Allowed

State by Kadur Police v. Papulli @ Khalid

Karnataka HC20 Dec 2023CRL.A/671/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against acquittal in a case of assault during an Ifthiyar party. The High Court set aside the acquittal for offences under Sections 323, 324, and 504 read with Section 34 IPC, finding that the injuries were simple in nature and no criminal intimidation was proved. The impugned judgment was modified.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is allowed in part. The impugned judgment of acquittal under Sections 323 and 504 IPC read with Section 34 IPC is set aside. The accused are convicted under Sections 323, 324, and 504 read

State by Kadur Police Vs Papulli @ Khalid — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

CRL.A No.671 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M. ADIGA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.671 OF 2017 (A)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

State by Kadur Police, Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, Bengaluru. .. Appellant

¶10

( By Sri B.N.Jagadeesha, Addl.SPP )

¶11

AND:

¶12

Papulli @ Khalid, S/o Amanulla Sharif,

¶13

Aged 33 years, R/o Abdulla Colony, K.M.Road, Kadur Town, Chikkamagaluru District-577548.

¶14

Tippu, S/o Jakir Husain, Aged 26 years, R/o V.K.Colony, K.M.Road, Kadur Town, Chikkamagaluru District-577548.

¶15

Jishan, S/o Jakir Hussain, Aged 25 years,

¶16

¶17

CRL.A No.671 of 2017

¶18

R/o V.K.Compound, K.M.Road, Kadur Town, Chikkamagaluru District-577548.

¶19

Sacklane, S/o Adillha Hussain, Aged 19 years, R/o Abdulla Colony, K.M.Road, Kadur Town, Chikkamagaluru District-577548. .. Respondents

¶20

( By Sri V.S.Vinayaka, Amicus Curiae )

¶21

This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378(1) and (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to grant leave to appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 21.07.2016, passed by the Prl.District & Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru in Sessions Case No.47/2015 acquitting respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 307, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, set aside the judgment and order of acquittal dated 21.07.2016, passed by the Prl.District & Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru in Sessions Case No.47/2015 acquitting respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 307, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, by allowing the appeal and convict and sentence the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 307, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC by allowing the appeal, in the interest of justice.

¶22

This Criminal Appeal having been heard through Physical Hearing/Video Conference and reserved for Judgment on 24.11.2023, coming on for pronouncement this day, Dr. H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY, J., delivered the following :

¶23

¶24

CRL.A No.671 of 2017

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

The State has filed this appeal under Section 378 (1)

¶27

and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the Cr.P.C.'), challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 21.07.2016, passed by the learned Prl.District & Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the Sessions Judge's Court') in Sessions Case No.47/2015, acquitting the accused of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 307, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as `the IPC').

¶28

The summary of the case of the prosecution as

¶29

stated in the charge sheet is that, on the date 26.07.2014, at about 7.00 p.m., the complainant-Khaleemulla Shariff (CW-1/PW-3) had been to Jamia Masjid at Kaduru and participated in Ifthiyar party. His maternal uncle's son by name Syed Sajid Ulla was there in that place with a porridge (ganji) bowl. At that time, all the four accused approaching said Syed Sajid Ulla, questioned him as to

¶30

¶31

CRL.A No.671 of 2017

¶32

why he is taking two food bowls, abused him in filthy language and also snatched the bowls from him. At the same time, the accused No.1 - Papulli @ Khalid and accused No.3-Jishan, twisted the hand of said Syed Sajid Ulla and assaulted on his stomach and face. Accused No.2 Tippu assaulted the said Syed Sajid Ulla on his back. The complainant who was there questioned the accused for they beating his uncle's son Syed Sajid Ulla, for that the accused abused the complainant also in filthy language and questioned him as to who he was to ask and abused him as son of a bitch (" soolemagane and bolimagane" in Kannada language). The persons who gathered there pacified them.

¶33

Thereafter, while the complainant was coming from back side towards front side, the accused No.1-Papulli threatened him that they would not keep quite and they would kill him. Stating so, he assaulted the complainant on his forehead near left eyebrow with the handle of a chopper. Accused No.2-Tippu, who was also there, held the hands of the complainant and assaulted on his

¶34

¶35

CRL.A No.671 of 2017

¶36

stomach with his hand. Accused No.3-Jishan assaulted him on the face and back and all the accused abused him in filthy language. They pushed him to the ground and twisted his leg, due to which, the complainant sustained bleeding injuries. One Syed Peer and Sadiq pacified the quarrel and shifted the injured complainant to the hospital.

¶37

It is the further case of the prosecution that the accused had an intention to kill the complainant and his uncle's son. Based on the complaint lodged by the complainant-Khaleemulla Shariff, which was given in the hospital to the police, a case was registered in the complainantPolice Station in their station Crime No.197/2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 307, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. After completing the investigation, the investigation officer filed charge sheet for the said offences.

¶38

After perusing the materials placed before it and hearing both side, the Sessions Judge's Court framed charges against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 307 read with Section 34 of IPC. Since the accused pleaded not guilty, the trial was held, wherein in order to prove the alleged guilt

¶39

¶40

CRL.A No.671 of 2017

¶41

against the accused, the prosecution got examined eight witnesses from PW-1 to PW-8, got produced and marked documents from Exs.P-1 to P-18 and got produced two Material Objects at MO-1 and MO-2. From the accused’s side, neither any witness was examined nor any documents were got marked as exhibits.

¶42

After hearing both side, the learned Sessions Judge’s Court, by its judgment dated 21.07.2016, acquitted the accused of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 307, 504 and 506 of IPC. Challenging the same, the appellant - State has preferred the present appeal.

¶43

The appellant –State is represented by the learned Addl.State Public Prosecutor.

¶44

In view of the fact that the learned counsel for respondents/accused Nos.1 to 4 failed to appear before this Court on several dates of hearing, this Court by its reasoned order dated 06.11.2023, appointed learned

¶45

¶46

CRL.A No.671 of 2017

¶47

counsel - Sri V.S.Vinayaka as Amicus Curiae for the

¶48

respondents/accused to represent them in this case.

¶49

The learned Addl.State Public Prosecutor and the

¶50

learned Amicus Curiae for the respondents (accused) are physically appearing in the Court.

¶51

The Sessions Judge’s Court records were called for and the same are placed before this Court.

¶52

Heard the arguments from both side. Perused the materials placed before this Court, including the memorandum of appeal, impugned judgment and the Sessions Judge’s Court records.

¶53

For the sake of convenience, the parties would be henceforth referred to as per their rankings before the learned Sessions Judge’s Court.

¶54

Learned Addl.State Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant-State in his argument submitted that PW-3 and PW-5 are the injured eye witnesses, who have clearly given an account of the alleged incident. Their evidence does not give any scope of doubt to suspect it.

¶55

¶56

CRL.A No.671 of 2017

¶57

Further the evidence of PW-4 and PW-6, who are the eye witnesses to the incident have further corroborated the evidence of PW-3 and PW-5. The medical evidence of

¶58

PW-1, the doctor also corroborates the evidence of the injured witnesses and thus, about the incident and the overtact by the accused in assaulting PW-3 and PW-5, the prosecution has led cogent and trustworthy evidence. The seizure of the weapon, which is a sickle at MO-1, further strengthens the case of the prosecution and proves the charges leveled against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. However, the Sessions Judge's Court by creating doubt by itself did not believe the evidence of PW-3 and PW-6. It created doubt on its own about the description of the weapon used in the commission of the crime, which has resulted it in erroneously acquitting the accused of the

¶59

alleged offences. As such, the same warrants interference at the hands of this Court.

¶60

Learned Amicus Curiae for the respondents/

¶61

accused in his argument submitted that no independent witnesses are examined by the prosecution to support the

¶62

¶63

CRL.A No.671 of 2017

¶64

evidence of PW-3-the injured. The wound certificate mentions the history of assault by Tippu and Jishan and others, whereas, PW-3 in his cross-examination has stated

¶65

that he has not stated before the doctor about the assailants. Therefore, the wound certificate appears to be a concocted document. Learned Amicus Curiae further submitted that there is difference between the evidence of PW-3 and PW-5 as to how with MO-1, the accused No.1 assaulted PW-3. The evidence of PW-5 is exaggerated. He further submitted that the evidence of PW-4 and PW-6 is doubtful, as such, not safe to believe. Even the seizure of MO-1 also is doubtful. According to PW-7, the sickle had no blood stains, whereas, Ex.P-11 mentions that it had blood stains, as such, the use of the weapon in the incident is not believable. It is considering these aspects, the Sessions Judge's Court since has rightly acquitted the accused, the same does not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court.

¶66

10 -

¶67

CRL.A No.671 of 2017

¶68

After hearing the learned counsels from both

¶69

side, the points that arise for our consideration in this appeal are:

¶70

(i) Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that on the date 26.07.2014, at about 7.00 p.m. in Ifthiyar party held behind Lababia Masjid of Kadur Town, the accused Nos.1 to 4 in furtherance of their common intention voluntarily caused hurt to PW-3 (CW-1) Khaleemulla Shariff and PW-5 (CW-2) Syed Sajid Ulla by assaulting with hands and thereby have committed an offence punishable under Section 323 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860?

¶71

[ii] Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that on the date, time and place mentioned above, the accused Nos.1 to 4 in furtherance of their common intention, intentionally insulted PW-3 (CW-1) Khaleemulla Shariff and PW-5 (CW-2) Syed Sajid Ulla and thereby gave provocation knowing that such provocation would cause them to break the public peace and thereby have committed an offence punishable under Section 504 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860?

¶72

11 -

¶73

CRL.A No.671 of 2017

¶74

(iii) Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that on the date, time and place mentioned above, the accused Nos.1 to 4 in furtherance of their common intention committed criminal intimidation by threatening PW-3 (CW-1) Khaleemulla Shariff and PW-5 (CW-2) Syed Sajid Ulla with dire consequences and thereby have committed an offence punishable under Section 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860?

¶75

[iv] Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that on the date, time and place mentioned above, in furtherance of their common intention, accused No.1 assaulted PW-3 (CW-1) Khaleemulla Shariff with the handle of a sickle (called as `katti' in Kannada language) on his forehead near right eyebrow causing grievous injuries to PW-3, that with such an intention and under such circumstances, if the act of accused No.1 had caused the death of PW-3, he would have been guilty of murder and thereby the accused have committed an offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860?

¶76

[v] Whether the judgment of acquittal under appeal warrants any interference at the hands of this Court?

¶77

12 -

¶78

CRL.A No.671 of 2017

¶79

Before proceeding further in analysing the

¶80

evidence led in the matter, it is to be borne in mind that the present appeal is filed by the complainant-State against the judgment of acquittal of the accused from the alleged offences punishable under Sections 323, 307, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. Since as per criminal law, the accused is presumed to be innocent until his guilt is proved and further the accused, in the instant case, has already been benefitted by the impugned judgment of acquittal in his favour, this Court, as a Court of appeal upon the impugned judgment of acquittal, must be very careful and cautious in analysing and appreciating the evidence led in the matter.

¶81

(a) Our Hon’ble Apex Court, in its judgment in the case of Chandrappa and others -vs- State of Karnataka, reported in (2007) 4 Supreme Court Cases 415 , while laying down the general principles regarding powers of the Appellate Court while dealing in an appeal against an order of acquittal, was pleased to observe at paragraph 42(4) and paragraph 42(5) as below:

¶82

13 -

¶83

CRL.A No.671 of 2017

¶84

“ 42(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.

¶85

42(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.”

¶86

(b) In the case of Sudershan Kumar -vs- State of Himachal Pradesh reported in (2014) 15 Supreme Court Cases 666, while referring to Chandrappa’s case (supra),

¶87

the Hon’ble Apex Court at Paragraph 31 of its Judgment was pleased to hold that, it is the cardinal principle in criminal jurisprudence that presumption of innocence of the accused is reinforced by an order of acquittal. The Appellate Court, in such a case, would interfere only for very substantial and compelling reasons.

¶88

14 -

¶89

CRL.A No.671 of 2017

¶90

¶91

of Kerala, reported in (2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 440, at Paragraph 25 of its judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to observe as below:

¶92

“ 25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 Cr.P.C, the appellate Court has to consider whether the trial court’s view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate Court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.”

¶93

The above principle laid down by it in its previous case was reaffirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Ravi Sharma -vs- State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and another reported in (2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536 and also in Roopwanti -vs- State of Haryana and others, reported in AIR 2023 SC 1199.

¶94

15 -

¶95

CRL.A No.671 of 2017

¶96

It is keeping in mind the above principles laid down

¶97

by the Hon’ble Apex Court, we proceed to analyse the evidence placed in this matter.

¶98

In order to prove the alleged incident said to have taken place on the date 26.07.2014, the material witnesses on whose evidence the prosecution has mainly relying upon are PW-3 (CW-1) Khaleemulla Shariff, PW-5 (CW-2) Syed Sajid Ulla, PW-4 (CW-5) T.Nayaz and PW-6 (CW-3) Syed Peer and the wound certificates at Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2 along with medical evidence of PW-1 (CW-9) Dr.Parappa.

¶99

PW-3 (CW-1) Khaleemulla Sharif in his evidence has

¶100

stated that all the accused are known to him. CW-2 (PW-5) Syed Sajid Ulla is the son of his maternal uncle. On the date 26.07.2014, at about 7.00 p.m., on the back side of Masjid, there was Ifthiyar party due to Ramzan and he had been to the said party. About 100 to 150 people

¶101

had gathered in the said party, including CW-2 (PW-5) and

¶102

the accused. The Masjid authorities had distributed porridge (ganji) bowl to everyone. CW-2 was sitting on

¶103

16 -

¶104

CRL.A No.671 of 2017

¶105

one side with porridge bowl. Due to gathering being very

¶106

large, some had not got the porridge bowl. The accused who were four in number, snatched the porridge bowl held by CW-2. CW-2 attempted to take it back, at that time, all the accused accusing him in filthy language as (" soolemagane and bolimagane" ¸ÀÆ¼ÉªÀÄUÀ£É ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨ÉÆÃ½ªÀÄUÀ£É) , which means `son of a bitch', assaulted CW-2 with their hands. Having seen the same, he rushed to the rescue of CW-2 and questioned the accused about their act. Enraged by the same, the accused abused him also with the same abusive language as " soolemagane and bolimagane" (in Kannada language) and stating that he should not be spared, all the four accused dragged him outside the Ifthiyar party and assaulted him on his face, back, abdomen, leg and twisted his legs. The accused No.1 assaulted him with a chopper on his forehead and near his eyes and also was telling that he (this witness) must be killed. Due to their assault, he sustained bleeding injuries which stained the cloth worn by him also. The people who had gathered for the Ifthiyar party

¶107

17 -

¶108

CRL.A No.671 of 2017

¶109

rescued him. Among them, CW-3 to CW-6 were also there. They shifted him and CW-2 to hospital. Both himself and CW-2 took treatment in Government Hospital, Kadur. He has given a complaint to the police as per Ex.P-8 in that regard.

¶110

The witness has further stated that on 27^th of the same month, the police visited the spot as shown by him and in the presence of CW-7 and CW-8, drew a scene of offence panchanama as per Ex.P-9 and also took a photograph of the spot as per Ex.P-10. The witness stated that the chopper used by the accused in this incident was found amidst of firewoods on the back side of the masjid. The said chopper and the dress worn by him at the time of the incident were given by him to the police. The witness has identified the chopper, which was marked at MO-1 and identified his shirt at MO-2. He also stated that since the firewood was piled up in a big manner, the police could not get the chopper. He also stated that with respect to seizure of MO-1 and MO-2, the police drew a panchanama as per Ex.P-11 and has identified the said panchanama.

¶111

18 -

¶112

CRL.A No.671 of 2017

¶113

Since the witness stated that he has not given

¶114

further statement before the Police with respect to finding the weapon at MO-1 amidst the pile of fire wood, at the request of the prosecution, the witness was treated as hostile and the prosecution was permitted to crossexamine him. However, even in his cross-examination also, he adhered to his original version that he has not given further statement before the Police much less as per Ex.P-12.

¶115

This witness was subjected to a detailed crossexamination from the accused’s side, wherein the witness did not give any scope to the defence counsel to shaken the evidence given by him in his examination-in–chief. On the other hand, more details about the alleged incident about the duration of the incident and the size of the gathering were all narrated by this witness in response to the questions put to him from the defence counsel. He also gave the details as to how long he was treated in the Hospital as an in-patient. He also gave the description of the chopper at MO-1. He denied the suggestion that the

¶116

19 -

¶117

CRL.A No.671 of 2017

¶118

alleged incident has not occurred and that due to the alleged old enmity with the accused persons, he has given a false evidence against them.

¶119

PW-4 (CW-5) - T. Nayaz, according to the prosecution, is an eye witness to the incident. After stating that, PW-3 (CW-1), CWs 2 to 4 and CW-6 and all the accused persons are known to him, the witness has stated that, on the date of the incident, he too had been to the Ifthiar Party, where the accused and CW-2 (PW-5) also

¶120

were present. While the party was going on, an altercation took place between the accused persons and PW-3 (CW-1) and PW-5(CW-2). CW-2 (PW-5) had taken

¶121

two food bowls, one for him and one for PW-3. The accused objected to him for taking two food bowls and snatched them from his hand. Apart from the same, the accused persons assaulted him (PW-5) with their hands and twisted his hands. They also assaulted PW-3, who rushed to the rescue of CW-2 (PW-5) and threatened him

¶122

that they would not spare him and would kill him. The witness stated that the accused also assaulted PW-3 with

¶123

20 -

¶124

CRL.A No.671 of 2017

¶125

their hands, due to which, PW-3 sustained a bleeding injury on his forehead. Identifying the chopper at MO-1, the witness stated that it was with the very same weapon, accused Papulli (accused No.1) assaulted PW-3. The witness stated that himself, joined by others, pacified them and shifted the injured PW-3 and PW-5 (CW-2) to the Government Hospital. The witness also identified the cloth at MO-2 as the cloth worn by PW-3 at the time of the incident.

¶126

In his cross-examination, the witness stated that he went to the spot after the quarrel, however, PW-3 had already been there. By the time he went to the spot, PW-3 had already sustained injury. The witness admitted that he is not only a friend of PW-3 but also his relative. He denied a suggestion that there was an old enmity between PW-3 and the accused, as such, a false case has been lodged against them. Thus, in the cross-examination of PW-4 also, nothing could be elicited from the accused's side to suspect the evidentiary value of this witness. They could not shake his evidence that he was present at the

¶127

21 -

¶128

CRL.A No.671 of 2017

¶129

time of the incident in the place of the incident and has witnessed the same. Though he has stated that by the time he rushed there, PW-3 had already sustained injury, by that itself, it cannot be inferred that he was not there in the Ifthiar Party. Though he was there in the Ifthiar Party and had seen the incident which had taken place in that little space of the party premises, however, by the time he rushed towards PW-3, PW-3 had already sustained an injury. As such, it cannot be presumed that, he came to the spot some where from outside, by which time, the incident had already occurred.

¶130

PW-5 (CW-2) - Sayed Sadiq Ulla is another injured in the incident. According to the prosecution, this witness has stated that, on the date of the incident, which took place in the evening at about 6:40 p.m., in the backside of the Masjid at Kaduru, he too had been there. There was a gathering of about 150 people. While he was moving with a porridge bowl, all the four accused questioned him as to why he was carrying a porridge bowl and abused him in filthy language calling him, son of a

¶131

22 -

¶132

CRL.A No.671 of 2017

¶133

bitch (" ¸ÀÆ¼ÉªÀÄUÀ£É, ¨ÉÆÃ½ªÀÄUÀ£É" in Kannada language). The

¶134

witness also stated that, all the four accused assaulted him with their hands. Among them, the accused No.1 twisted his hand and assaulted on his stomach, head and on back. The remaining accused also assaulted him on his back and waist portion. He further stated that, PW-3 rushed there and rescued him. All the four accused assaulted PW-3 also and abused him in filthy language. The accused No.1 dragged PW-3 outside the Masjid and stating that he would kill him, assaulted him with a chopper near right eye brow. Accused No.4 pulled the legs of PW-3 making him to fall on the ground, at which time, the remaining accused kicked PW-3 and assaulted on

¶135

his stomach. CW-3 and CW-4 rushed there and rescued PW-3. Stating that he would identify the weapon with which PW-3 was assaulted, the witness has identified the chopper at MO-1. He stated that he has taken treatment in Kaduru Hospital and has given statement to the Police regarding the incident.

¶136

23 -

¶137

CRL.A No.671 of 2017

¶138

This witness (PW-5) was subjected to a detailed cross-examination from the accused’s side. In his crossexamination, the witness gave more details about the distribution of the members in the party inside and outside the Masjid and their total number in the respective places. He denied a suggestion that due to a slip by stepping on the spilled porridge, PW-3 fell down. He also denied a suggestion that there is a long standing enmity between the accused persons and PW-3. The witness reiterated that, while the quarrel was going on between him and the accused persons, PW-3 came there. He also stated that he has given the details of the incident to the Doctor. He stated that the Police recorded his statement in the Hospital and obtained his signature. He stated that in the incident, he did not sustain any bleeding injuries, however, he sustained a fracture of his hand and was inpatient in the Hospital for about three days. He further stated that even PW-3 was also in the very same Hospital as an in-patient for three days and he too was assaulted by the accused persons with the chopper.

¶139

24 -

¶140

CRL.A No.671 of 2017

¶141

PW-6 (CW-3) - Sayed Peer is another eye

¶142

witness. This witness has stated that, for the Ifthiar Party held on the date 26-07-2014, at Lababin Masjid at Kaduru, he too had been there. The Ifthiar Party was organised on the backside of the Masjid where arrangement for porridge bowls and fruit bowls were all made. There was a gathering of about 100 people. Porridge and fruit bowls were kept. Since it was a Ramzan period, Ifthiar Party devotees who had practiced fasting were to take those porridge and fruit bowls. Accordingly, PW-5 had taken a bowl and was moving. At that time, all the four accused persons approached him and questioned him as to why he was taking the porridge bowl. They also abused him in filthy language, calling him son of a bitch (" ¸ÀÆ¼ÉªÀÄUÀ£É, ¨ÉÆÃ½ªÀÄUÀ£É" in Kannada language) and started pushing and

¶143

pulling him. They also twisted his hand and assaulted on different parts of his body. At that time, PW-3 intervened and questioned the accused as to why they were assaulting PW-5 and attempted to rescue him, by that, the accused questioned as to who was he to

¶144

25 -

¶145

CRL.A No.671 of 2017

¶146

question them and abused him also as son of a bitch (" ¸ÀÆ¼ÉªÀÄUÀ£É, ¨ÉÆÃ½ªÀÄUÀ£É" in Kannada language) and started

¶147

assaulting PW3. Himself (PW-6) joined by other persons, who were present in the party, pacified them stating that, it was an Ifthiar Party time for breaking the Ramzan fasting. However, the accused persons dragged PW-3 outside the Masjid and threw him on the ground and assaulted him with their hands. Among them, the accused No.1 abused PW-3 as son of a bitch (" ¸ÀÆ¼ÉªÀÄUÀ£É, ¨ÉÆÃ½ªÀÄUÀ£É" in

¶148

Kannada language) and uttering that he would kill him, took out a chopper, hidden by him, and assaulted with its handle on the forehead, eye and head of PW-3, due to which, PW-3 sustained bleeding injuries. The witness says that himself, joined by PW-4 rescued PW-3. Both PW-3 and PW-5 left to the Hospital for treatment. The witness identified the chopper at MO-1, stating that it was the very same chopper used by accused No.1 in assaulting PW-3.

¶149

PW-6 adhered to his original version even in his cross-examination from the accused’s side. Though he

¶150

26 -

¶151

CRL.A No.671 of 2017

¶152

stated that, while PW-5 was being assaulted by the accused persons, about 15 to 20 persons rushed there to rescue him, however, he also stated that he does not know the names of all those persons who rushed for his rescue. He gave more details about the incident and stated that it took place at about 7 p.m. He also stated that while accused No.1 was assaulting PW-3 with the chopper, the remaining accused were present there. He stated that though PW-3 and PW-5 rushed to the Hospital in an autorickshaw immediately after the incident, but he (this witness) went to the Hospital, after the Ifthiar Party and after observing Namaz. He also denied a suggestion made to him from the accused’s side that, there was an old enmity between the accused and PW-3. He denied that PW-3 sustained injuries, due to a slip by stepping on the porridge that had fallen on the floor in the Masjid.

¶153

The above evidence of PW-3 and PW-5 as the injured persons and the evidence of PW-4 and PW-6 as the eye witnesses to the incident have come in uniformity. All these four witnesses have stated in an uniform manner

¶154

27 -

¶155

CRL.A No.671 of 2017

¶156

that the alleged altercation which ended in the accused

¶157

persons assaulting PW-3 and PW-5 commenced at the accused objecting for PW-5 taking a porridge bowl with him.

¶158

PW-3 has stated that, among the gathering, few persons could not able to get the porridge bowl, as such, the accused objecting for PW-5 carrying a porridge bowl and questioning him cannot be considered as un-common.

¶159

All these four witnesses have uniformly stated that, in the beginning, all the four accused questioned PW-5, abused him in filthy language and started assaulting him. It is only when PW-3 rushed to the rescue of PW-5 and questioned the accused about their act of continued abuse and assault on PW-5, the accused persons apart from assaulting him also with their hands and legs, even further dragged him outside the Masjid where accused No.1 assaulted PW-3 with the handle of a chopper which weapon was said to have been concealed with him. This uniformity in the evidence of PW-3, PW-5, PW-4 and PW-6 about the incident and the overt act of each of the accused

¶160

28 -

¶161

CRL.A No.671 of 2017

¶162

has come in a uniform manner. All the witnesses have stated that PW-3 sustained bleeding injuries due to the assault. PW-3 has made it clear that, he sustaining bleeding injuries was due to the assault made by accused No.1 by assaulting him with the handle of the chopper, however, he did not sustain the bleeding injuries at the assault made by the remaining three accused persons. Merely because PW-5 is said to be a relative of PW-3, by that itself, it cannot be considered that the evidence of PW-5 was a suspicious one.

¶163

However, the Sessions Judge’s Court doubted the evidence of PW-3 and PW-5 because of their alleged closeness and relationship. It is because of their relationship, the Sessions Judge's Court went to the extent of doubting the very evidence of PW-3, PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6 about the accused dragging PW-3 outside the Masjid and assaulting him. However, the analysis made above would go to show that the evidence of PW-3 to PW-6 has come in uniformity giving no scope to suspect it

¶164

29 -

¶165

CRL.A No.671 of 2017

¶166

about the occurrence of the alleged incident as well the participation of the accused as assailants in the incident.

¶167

The medical evidence in the matter is by PW-1 (CW-9) - Dr. Parappa, the then Medical Officer at the Government Hospital, Kaduru. This witness has stated that, on the date 26-07-2014, two injured by names Khaleemulla Shariff and Syed Sadiq came to his Hospital with the history of assault. On examination, he noticed a lacerated wound measuring 1x1 cm. over the right forehead and an abrasion measuring 1x1 cm. over the outer canthus of right eye of Khaleemulla Shariff. The witness further stated that, on examination of the patient - Syed Sadiq, the patient complained of pain over the right elbow and pain over the right side chest. He opined that all the injuries sustained by both the patients were simple in nature. In that regard, he has issued a Wound Certificate as per Ex.P-1 with respect to the injuries found on the patient - Khaleemulla Shariff and another Wound Certificate at Ex.P-2 with respect to the injures sustained by the patient - Syed Sadiq.

¶168

30 -

¶169

CRL.A No.671 of 2017

¶170

The witness has further stated that, subsequently, on 19-11-2014, the Investigating Officer sent him a Katti (chopper) (" PÀwÛ " in Kannada language) for his examination

¶171

and opinion. After examining the said katti, he gave his opinion as per Ex.P-3. He has identified the said chopper at MO-1 and the requisition given to him by the Police at Ex.P-4. The opinion of this witness is at Ex.P-3 in the form of a reply to the queries made by the Investigating Officer under his letter/requisition at Ex.P-4. To the question that, if a person is assaulted with the said katti (chopper), whether fatal injuries can be caused?, the Doctor (PW-1) has answered in the affirmative. To the question as to, whether a person can die, if assaulted with the said katti (chopper), the Doctor has answered in the affirmative. However, with respect to the last question as to, whether the injuries sustained by the injured can been caused due to the assault by the said chopper, the witness has stated that the same cannot be answered specifically.

¶172

The above said answer given by the Doctor regarding the weapon and the injuries cannot be

¶173

31 -

¶174

CRL.A No.671 of 2017

¶175

considered as not corresponding with the details of the assault as given by the injured persons and also the eye witnesses and PW-3 sustaining the lacerated wound on his right forehead and an abrasion over the outer canthus of his right eye. It is because, the question put to the Doctor by the Investigating Officer was an assault with the chopper, as such, naturally, the Doctor attempted to see the relation between the injuries of PW-3 with the blade of the chopper. As such, the possibility of he (Doctor) presuming himself about an assault with the handle of the chopper cannot be expected. That is the reason the Doctor opined that, the injury to PW-3 which also included an abrasion cannot be specifically said to have been caused with the weapon at MO-1. On the other hand, apart from injured PW-3, the other eye witnesses, particularly, PW-4 and PW-6 also have clearly and specifically stated that, PW-3 was assaulted with the handle of the chopper by accused No.1. Thus, the evidence given by the Doctor as PW-1 (CW-9) corroborates the evidence of PW-3 and PW-5 that in the incident, at the assault made by the accused,

¶176

32 -

¶177

CRL.A No.671 of 2017

¶178

both of them sustained injuries, which the Doctor has opined as simple in nature.

¶179

The Doctor (PW-1) in the Wound Certificate issued with respect to PW-3 which is at Ex.P-1 has recorded the history given to him as, 'assault on the date 26-07-2014 at about 6:45 p.m. with rod by Tippu, Jishan and others'.

¶180

The learned Amicus Curiae for the respondents 1 to 4 (accused) in his argument vehemently submitted that, according to the Wound Certificate, the description about the weapon used was shown as 'rod', whereas the evidence of PW-3 to PW-6 shows that, it was a chopper and the article at MO-1 also was a chopper, as such, the Sessions Judge's Court has rightly given the benefit of doubt to the accused persons and acquitted them of the alleged offences.

¶181

The said argument of the learned Amicus Curiae for the respondents 1 to 4/accused is not acceptable for the reason that, the description of the weapon as 'rod' is

¶182

33 -

¶183

CRL.A No.671 of 2017

¶184

recorded in the Wound Certificate on the basis of the history given by the brother of the injured by name Sri.Asif. It is not the statement of the Doctor that the injured PW-3 told him that he was assaulted with the weapon 'rod' but not with the chopper. As such, merely a description of the weapon in the history said to have been given before the Doctor by an attendant to the injured, by that itself, the very evidence of the injured persons and also of the eye witnesses cannot be suspected or doubted.

¶185

Secondly, PW-1 (CW-9) Doctor has not returned the weapon sent to him by the Investigating Officer stating that, neither of the injured persons have spoken about the said weapon, as such, the weapon was unconnected with the incident. On the other hand, he (Doctor) has examined the weapon and given his opinion.

¶186

Thirdly, and more importantly, in the very same Wound Certificate at Ex.P-1, the very same Doctor has also recorded in the history for the injury as 'an assault on 26-07-2014 at 6:45 p.m. by Tippu, Jisha and others'. Thus, at the earliest point of time, it was revealed before

¶187

34 -

¶188

CRL.A No.671 of 2017

¶189

the Doctor that the injured were assaulted by none else than the accused persons. In that manner, the date and time of the incident and also the description of the assailants are also being shown to have been recorded by the Doctor. Thus, when the Wound Certificates at Exs.P-1 and P-2 are seen in their entirety, the description of the weapon as 'rod' plays an insignificant role, particularly, in the instant case and more particularly, when apart from injured PW-3 and PW-5, even the eye witnesses PW-4 and PW-6 have also uniformly stated that the weapon used in the assault was a 'chopper'.

¶190

However, the learned Sessions Judge's Court, by magnifying the minor discrepancy of mentioning the name of the weapon as 'rod' in Ex.P-1 to an unwarranted dimension, proceeded to doubt the case of the prosecution and more particularly, the evidence of the injured persons and also of the eye witnesses, resulting in it pronouncing the judgment of acquittal against all the accused of all the offences alleged against them. Since the said alleged discrepancy is too minor in its nature and in no manner

¶191

35 -

¶192

CRL.A No.671 of 2017

¶193

affect the case of the prosecution, the Sessions Judge's Court was not justified in magnifying the same to the extent of disbelieving the case of the prosecution. Further,

¶194

the medical evidence led by the prosecution also corroborates the evidence of the injured witnesses, i.e. PW-3 and PW-5 so also the evidence of the ocular witnesses, i.e. PW-4 and PW-6.

¶195

PW-7 (CW-7) - Nayaz M. has stated that the scene of offence panchanama as per Ex.P-9 was drawn in his presence and the spot of the offence was shown by none else than PW-3 injured. He has stated that apart from him, CW-8 was also present as a pancha. A photograph was also taken at that time as per Ex.P-10. The witness has identified the said panchanama at Ex.P-9.

¶196

Further, the witness has stated that on the date 03-08-2014, the complainant Police had summoned him to the Police Station and seized a chopper and a shirt produced in his presence by drawing a panchanama as per Ex.P-11 and identified the said chopper and shirt at MO-1 and MO-2 respectively and his signature at Ex.P-11(b). In

¶197

36 -

¶198

CRL.A No.671 of 2017

¶199

his cross-examination, he gave more details about the panchanama drawn by the Police. Though he has stated that he does not know what is written in Ex.P-11, but that itself would not make his evidence regarding panchanama unbelievable, for the reason that, categorically, he has stated that, the said panchanama was drawn while seizing the chopper and the shirt produced in his presence. As such, he is aware of the nature of the document and what it speaks about and also the seized articles.

¶200

Learned Amicus Curiae for the respondents No.1 to 4 (accused) in his argument also expressed a doubt that, PW-7 -pancha, in his cross-examination, has stated that, there was no blood stain on the chopper, whereas, the seizure panchanama at Ex.P-11 mentions that there were blood stains on the backside of the chopper, therefore, the case of the prosecution was doubtful and thus, it is also doubtful that any attempt was made to cause the death of PW-3.

¶201

No doubt, it is true that PW-7 (pancha) in his cross-examination has sated that, the chopper did not

¶202

37 -

¶203

CRL.A No.671 of 2017

¶204

have blood stains on it, whereas the seizure panchanama at Ex.P-11 mentions that the backside of the chopper was stained with blood, which means, the other side of the chopper was not found stained with blood.

¶205

According to PW-8(CW-19) - Ramachandra Naik

¶206

the Investigating Officer, the seized articles were sent by him to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory (RFSL), Mangalore, for their examination and he received a report from RFSL as per Ex.P-15 and serological report as per Ex.P-16. The RFSL Report at Ex.P-15 mentions that, both the articles i.e. the chopper (Katti) and the shirt were stained with blood. However, about the extent/size of stains, the shirt is shown to have the size approximately of '0.1-6 cm', whereas the size of the blood stains on the chopper has not been mentioned, except showing a dash (‘-‘) mark in the respective column. The blood stain (few), though could be noticed with very careful examination on the chopper, but it was too small to mention its size.

¶207

38 -

¶208

CRL.A No.671 of 2017

¶209

Similarly, the serological report at Ex.P-16

¶210

though identifies the blood stains on the shirt was of human blood, however, with respect to the chopper, it mentions that it was not sufficient for serological examination. Thus, it is not that chopper did not have blood stain on it, but, it was too small for its examination. Therefore, there is all the possibility that the Investigating Officer and other pancha, while drawing the seizure panchanama at Ex.P-11, have noticed the presence of the blood stain on one side of the chopper. However, PW-7, the other pancha, having seen the chopper on the other side, where there was no blood stain, has stated that there was no blood stain on the chopper.

¶211

Therefore the argument of the learned Amicus Curiae that the said single stray statement of PW-3 about he not noticing the blood stains on the chopper would make the case of the prosecution a doubtful one, is not acceptable.

¶212

In addition to the above, the specific identification of the weapon chopper at MO-1 not only by the injured as PW-3 as at MO-1, but also by co-injured

¶213

39 -

¶214

CRL.A No.671 of 2017

¶215

person i.e. PW-5 and also the eye witnesses, i.e. PW-4 and PW-6 creates confidence to believe MO-1 as the weapon used by the accused No.1 in assaulting PW-3 and to ignore

¶216

the stray statement of PW-7 (pancha) in his crossexamination that, he did not notice blood stain on the chopper. Thus, the scene of offence and the weapon used in the commission of the offence also stands established.

¶217

The motive behind the commission of the crime is not a specific pre-meditated motive. The case of the prosecution itself is that, in the Ifthiar Party, having seen PW-5 carrying a porridge bowl, which were shortage in their numbers, the accused questioned him and in the process, they also abused him in filthy language and assaulted him. PW-3 when rushed to the rescue of PW-5, he was also abused and assaulted by them. As such, the incident in the present case does not possess any premeditated or pre-determined motive behind the commission of the crime. These incidents develop on the spot and at the spur of the moment, at the scene of the commission and the acts of the parties continue as the

¶218

40 -

¶219

CRL.A No.671 of 2017

¶220

situation and circumstance advances or makes it to go. However, the evidence of the injured witnesses i.e. PW-3 and PW-5 and of the eye witnesses PW-4 and PW-6 makes it very clear that, it was the accused persons and accused persons alone, who assaulted PW-3 and PW-5, among whom, accused No.1 assaulted PW-3 with the handle of the chopper at MO-1. Since all the four accused together barged initially upon PW-5 and initiated quarrel with him and all of them abused both PW-3 and PW-5, and all of them assaulted both PW-3 and PW-5, it is clearly established that, all the accused had a common intention to initiate quarrel, which developed when they approached PW-5 and continued in the altercation leading in the accused persons assaulting PW-3 and PW-5. As such, the accused persons having common intention and in furtherance of their common intention, they assaulting PW-3 and PW-5, thus attracting Section 34 of the IPC, also stands established.

¶221

The defence of the accused, as suggested to PW-3 to PW-6, in the form of suggestion that, PW-3 had a

¶222

41 -

¶223

CRL.A No.671 of 2017

¶224

slip by stepping on a spilled porridge in the Ifthiar Party

¶225

area, was not admitted as true by them. Similarly, the other defence of the accused that, PW-3 had a previous enmity with the accused, which suggestion was made to PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5 was also not admitted by those witnesses as true. One more defence taken by the accused in the form of suggestion made to PW-4 that, some where PW-3 had fallen and sustained injury, was also not accepted by the said witness. Thus, mere making suggestion, would not, in any way, make the case of the prosecution a suspicious one, in the present case. However, except making few suggestions in their defence, the accused persons have not made any further effort to weaken the case of the prosecution. As such, the defence taken by the accused persons could not weaken the case of the prosecution.

¶226

Therefore, it stands proved that, on the date, time and place mentioned in the charge sheet i.e. on the date 26-07-2014, in the evening at about 7:00 p.m., there was an Ifthiar Party behind Lababin Masjid of kaduru town,

¶227

42 -

¶228

CRL.A No.671 of 2017

¶229

where all the accused abused PW-3 and PW-5 in filthy language by calling them as son of a bitch (" ¸ÀÆ¼ÉªÀÄUÀ£É, ¨ÉÆÃ½ªÀÄUÀ£É" in Kannada language) when PW-3 and PW-5

¶230

were amidst the large gathering of not less than 100 to 150 members and thus have insulted them and have given provocation to them knowing it to be likely that such provocation would cause them to break the public peace and thus have committed the offence punishable under Section 504 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

¶231

By assaulting PW-3 and PW-5 with their hands on different parts of their body and causing hurt to them, the accused have also committed the offence punishable under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

¶232

It is also the case of the prosecution that, the accused have committed the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC. No doubt, the prosecution could able to prove that, accused No.1 assaulted PW-3 with the handle of the chopper at MO-1 and due to the said assault, PW-3 sustained two simple

¶233

43 -

¶234

CRL.A No.671 of 2017

¶235

injuries. Even according to the prosecution, the accused

¶236

were four in number. Had they really intended to kill either PW-5 or PW-3, it was not impossible for them, that too, when accused No.1 was in possession of a deadly weapon like chopper at MO-1.

¶237

In the instant case, even according to the prosecution and the evidence of PW-3 to PW-6, the accused persons did not assault PW-5 with the chopper. They only assaulted him with their hands. The chopper came out from the possession of accused No.1 only after the accused persons dragged PW-3 outside the Masjid and continued assaulting him. Even when the accused No.1 assaulted PW-3 with the chopper, but he did not assault PW-3 with the blade of the chopper. On the contrary, he assaulted PW-3, only with the handle of the chopper. Had really the accused No.1 or the other accused intended to kill PW-3, then accused No.1 should have necessarily assaulted PW-3 with the blade of the chopper resulting in PW-3 sustaining multiple and/or grievous injuries. Since the accused were four in number and PW-3 was alone, it

¶238

44 -

¶239

CRL.A No.671 of 2017

¶240

was not impossible for the accused persons to fulfill their intention and take away the life of PW-3. Since the accused persons did not proceed further except assaulting PW-3 with their hands and with the handle of the chopper and also considering the nature of the injuries suffered by PW-3, it cannot be believed that the accused had any intention to cause the death of either PW-3 or of PW-5. As such, it cannot be held that the prosecution has proved the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC, as against the accused persons. However, it can be seen that the nature of the weapon used by the accused is, a chopper at MO-1, which is a deadly weapon. Therefore, the voluntary cause of hurt by the accused with such a deadly weapon, resulting in PW-3 sustaining two simple injuries, would attract the offence of voluntarily causing hurt by a dangerous weapon, which is punishable under Section 324 of the IPC.

¶241

Though it was accused No.1, who inflicted the said injury with the chopper at MO-1 upon PW-3, but, as established by the prosecution, the remaining three accused also were along

¶242

45 -

¶243

CRL.A No.671 of 2017

¶244

with him and they were also simultaneously assaulting PW-3 with their hands. Thus, the act of accused No.1 cannot be secluded or isolated from the acts of the accused Nos.2 to 4. On the other hand, it was a conjoint act committed by all the four accused persons in furtherance of their common intention. As such, though the prosecution could not prove the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC, but it could able to establish the offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the IPC against the accused persons.

¶245

Lastly, the accused persons are also charged with the offence punishable under Section 506 of the IPC. Even though PW-3, PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6 have stated that the accused assaulted PW-3 and PW-5 and in which process, the chopper at MO-1 was also used, but none of these witnesses have stated that, there was any act of criminal intimidation by the accused like threatening either PW-3 or PW-5 with any injury to them or to their reputation or property or even to the person or reputation of any one in whom PW-3 and/or PW-5 were interested

¶246

46 -

¶247

CRL.A No.671 of 2017

¶248

and with an intent to cause alarm to them. Thus, in the absence of any evidence fulfilling the ingredients of Section 506 of the IPC, it cannot be held that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

¶249

The learned Sessions Judge's Court in its short judgment has not taken pain of analysing the evidence placed before it by the prosecution in its proper perspective. On the other hand, magnifying the above observed too minor doubts beyond their imagination, has proceeded to give the benefit of doubt to the accused persons, resulting in it acquitting all the accused persons of all the offences alleged against them.

¶250

Since the above analysis now clearly establishes that, the Sessions Judge's Court has erred in its finding, except in acquitting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 506 of the IPC, the impugned judgment warrants interference at the hands of this Court.

¶251

47 -

¶252

CRL.A No.671 of 2017

¶253

Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:

¶254

O R D E R

¶255

[i] The Criminal Appeal stands allowed in-part ;

¶256

[ii] The impugned judgment dated 21-07-2016, in Sessions Case No.47/2015, passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge at Chikkamagaluru, acquitting the accused Nos.1 to 4 of the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 504 read with Section 34 of the IPC, stands set aside;

¶257

[iii] The accused No.1 - Papulli @ Khalid, S/o. Amanulla Sharif, Aged 33 years, R/o. Abdulla Colony, K.M. Road, Kadur Town, Chikkamagaluru District -577548; accused No.2 - Tippu, S/o. Jakir Husain, Aged 26 years, R/o. V.K. Colony, K.M. Road, Kadur Town, Chikkamagaluru District -577548; accused No.3 - Jishan, S/o. Jakir Hussain, Aged 25 years, R/o.

¶258

48 -

¶259

CRL.A No.671 of 2017

¶260

V.K. Compound, K.M. Road, Kadur, Town, Chikkamagalurur District - 577548, and accused No.4 - Sacklane, S/o. Adillha Hussain, aged 19 years, R/o. Abdulla Colony, K.M. Road, Kadur Town, Chikkamagaluru District -577548, are held guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860;

¶261

[iv] The impugned judgment passed by the Sessions Judge's Court, acquitting the accused Nos.1 to 4, for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, stands modified and the accused Nos.1 to 4 are held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860;

¶262

[v] The impugned judgment passed by the Sessions Judge's Court, acquitting all the accused of the offence punishable under Section

¶263

49 -

¶264

CRL.A No.671 of 2017

¶265

506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal

¶266

Code, 1860, stands confirmed.

¶267

[vi] Rest of the impugned judgment passed by the Sessions Judge's Court, regarding confiscation of the Material Object at MO-1 and destruction of the Material Object at MO-2, after

¶268

the period of appeal, remains unaltered.

¶269

To hear on sentence, the matter is passed

over.

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

Bk/BMV*

50 -

¶275

CRL.A No.671 of 2017

¶276

Dr.HBPSJ & UMBAJ:

¶277

20-12-2023

¶278

HEARING ON SENTENCE

¶279

Called again.

¶280

43 Heard the learned Additional State Public

¶281

Prosecutor for the appellant-State and the learned Amicus Curiae for the respondents No.1 to 4 (accused), on sentence.

¶282

Learned Amicus Curiae for the respondents No.1 to 4 (accused) submits that, the alleged incident has taken place nearly a decade back and that the accused persons have family with dependents to take care of, as such, a lenient view be taken.

¶283

Per contra, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the appellant -State, in his argument submitted that, the offence is committed in the month of July-2014 and hitherto, the accused persons have led a comfortable life with their family members and the alleged dependants, if any, as such, the circumstances of the case

¶284

51 -

¶285

CRL.A No.671 of 2017

¶286

warrants imposition of maximum punishment for the proven guilt against the accused persons.

¶287

It is the sentencing policy that the sentence ordered must be proportionate to the gravity of the proven guilt. It shall be neither exorbitant nor for the name-sake.

¶288

Considering the nature of the offences proved against the accused persons and keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of the present case, the accused are not entitled for the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. It is considering the submission made by the learned Amicus Curiae for the accused and other mitigating factors canvassed by the learned counsels for the parties, we proceed to pass the following:

¶289

ORDER ON SENTENCE

¶290

[a] For the offence punishable under Section

¶291

323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, all the four accused persons, viz.

¶292

(1) Papulli @ Khalid, S/o. Amanulla Sharif;

¶293

(2) Tippu S/o. Jakir Husain; (3) Jishan S/o. Jakir

¶294

52 -

¶295

CRL.A No.671 of 2017

¶296

Hussain; and (4) Sacklane, S/o. Adillha Hussain, are sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of four (4) months each;

¶297

[b] For the offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, all the four accused persons, viz. (1) Papulli @ Khalid, S/o. Amanulla Sharif; (2) Tippu S/o. Jakir Husain; (3) Jishan S/o. Jakir Hussain; and (4) Sacklane, S/o. Adillha Hussain, are sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of eighteen (18) months each;

¶298

[c] For the offence punishable under Section 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, all the four accused persons, viz. (1) Papulli @ Khalid S/o. Amanulla Sharif; (2) Tippu S/o. Jakir Husain; (3) Jishan S/o. Jakir Hussain; and (4) Sacklane, S/o. Adillha Hussain, are sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of twelve (12) months each;

¶299

53 -

¶300

CRL.A No.671 of 2017

¶301

[d] All the above sentences shall run

¶302

concurrently;

¶303

[e] The respondents No.1 to 4 (accused)

¶304

shall surrender before the learned Sessions

¶305

Judge's Court, within forty five (45) days from

¶306

today and serve the sentence as ordered above by this Court;

¶307

[f] All the four accused are entitled for the

¶308

benefit of set-off, for the period, if any, undergone by them in Judicial Custody, in the matter, under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973;

¶309

[g] A free copy of this judgment be

¶310

furnished to the accused, immediately by the Registry.

¶311

The Court, while acknowledging the services rendered by the learned Amicus Curiae for the respondents No.1 to 4 (accused) - Sri V.S.Vinayaka,

¶312

54 -

¶313

CRL.A No.671 of 2017

¶314

recommends an honorarium of a sum of not less than

¶315

`6,000/- payable to him by the Registry.

¶316

Registry is directed to transmit a copy of this judgment to the Sessions Judge’s Court, forthwith along with its records, for doing the needful in the matter in securing the accused for serving the sentence and in accordance with law.

¶317

Sd/JUDGE

¶318

Sd/JUDGE

¶319

Bk/BMV*

State by Kadur Police v. Papulli @ Khalid

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State by Kadur Police v. Papulli @ Khalid

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Bonus Reddy Vs Suma

The State of Karnataka Vs Mounesh @ Mohana

Sri. Swamy Vs State of Karnataka

The State of Karnataka Vs Ravi v P

The State by Circle Inspector Vs Sri P.S. Ananda @ Ananda Kumar

Vasudha Vs Rakesh B