IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE l31f DAY OF APRIL, 2011 BEFORE THE HONBLE MR.1 JUSTICE V. JAGANNATHAN CRL.A. NO.450/2007 BETWEEN: NINQAPPA LAXMAN HAW, C.T.P.NO.00278 CENTRAL PRISON, BELGAUM, AGE: 28 YEARS, 0CC: COOLI, RIO MARIHAL, TQ & DIST: BELGAUM. .APPELLANT (BY SMT.PRAFULLA S.NAIK, ADV.) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, MARIHAL POLICE STATION. RESPONDENT (BY SRI.ANAND K.NAVALGIMATH, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE CONV1CT/APPELLANT/ACCUSED THROUGH THE SUPDT, CENTRAL PRISON, BELGAUM, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT DT.30.09.2006 PASSED BY THE ADDL. 52. & FIC-IV, BELGAUM IN S.C.NO.151/06 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED/CONVICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S. 307 OF IPC AND SENTENCING HIM TO UNDERGO R.I. FOR 7 YEARS AND ALSO TO PAY FINE OF RS.5000/- FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.307 OF IPC I.D., OF PAYMENT OF FINE HE SHALL FURTHER UNDERGO R.I. FOR SIX MONTHS. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 JUDGEMENT This criminal appeal is preferred by the accused through the jail being aggrieved by his conviction for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and being sentenced to undergo 7 years R.l. and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further R.l. for six months. 2. The prosecution case in short is that, the appellant herein being the husband of Yellawwa (P.W:1), on 30.03.2006 at about 11 p.m. when P.W. 1 and her family members were sleeping in the hut, the appellant tried to throttle the neck of his daughter Gudadavva and when this was questioned by wife Yellawwa, the accused took a sickle and assaulted on the head, shoulder and hand of his wife. The wife went to the police station and gave the complaint and a case was registered against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. The accused- appellant pleaded not guilty. The learned trial Judge called upon the prosecution to prove the case and accordingly, 3 prosecution examined 13 witnesses and 14 documents apart from M.Os. I to 4 were marked. 3. Accused statement was recorded and accused denied the prosecution case against him and did not lead any defence evidence. Learned trial Judge after appreciating the evidence on record was convinced of the prosecution case, as the injured complainant P.W. 1 Yellawwa being the wife of the appellant gave her evidence in detail about the assault made by the appellant and her evidence also found to be free from doubt and reliable and supported by the evidence of P.Ws.3, 4 and medical evidence of the doctor who was examined as P.W. 10. Taking note of the entire evidence on record, the learned trial Judge was satisfied that the prosecution had brought home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly convicted the appellant and sentenced him as mentioned above. 4. I have heard learned counsel Smt. Prafulla S. Naik, who is appointed by the State Legal Services Authority to argue on behalf of the appellant and also heard learned 4 High Court Government Pleader for the State and perused the records of this case and also judgement of the trial CourL 5. The submission made by the appellant counsel is that, the appellant has undergone custody over a period of 5 years and he has been in custody for about 5 years and 12 days and therefore, the said period be set off against the sentence imposed by the trial Court. It is also submitted by her that, even injuries caused by the accused was not on the vital parts of the body. Therefore, taking note of this into account and the wife is also being out of danger and added to that the appellant is also having two children to look after apart from old parents, the sentence of seven years therefore, be reduced to the period already undergone in custody b the appellant. 6. On the other hand, the submission of learned High Court Government Pleader for the State is that, the appellant assaulted his wife with sickle and as per the doctor’s evidence, there are as many as eight mjuries which 5 are noted by the trial Court at para 15 of its judgement and apart from that, the appellant also tried to throttle the neck of his daughter and there was also a case earlier, in which the appellant was involved in connection with the murder of his own son. Taking note of all these factors into account, the trial Court has imposed 7 years sentence. 7. Having thus heard both sides and taking note of the fact that the conviction of the appellant is not seriously questioned, but only sentence part of the trial Court judgement and having regard to the fact that the appellant has undergone more than 5 years of sentence period and also said to have two children to look after apart from old parents, in my view, the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the trial Court can be reduced to six years, if not be set off against the period undergone by the appellant in custody. 8. For the above reasons, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent of sentence being reduced to six years R.1. and the appellant shall be given set off in respect of the period already undergone by him and serve out the . , 6 remaining period and at the end of completion of six years, he shall be released. Further, the appellant shall also pay the fine imposed upon him by the trial Court and if the fine amount is not paid before the end of six years, the appellant will have to serve out the sentence for default. The appeal therefore stands disposed of in the above terms. Sd/ JUDGE MBS/