Karnataka High Court reduces jail-term of man who squeezed enemy's testicles; says it was not 'attempt to murder'

The Karnataka High Court recently modified the conviction and punishment awarded to a man for squeezing the testicles of another during a quarrel, after noting that it appeared to be a case of causing “grievous hurt” and not an “attempt to murder.” [Parameshwarappa v. State].Justice K Natarajan acknowledged that testicle is a vital part of the body, generally, if any injury is caused to the testicles, it could even lead to death if the injury is not treated since the testicle is a vital part of the body.However, in this case, the judge found that the circumstances surrounding the incident indicated that the appellant-accused (appellant) did not intend to commit murder by squeezing the testicles of the victim..The Court noted that there was previous enmity between the appellant and the victim and that the attack took place during a quarrel in front of several witnesses during a festival procession. However, the fact that the appellant did not arrive at the spot of the quarrel with any deadly weapon gave credence to the Court's theory that he had no intention of murdering the victim. ."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,” the Court said..The Court ultimately concluded that this was a case falling under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with the punishment for voluntarily causing 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 (sic),” the judgment stated..The Court, therefore, modified the trial court’s finding in the case to the extent that the conviction under Section 307, IPC (attempt to murder) was set aside. Instead, the appellant was convicted under Section 325, IPC by the High Court. .The Court was dealing with a case involving allegations that the appellant had picked a quarrel with the victim, abused him verbally, and squeezed his testicles, leading to internal injuries in the victim’s private parts, his hospitalisation, and the removal of his left testicle.The appellant had moved a plea before the High Court for a reduction in the punishment awarded to him since the incident dated back to 2010 and since there was no medical evidence to show that the injury alleged endangered human life. The Court was also informed that the appellant was now around 50 years and had to take care of his children and aged parents..The appellant was ultimately awarded 3-years' rigorous imprisonment as punishment, instead of the 7-year jail term that was earlier awarded for the trial court’s Section 307, IPC conviction. Further, the appellant was ordered to pay a fine of ₹ 50,000. The trial court’s decision to convict the appellant for the offences under Sections 341(punishment for wrongful restraint) and 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace) of the IPC was also upheld. The High Court added that ₹ 50,000 should be paid as compensation to the victim out of the amount collected as fines from the appellant..[Read Judgment]