Squeezing of Testicles Doesn’t Amount To Attempt To Murder, Is Grievous Hurt Under S.325 IPC: Karnataka High Court.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

It is alleged that as per Ex.P.1 that on 15.03.2010 in the evening at about 6.00 p.m., he was driving the tractor, the accused came in front of complainant’s motorcycle by staring at him and in the night, at about 10.00 p.m., when the complainant and others were dancing in front of the procession of Narasimhaswamy in the village fair, the accused with an intention to commit murder, came and picked up quarrel, abused him in filthy language and squeezed his testicles and caused inner injuries to the vital part. The appellant was found guilty and convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 7 years for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC, 1 month for the offence punishable under Section 341 of IPC and 1 year for the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC.

CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT

The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court is not in accordance with law and the alleged eye witnesses were all not seen the incident.

CONTENTION OF RESPONDENTS

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader supported the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court and contended that PW.1 is the injured eye witness and PW.3 is an eye witness and also spot panch witness. PWs.4 and 7 are the other eye witnesses to the incident apart from PW.8 who is also the eye witness who took the injured in his car to the hospital. The injured as well as the four eye witnesses were categorically stated that the offence is committed by the accused. A surgery was undergone, therefore, it is clear case of an attempt to commit murder by the appellant with an intention to commit murder which is likely to cause death. Therefore, prayed for dismissing the appeal.

HON’BLE COURT’S OBSERVATIONS

Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Natarajan after examining all the evidences and statements of witness available on record observed that “the prosecution is successful in proving the fact that the accused picked up quarrel in respect of previous enmity between them, abused him in filthy language and squeezed his testicles.”

Further, his lordship observed that “the quarrel was took place during the Narasimhaswamy procession in their village, where it cannot be said that there is no light, whereas the witnesses have stated that there was light and lamps were carried by the persons during the procession. There was a quarrel between the accused and the complainant on the spot. During that quarrel, the accused chosen to squeeze the testicles. Therefore, it cannot be said that the accused came with an intention or with preparation to commit murder. If at all, he has prepared or attempt to commit murder, he could have brought some deadly weapons with him in order to commit murder. But here in this case, it is the village where the village people were gathered in the procession of the Narasimhaswamy, where this complainant was dancing along with other witnesses when the accused was present there and because of the enmity there was quarrel between them and during the quarrel, the accused chosen to squeeze the testicles. Therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that the accused as a pre plan brought any deadly weapons with an intention to commit murder. Though he has chosen the testicles which is the vital part of the body which may cause death and the injured was taken to the hospital, also undergone surgery and the testicles was removed which is a grievous hurt. Therefore, I am of the view, it cannot be said that the accused with an intention or preparation had attempted to commit murder of PW.1, whereas, during the quarrel took place on the spot, he has squeezed the testicles. The injury caused by the accused could be brought under Section 325 of IPC by causing grievous injury by squeezing the private part which is the vital part of the body.”

Hon’ble court further relied on findings of Hon’ble Supreme Court in aforesaid judgments and observed that “In my view, this is the case which is clearly falls under the category of grievous hurt caused by the accused during the quarrel without using any deadly weapons. Therefore, I am of the view, the sentence passed by the trial Court finding guilty for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC is not correct and the offence committed by the accused is clearly falls under Section 325 of IPC.”

In view of the above, appeal was allowed partly.

Case Title:-  Parameshwarappa Vs. State

Case no. :-   CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 242 OF 2012

Order date :- 01.06.2023