Get all your news in one place.
100’s of premium titles.
One app.
Start reading
The Times of India
The Times of India
National
P Vasantha Kumar | TNN

Karnataka HC reduces life term to 10 years for murder convict

BENGALURU: The high court has recently modified the life sentence awarded to an autorickshaw driver from the city, noting the material on record indicated that it was a case of culpable homicide and not murder.

Deendayal alias Deena alias Swamy will now have to pay Rs 50,000 as fine and spend 10 years in jail, instead of life imprisonment. The fine amount will go to the parents of the deceased — S Keshava — who is also an auto driver.

The prosecution’s case was that on August 21, 2012, Deendayal picked a quarrel with Keshava near VBB Bakery auto stand on Ittamadu Main Road for allegedly damaging his auto’s indicator. Deendayal pushed Keshava to the ground, poured petrol — brought in a bottle covered with plastic — and set him on fire and sped away in his auto.

Twenty-nine days after the incident, Keshava succumbed to injuries in a hospital. Upon his death, police registered a murder case.

On January 10, 2018, the trial court, based on the evidence, including the statement of the deceased, imposed a life sentence upon Deena. He was also asked to pay Rs 10,000 as cost.

Deendayal challenged the verdict, contending that the trial court had failed to properly assess the evidence of the witnesses, whose statements differed from their original versions and were also contrary to the dying declaration given by Keshava.

A division bench of the high court, headed by Justice B Veerappa, noted that the incident occurred due to sudden provocation between two friends. The bench added that the medical evidence shows the death was only after 29 days in the hospital due to septicaemic shock consequent upon burns sustained by the victim.

“A trivial quarrel ended in an unfortunate homicidal death of the deceased, on account of the accused pouring petrol and setting the deceased on fire after losing his self control. This amounts to an offence which falls under section 304 Part-I of the IPC, and not section 302. The said material facts have not been considered by the trial judge,” the division bench observed.

Sign up to read this article
Read news from 100’s of titles, curated specifically for you.
Already a member? Sign in here
Related Stories
Top stories on inkl right now
One subscription that gives you access to news from hundreds of sites
Already a member? Sign in here
Our Picks
Fourteen days free
Download the app
One app. One membership.
100+ trusted global sources.