Landmark Ruling: Karnataka High Court Downgrades Conviction, Sentences Man for Grievous Hurt Instead of Attempted Murder, in Testicle Squeezing Case
Karnataka High Court
Parameshwarappa V. The State
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 242 OF 2012
Bench- HON’BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
Decided On 01-06-2023
Facts of the case-
The prosecution’s case revolves around the complaint lodged by PW.1, Omkarappa, whose statement was recorded by the police in the hospital on 16.03.2010. According to the complaint (Ex.P.1), on the evening of 15.03.2010 at around 6:00 p.m., the complainant was driving his tractor when the accused suddenly appeared in front of his motorcycle and stared at him. Later that night, at approximately 10:00 p.m., during a village fair procession for Narasimhaswamy, while the complainant and others were dancing, the accused allegedly approached him with the intention to commit murder. The accused instigated a quarrel, verbally abused the complainant using derogatory language, and physically assaulted him by squeezing his testicles, causing internal injuries to a vital part of his body.
Several eyewitnesses, namely Ananda, Rama, Murthy, and Kumara, intervened and pacified the quarrel. They then helped the injured PW.1 and took him to the hospital. At the hospital, a Medico-Legal Case (MLC) was prepared and forwarded to the police. Subsequently, the police recorded the complainant’s statement and registered the FIR in Crime No.26/2010. The accused was apprehended, placed in judicial custody, and later released on bail. The investigation was completed, and a charge-sheet was filed against the accused. During the trial, the accused pleaded not guilty to the charges, opting for a trial. The prosecution presented ten witnesses (PWs.1 to 10) and nine documents (Exs.P.1 to P.9) as evidence. After the conclusion of the prosecution’s evidence, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). The accused, however, chose to deny all allegations and did not present any evidence in his defense. Following the arguments, the trial court found the accused guilty, convicted him, and imposed the aforementioned prison sentence. Dissatisfied with the verdict, the appellant has appealed to the Court.
Judgement
the court made modifications to the conviction of an accused individual who was initially charged with attempted murder. The court instead convicted the accused of a lesser offense of grievous hurt under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The basis for this decision was the act of squeezing the testicles of the complainant during a fight.
The court examined the circumstances of the case and stated that there was a quarrel between the accused and the complainant at the scene. During this quarrel, the accused chose to squeeze the testicles of the complainant. The court reasoned that this act alone did not demonstrate an intention or premeditation to commit murder. If the accused had indeed intended to commit murder, the court noted, it would have been expected for the accused to carry deadly weapons.
The court emphasized that the accused had not brought any deadly weapons with him, indicating that there was no premeditated plan to commit murder. However, the court acknowledged that the testicles are a vital part of the body and causing harm to them can be potentially life-threatening. In this particular case, as the complainant had to undergo surgery and have his testicles removed, the court held that the offense committed by the accused fell under the category of grievous hurt.
Consequently, the court concluded that the sentence passed by the trial court, finding the accused guilty under Section 307 of the IPC (attempt to murder), was incorrect. The court determined that the offense committed by the accused clearly fell within the scope of Section 325 of the IPC (grievous hurt). Therefore, the court partly allowed the appeal and modified the conviction accordingly.
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY ABHAY SHUKLA
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”