Faizan Uddin, J. - (1.) This appeal by the State has been directed against the reversing judgment of the High Court of Karnataka in Criminal Appeal No. 660 of 1986 setting aside the conviction of the respondent recorded by the Sessions Judge, Kannada, Bangalore in Sessions Case No. 65 of 1985 for which the respondent was sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one year. It was directed by the learned Sessions Judge that the entire fine amount, if realised, shall be paid to Thara Kini, PW 1, widow of the deceased N. B. Kini.
(2.) The deceased N. B. Kini was working as a Manager in Navabharath Printing Press at Mangalore. The deceased along with his wife, Thara PW 1 and son were, living in a rented premises belonging to the respondent since about more than a decade from the date of occurrence. A part of the house was occupied by the respondent and his father while other part of the said house was in occupation of the deceased and his family there being a common wall between the two tenements. There were four steps leading from the tenement in occupation of the deceased to the courtyard. Those steps were also common to both the tenements. The house of witness Prabhakar, PW 2 was on the opposite side of the house of the deceased beyond the road while the house of Nagvekar, PW 3 was on the right side of the tenement occupied by the deceased. According to the prosecution on 3-7-1985 the deceased brought a T vs. Antenna and pipes which were kept in the Angala which has a concrete flooring. At about 2.15 PM the deceased and his wife were sitting in the varandah after taking their lunch. It is said that at that point of time the respondent opened the door and entered into the varandah and started talking to the deceased in a raised voice saying with whose premission he had brought that Antenna. The respondent is alleged to have abused the deceased and told him that he would see as to how he fixes the Antenna. The deceased, however, asked the respondent not to get agitated and requested him to sit so that they could talk over the matter calmly. But the respondent went away with the said threat. Shortly thereafter when the deceased was going to his office and asked his wife to close the door and while he was so standing on the door itself on the steps, the appellant suddenly came from his house and again objected as to how he was going to fix the Antenna and so saying he pushed the deceased with great force on account of which the deceased fell down on the Angala with his face upwards. His wife Thara, PW 1, raised a cry attracting the attention of the neighbours Prabhakar, PW 2 and Nagwekar, PW 3 and others who came to the spot. Thereafter PW 1 as well as PWs 2 and 3 lifted injured Kini and made him to lie on the cot inside the house. Suresh, the son of the deceased, was informed on phone who rushed back home from his college. Suresh and other witnesses took the injured Kini to the nearest Vinaya Clinic for medical aid but the doctor declined to provide any medical aid and advised them to take him to Government Hospital as it was a case of assault. Injured Kini was, therefore, immediately removed to the Government Hospital where he was admitted and given treatment. Thara PW 1 lodged the report. Injured Kini, however, died in the hospital at about 2.15 PM on 4-7-1987.
(3.) The respondent was charged for an offence under Sections 448 and 304 of the Penal Code. The respondent pleaded not guilty to the charge. Dr. Arun Kumar Rao, PW 5 who first attended the victim in the Government Hospital found following injuries on his person :- 1. Haematoma 3" x 3" on the right side of forehead. 2. Haematoma 2" x 2" on the occipito parietal area in the middle. 3. Abrasion 1/3" x 1/3" occipito parietal region close to injury No. 2 4. Abrasion 1/3" x 1/3" on the left laternal malleolus. In the opinion of Dr. Rao, PW 5 the injuries were caused by a fall on account of being pushed. After the death of the victim Dr. Prakash, PW 6 performed an autopsy over his dead body on 4-7-1985 and found the following injuries :- 1. Abrasion over mid occipital region. 2. Bruises over right nipple areola and around. 3. Bruises over the left areola. 4. A horse shoe shaped operation scar over the right part of skull starting from right frontol bone to occipital bone, through which right hemisphere of brain has come out. 5. A linear issure fracture on the skull to the right of midline from frontal bone to parietal bone to occipital bone measuring about 10 inches is seen. 6. Defect in skull due to operation in right tempero parietal region measuring about 6 inches. 7. Extensive contusions of the brain. 8. Right occipital and parietal lobes protrude through the skull. In the opinion of Dr. Prakash, PW 6 the death was due to haemorrhage as a result of the injuries. On evaluation of the evidence on record the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the respondent was the author of the injuries found on the person of the deceased but took the view that from the facts and circumstances of the case it cannot be said that the respondent intended to commit the murder of the victim. He took the view that the incident took place in a sudden quarrel during the course of which the respondent pushed Kini without any intention to commit his murder or with the knowledge to cause such bodily injury as was likely to cause his death. The learned Sessions Judge, therefore, took the view that the respondent was liable only for causing grievous hurt punishable under Section 325 and, therefore, convicted and sentenced him as said earlier. The High Court, however, rejected, reversed the findings, set aside the conviction and sentence awarded to the respondent and recorded the impugned judgment of acquittal against which this appeal has been directed. ;