Karnataka HC.
Credit: PTI Photo
The high court has refused to reduce the punishment to a man from Badami taluk in Bagalkot district who was convicted for murdering his father.
The sessions court at Bagalkot had convicted Patreppa and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
A division bench, comprising Justice H P Sandesh and Justice Ramachandra D Huddar, declined to accept his argument that the material available on record utmost would attract IPC Section 304 Part-II, culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and not the ingredients of the offence under section 302, murder.
The prosecution case was that Patreppa picked up a quarrel with his father Sangappa Baseteppa Uppin, at their house in Khyad village at about 8.30 am on June 5, 2016. The prosecution stated that Patreppa demanded his father to give his share in the family properties. However, the father refused to give any share in the property saying that Patreppa was not earning and also asked him to leave the house with his wife and children and earn on his own. Enraged, Patreppa hacked his father to death using an axe, hitting thrice on his neck, causing deep wounds.
On November 9, 2022, the Sessions court at Bagalkot sentenced him to life imprisonment and also directed to pay Rs 25,000 as fine.
Challenging this order, Patreppa argued that material on record would only attract IPC section 304 Part-II and not section 302. It was also contended that in a factual scenario, there was a heated exchange of words between the father and the son and the attack was all in a spur of the moment.
“Here, it is not a case of any heated exchange of words between the father and son. When demand was made, the father replied and advised. Hence, there was no need of losing the temper when the reply was given by the father. It is also important to note that the incident had taken place inside the house. Thus, the court has to take note of the conduct of the appellant wherein he not only inflicted one injury but he had inflicted three injuries with the deadly weapon, like an axe on the vital part of the body i.e., neck with an intention to take away the life and not caused any injuries to other parts of the body,” the bench said.
The bench upheld the trial court order and said that no circumstance is made out to bring the case within the purview of Section 304 Part-II of IPC.