at Telsang of Athani Taluk. In the said house, complainant and her sisters by name Mallawwa and Sattawwa and her brother Nadagatteppa together are residing.

On 17.03.2012, in the night at 8.00 p.m., the accused holding sickle in his hand, suddenly trespassed into the house of complainant, started to abuse her in filthy language like Bosudi & Rande, are you leading life with 3rd person having illicit relationship with them etc. Saying these words, he started to assault on the complainant with sickle. When she tried to avoid stroke, sickle, forcibly came into contact with her left hand. Meanwhile, he assaulted on her head & right hand, and she sustained bleeding injuries on her right and left hand also.

Due to forcible stroke, the left palm being cut and it was hanging, it was a profuse bleeding on the floor from all the injured parts of her body. When the sisters and brother of the complainant tried to pacify the quarrel, the accused gave life threat to him. When the complainant & her relatives started to cry, passers by from the road by name Siddu Kamathalli & Mushak Nadaf hurriedly came to the spot. Meanwhile, the accused with sickle fled. He trespassed into the house of complainant, abused her in filthy language and also assaulted her with sickle & caused bleeding injuries. The accused is said to in know of the fact that, had the injuries caused the death of his wife, the former would have been gathered of murder. Thus it is stated to have attempted the murder and he committed an offence of attempt to commit murder. Thereafter, the sisters and brother had gathered people, took the injured- complainant to the Government Hospital, Vijayapura for treatment. During her treatment, her left palm was amputated by the doctor. The police came to the hospital and received the complaint from the complainant. The left palm including fingers were amputed. Therefore, the right hand thumb impression of the complainant was taken by the police on the complaint. The complaint came to be registered in Aigali P.S. Crime No.42/2012 against the accused for the aforesaid offences under Section 326, 307, 452 & 504 of IPC.

5. On completing investigation, the against ws charge sheeted for the aforesaid offences. Investigating Officer arrested the accused during investigation and recorded voluntary statement and seized the sickle at the instance of the latter under panchanama.

Charges were leveled against accused for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 326, 307 and 504 of IPC.

6. The prosecution has examined 11 witnesses as PWs.1 to 11, got marked 12 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.12 and material objects as M.Os.1 to 3. The accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., and denied the allegations in toto found the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 326, 307, 452 and 504 of IPC and pronounced the judgment convicting the accused for the aforesaid offences and sentenced the accused as stated supra.

7. I have perused the oral and documentary evidence and heard arguments of the learned High Court Government Pleader for the State.

8. Learned High Court Government Pleader would submit that the accused was coupled with cruel mind and made a sever attack on his wife. It is clear from the circumstances that the complainant/wife PW.3 established the incident beyond all reasonable doubt.

He further submits that because of the torture and cruelty of the accused, the victim came out of the marital house and residing separately in the parents house and the accused did not leave her to live peacefully and there was an attack on her with sickle and hence he does not deserve for any leniency.

He would further submit that the way in which the attack was made with a sharp edged strong weapon and thus the conclusion arrived at by the learned Judge is that he was held guilty for the offences under Sections 326, 307, 452 and 504 of IPC.

He would further submit that PW.3, complainant PW.5-Nadagatteppa have supported the prosecutions case. The version of PW.3 is supported by the evidence of eyewitness i.e. PW.5. The evidence of PWs.9 and 11, the doctor and expert are supporting the evidence of injured witness PW.3 to prove the injuries caused on the complainant. The evidence of PWs.3, 5 and 9 to 11 are sufficient to establish the guilt against accused for the aforesaid offences.

9. PW.5/Nadugatteppa Ningappa Madar, who is brother of the complainant, the alleged eyewitness to the incident has not fully supported to the version of the PW.3/complainant and turned hostile and was cross examined.

10. PW.6-Sharif who is said to be a spot pancha has stated that about 2 years back, police took him with another pancha witness to the spot and police have drawn spot mahazar in his presence as per Ex.P4.

11. PW.7-Sidgouda Kamathalli, is the circumstantial witness has stated that when he was proceeding in front of the house of PW.3-complainant at Telsang, he heard the noise of weeping and screaming. Complainants left hand was amputated and he sent the injured to the Hospital. He turned hostile.

12. PW.8-Mashak Nadaf, who is also another eyewitness has stated that when he was proceeding in front of the house of complainant, he heard the noise of weeping and screaming and noticed that left hand of complainant was amputated and sent her to Hospital, he also turned hostile.

13. PW.9-Dr. Dasharath Saibanna Hosmani, deposed for having identified 13 injuries and issued wound certificate as per E.P8 and stated that the injuries are grievous and also were capable of resulting in death.

14. PW.10/Anand Waghamode, PSI, who took the investigation and has spoken with regard to the visit to the spot, conducting spot mahazar, recovery and seizure of the weapon-sickle and also seizure of blood stained cloths of the injured complainant, recorded the statements of eye witnesses and additional statement of complainant.

15. In the context and circumstances of the case, it is to be seen that the incident took place within the house. Accused and complainant are spouses bestowed with three children. Cracks in the family widened that led for separation. The marriage was conducted 10 years prior to the incident and she was started residing with her parents. On the date of the incident at about 8.00 p.m., in Telsang Village, the accused abruptly comes to the house of the complainant and starts hitting her with sickle causing bleeding injuries.

16. There are no eyewitnesses to the incident and it was when profuse bleeding started because of the hard hit on the hand, family members including her brother rushed to the same. It is not the matter applying or going in resorting to Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, as the husband was not residing with his wife. Thus the evidence has to be carefully appreciated and the impact of the incident is that her left hand was amputed upto palm and it was hanging and on screaming and shouting, her sisters and family members came there. Thus for the very incident there are no witnesses. However, the circumstance says that immediately when the incident was at the fag end, the siblings of the complainant came and saw serious injuries sustained by the complainant.

17. The attendant circumstances speak loud and clear, that except the accused, no other person committed the offence.

18. PWs.5, 7 and 8, have turned hostile, however have seen the complainant and speak for having seen him on the said day, time and place, wherein the complainant was screaming with pain and she was admitted to the hospital. These witnesses have deposed that they saw the complainant with grievous injuries. Thus it is not a case wherein it depends on documentary evidence or multiple witnesses.

19. Thus, the learned District Judge has appreciated the evidence of PW.3/complainant, her brother PW.5. In the context the highlighting of the mahazar leaves no impact.

20. It is seen from the evidence that the accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 326, 307, 452 & 504 of IPC as stated supra.

21. Section 326 of IPC prescribes punishment for grievous hurt which is defined in Section 320 of IPC, wherein it provides for emasculation, permanent privation of the sight of either eye, permanent privation of the hearing of either ear, privation of any member of joint, permanent disfiguration of the head or face, any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits and insofar as Section 307 of IPC is as under:

"307. Attempt to murder. - Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to [imprisonment for life], or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.

22. The injuries are of such nature in case, the death occurs because of those injuries it would have resulted in murder. Thus to record the injury as attemptive murder, it is to be seen and noted that it is not a particular nature of injury. On the other hand, an injury which the injured had died, would have been a murder. Thus in the light of the Section 307 of IPC and 326 of IPC, need not be separately sentenced.

23. I have made the observations, scope and mixing of offences under Sections 307 and 326 of IPC. In this case the accused was directed to undergo SI for 1 years for the offence punishable u/s 326 of IPC and he shall pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo S.I. for two months and further directed to undergo SI for 2 years for the offence punishable u/s 307 of IPC and he shall pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo S.I. for six months.

24. A clarification requires to be mentioned on Section 326 and 307 of IPC, in the context of the case. In this connection, the learned Judge has convicted the accused under Section 326 of IPC to undergo imprisonment for a period of 1 years and incidentally even for the offences punishable under Section 307 of IPC also sentenced the accused for 2 years. When the sentences are to run concurrently, there is no problem. Thus, when the accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC, there is no need to again sentence for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC.

25. On perusing the materials and on hearing the learned High Court Government Pleader, I am of the finding that the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused as charged against him. Hence, there are no infirmity, illegality or lapse in the judgment which deserves to be confirmed as the appeal is devoid of merits.

26. The judgment dated 15.03.2016 in S.C.No.47/2013 passed by the learned VII Addl. Sessions Judge, Belagavi sitting at Chikodi, is hereby confirmed. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected.