Imran vs State of Karnataka

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

It is the case of the prosecution that on 3rd September 2009, the accused, who was a driver, was said to be proceeding in a lorry loaded with machinery along with a relief driver. They were proceeding from Cochin to Delhi. When they were on National Highway No. 13, within the jurisdiction of the Basavana Bagewadi Police Station, Vijayapura District, it transpires that a sudden quarrel erupted between the accused and the relief driver since he is said to have advised the accused not to drive at a higher speed and that they could save diesel if the lorry was driven at a moderate speed. This is said to have enraged the accused and it is said they started to quarrel and in the heat of the argument, the accused is said to have stabbed the deceased in his abdomen. Further, it transpires that there was another lorry following the said lorry, which also was belonged to the same transporter, driven by PW2 who was accompanied by yet another relief driver CW6 and a cleaner CW7. Upon the lorry being driven by the accused having been stopped, the second lorry also stopped and PW2, and CWs 6 and 7 had come up to the cabin of the lorry driven by the accused and heard the heated argument going on between the accused and the deceased. Thereafter, they had entered the lorry and inquired as to what was wrong with them and it is stated that they learnt about the reason and just then the accused is said to have stabbed the deceased causing an injury. It is PW2 and CWs 6 and 7 who had separated them and immediately decided to take the injured to hospital for treatment. Thereafter, since the lorries were from Haryana and they were not familiar with the local area, they sought the help of PW9 an owner of the dhaba in the vicinity, and he had assisted them in contacting the jurisdictional police and also calling for an ambulance which is said to have come and picked up the injured. It further transpires that it was when the injured was being taken to hospital, that he had succumbed to the injury. In this background a case was said to have been registered against the accused and he was taken into custody. On the matter being committed to the Sessions Court, charges having been framed, the accused having pleaded not guilty and having claimed to be tried, the prosecution had examined 17 witnesses and marked several documents as per Exhibits PI to PI9 and material objects. On the basis of which the Court below had framed the following points for consideration:

Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 3.9.2009 at about 2.00 a.m. about 2 kms., away from Sandhu Dhaba on NH-13, the accused Imran being the driver No. 2 of the truck (lorry) bearing Reg. No.HOWEVER(sic)- 55/H=4357 and deceased Hasamkhan s/o Rashid Khan r/o Tilakpuri, being the driver No. 1 on the said truck, loaded with machinery, were proceeding towards Delhi from Kochin and a quarrel arose between accused and deceased in regard to saving of diesel by driving the said lorry with speed as told by deceased Hasamkhan to run the lorry speed to save diesel. Being enraged with it, accused stopped the lorry by the side of the road and with an intention to commit murder of the Hasamkhan stabbed/assaulted with the iron chopper to his stomach and caused his death and thereby accused has been committed the offence punishable u/S. 302 of Indian Penal Code?

The Court below has answered the same in the affirmative and convicted the accused to life imprisonment, apart from imposing a fine of Rs. 50,000/-. It is that which is under challenge in the present appeal.

Though the learned counsel for the appellant urges several grounds, which were canvassed before the Trial Court, viz., that the injury caused to the deceased was minor one and could not have been characterised as a serious injury and as the incident had happened on the spur of the moment and it was not the intention of the accused to cause death of the deceased, and therefore, it could at best be an offence falling under Part-II of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and could not certainly be characterised as an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. Therefore, he would submit that even if it is held that the case as was established by the prosecution that the death having been caused by the injury sustained by the deceased, having regard to the circumstance of the case, the punishment imposed on the accused is disproportionate and the accused being a young man of 21, at the time of commission of the offence, it must be viewed that he was a hot-blooded youth and it was on account of a sudden outbreak of a quarrel and the fact that there was a weapon handy, the injury had been caused, for otherwise there was no premeditation. These circumstances it is contended have not been taken into account by the Court below in treating the case as being one of a cold-blooded murder and hence, there is injustice caused in the imposition of punishment.

Though the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would seek to justify the judgment of the Court below, and would draw our attention to the tenor of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, given the circumstance which had been categorically found by the court below, it would appear to us that the act committed by the accused could be treated as culpable homicide falling under Part II of Section 304, IPC, and not murder, since there was no premeditation and it was a sudden quarrel between the accused and the deceased and in the heat of argument, the accused having stabbed the deceased, not with an intention to commit murder, has caused injury, which has ultimately led to the death of the deceased. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the punishment imposed by the Trial Court is harsh and gives no scope for the offender to turn a new leaf and to refrain from committing any such acts. We are of the opinion that the accused be given a chance to lead a better life. Committing the accused to life imprisonment would be a waste of the life of the accused in the given circumstance, in which he has been convicted. Therefore, we deem it fit to modify the sentence imposed to that of imprisonment for a period of seven years. Since the accused has been in prison for six years nine months, the reduction of sentence as above, in our opinion, would meet the ends of justice. Insofar as the other portion of the sentence imposing fine, is not interfered with. Accordingly, though the conviction is confirmed, the punishment imposed by the Trial Court stands modified in terms as above. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.