Karnataka High Court Grants Relief To Woman Accused Of Hurting Neighbour Over Quarrel On 'Drying Clothes', Grants ₹50,000 To Victim

The Karnataka High Court modified a woman's conviction from voluntarily causing grievous hurt to voluntarily causing hurt with dangerous, after noting that a quarrel had suddenly arisen between her and her female neighbour over drying of clothes which was a "trivial issue". The court modified the conviction to Section 324 IPC (voluntarily causing hurt using dangerous weapons or means) which is punished with imprisonment of a term which may extend to 3 years, or with fine, or with both. In contrast to this, punishment for offence under Section 325 is imprisonment for a term which may extend to 7 years and fine. A division bench of Justice HP Sandesh and Justice Venkatesh Naik T was hearing State's appeals–one challenging the acquittal of the accused for the offences under Sections 504(intentional insults meant to provoke a breach of public peace), 355(assault or criminal force with the intent to dishonour a person, otherwise than on grave provocation) and 326(Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means) IPC and Section 3 (1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The second appeal challenged inadequate sentence imposed against accused for offences punishable under Section 325(Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt) of IPC and under Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST(PoA) Act. The court was also hearing appeal by the accused challenging the order of conviction and sentence for the offences punishable under Sections 325 of IPC and Section 3 (2)(va) of SC/ST(PoA) Act. The incident had taken place between neighbours, wherein victim woman alleged that the accused–also a woman, had assaulted her with a wooden reaper piece and an umbrella, due to which she sustained injuries. The court noted that the Wound Certificate disclosed that there were simple injuries, and though it mentioned fracture, the same was not supported by any X-ray evidence. However, taking note of the nature of the injuries, the trial Court convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 325 of the IPC and also invoked the provisions of the SCST Act. The bench noted that the victim/PW-1 admitted that she belongs to lower Caste; however, she had nowhere stated that the accused uttered her specific caste name or abused her with the intention to humiliate her in public view. "When such being the case, the Trial Court committed an error in invoking the provisions of the Special Enactment. Similarly, the evidence of PW-2, who is the husband of PW-1, does not disclose that the accused referred to the specific caste name of PW-1 or insulted her with the intention to humiliate her in the presence of the general public. Therefore, the trial Court erred in invoking the provisions of the Special Enactment," the bench said.The court further noted that the Wound Certificate mentioned fracture, however no X-ray or supporting medical record had been produced to substantiate the same. In the absence of X-ray evidence, the opinion remains only on clinical assessment; had the fracture been supported by X-ray evidence, there would have been merit in the contention of the State that Section 326 of the IPC ought to have been invoked, the court said. "In the above circumstances, this is a fit case for modification of the conviction for the offence under Section 324 of the IPC and not under Section 325 of the IPC. The question of invoking the provisions of Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST(PoA) Act also does not arise, as the essential ingredients of the offence have not been established in evidence. Hence, it is appropriate to modify the judgment and sentence passed by the trial CourtHaving regard to the gravity of the offence and the manner in which the incident took place, it is evident that the quarrel arose suddenly between two women with respect to the drying of clothes, which was trivial issue. In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that this is not a case for imposing the sentence as there is not motive and premeditation". Noting that the dispute was between neighbours the court said that in such matters it generally leans towards imposing fine and awarding compensation rather than sentencing the accused to imprisonment, particularly in cases involving minor offences and first-time offenders, so as to avoid further disruption of relations between the parties.The court thus dismissed the State's appeals. It allowed the accused's appeal in part. The bench acquitted the woman accused of offences under Section 325 of IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (PoA) Act.The sentence imposed under Section 325 IPC was modified to Section 324 IPC and the court imposed fine of Rs. 50,000 on the accused, stating that the same shall be payable to the victim. Case title: STATE OF KARNATAKA v/s SMT. PREMA & ANR.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.141 OF 2025CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1666 OF 2023CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2337 OF 2024 Click Here To Read/Download Order

Karnataka High Court Grants Relief To Woman Accused Of Hurting Neighbour Over Quarrel On 'Drying Clothes', Grants ₹50,000 To Victim

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags