Emperor vs Bhagava Giriyappa

In this case there is no appearance on behalf of the appellants, but we have heard the Government Pleader for the Crown.

The appellant No. 1 was the wife of one Giriyappa, but was in illicit relations with the accused No. 2, Mohidin. The appellant No. 3 Irrappa was a go-between. They have been convicted of attempting to murder or abetting the attempt to murder Giriyappa, the husband of the 1st appellant, whom the appellant injured by mixing dhatura with his food, having received this dhaturu from accused Nos. 2 and 3.

The evidence leaves no doubt as to the guilt of the accused Nos. 2 and 3 who have properly been convicted of the abetment of the attempt to murder. But the sentences passed upon them seem to us to be excessive. We reduce the sentences in each case to "five years'' rigorous imprisonment u/s 307 and 109 and 328 and 109, the sentences to be concurrent.

As to the wife, the accused No. 1, the question is one of more difficulty and on the whole we are not satisfied that she can safely be convicted of the attempt to murder. It is not shown that she knew that the stuff given to her by accused Nos. 2 and 3 for administration to her husband was dhatura. The evidence rather suggests that what she asked for was some potion which would save her from the quarrelsome tongue of her husband and that what she received from accused Nos. 2 and 3 was received as a potion likely to produce this and no worse effect. It is clear, however, that in administering to her husband an unknown powder which she received from her lover who was at enmity with her husband and in administering it to her husband without any care or caution or any inquiry as to its properties, she committed an offence punishable u/s 337 of the Indian Penal Code. This view of the nature of her act is supported by the decisions in Pika Bewa v. Emperor ILR (1912) Cal. 855 and Emperor Vs. Ramava Channappa, . Reference may also be made to the case of Nidmnarti Nagabhushanam (1872) 7 M.h.C.R. 119 where there will be found a very complete explanation of this and related provisions of the Penal Code.

We alter the conviction of the accused No. 1 to a conviction u/s 337 of the Indian Penal Code and reduce her sentence to one of six months'' rigorous imprisonment.