Partly allowed

Chandra Shekaraiah v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Feb 2024CRL.A/1275/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against conviction and six-month simple imprisonment for offence under Section 325 IPC arising from a club assault over a cattle/crop dispute between cousin brothers. Conviction affirmed, but the accused, aged about 60 with no antecedents during 16 years, was released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, modifying the sentence.

What did the court decide?

Conviction affirmed; accused released on probation under Section 4 PO Act; bond to be executed within 15 days; imprisonment sentence modified.

Chandra Shekaraiah Vs State of Karnataka — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:4400 CRL.A No. 1275 of 2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1275 OF 2012

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

CHANDRA SHEKARAIAH S/O. DODDABYRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT HONNAPURA, THIPPASANDRA (HO), MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DIST.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI A N RADHA KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KUDUR POLICE REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001

¶13

(BY SMT.ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP)

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 11.10.2012 PASSED BY THE DIST. & S.J., RAMANAGARA IN S.C.NO.63/2008 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 325 OF IPC.

¶16

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:4400 CRL.A No. 1275 of 2012

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

This appeal is filed by the sole accused praying to set-aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.10.2012 passed in S.C.No.63/2008 by the District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara. The appellant – accused has been convicted for the offence under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months.

¶21

Heard learned counsel for the appellant – accused and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State.

¶22

Learned counsel for the appellant – accused submits that he will not challenge the judgment of conviction of the appellant – accused for the offence under Section 325 of IPC and he submits that he is praying for extending the

¶23

¶24

NC: 2024:KHC:4400 CRL.A No. 1275 of 2012

¶25

benefit of provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘P.O. Act’) . He further submits that the appellant – accused and PW1 – complainant are cousin brothers. Father of the appellant – accused and father of PW1 – complainant are brothers.

¶26

He further submits that the alleged incident has taken place with regard to the cow of the deceased (father of PW1 – complainant), poking its head through the barbed fencing in the land of the appellant – accused and eating the crops. He further submits that the alleged assault made by the appellant – accused is by a club, which is not a deadly weapon. He further submits that the assault made by the appellant – accused with club is on the stomach of the deceased and no external injuries were found on the stomach of the deceased. He further submits that the appellant – accused was aged 44 years as on the date of the offence and now, 16 years have been elapsed and he may be aged about 60 years. Learned counsel for the appellant – accused submits that mother of the appellant – accused aged about 85 years is with the

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:4400 CRL.A No. 1275 of 2012

¶29

appellant – accused and he has to take care of her along with other dependants. He further submits that even the sentence imposed by the Trial Court for the offence under Section 325 of IPC is simple imprisonment for a period of six months. He submits that considering all these aspects, the appellant – accused is entitled for the benefit of Section 360 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C’) and the provision of P.O.Act.

¶30

3(i) On that point, he places reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka

¶31

Vs. Muddappa reported in 1999 SCC (Cri)1046 . He submits that in the said Muddappa’s case (supra) , the High Court has extended the benefit of P.O.Act, to the appellant

¶32

– accused who has been convicted for the offence under Section 304 Part-II of IPC and the same has not been disturbed or set-aside by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

¶33

3(ii). He also places reliance on the decision of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of

¶34

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:4400 CRL.A No. 1275 of 2012

¶35

State of Karnataka Vs. Bhimappa and Others reported in 1985 CRI.L.J. NOC 1 (KANT.) , wherein this Court has extended the benefit of Section 360 of Cr.P.C to the appellant – accused who has committed an offence under Section 325 of IPC. With this, he prayed for extending the benefit of Section 360 of Cr.P.C and the provisions of P.O.Act.

¶36

Learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State would contend that the appellant – accused was charged for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and he was tried for the said offence, but the Trial Court has acquitted him of the offence under Section 302 of IPC and convicted him for the offence under Section 325 of IPC. She further submits that if the appellant – accused is given the benefit of P.O.Act, there are chances of this appellant – accused again attacking PW1 – complainant and his family members and submits that there is a prone to attack the victim again.

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:4400 CRL.A No. 1275 of 2012

¶39

4(i) On that point, she places reliance on the decision of

¶40

the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Jit Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 1998 SCC Online P & H 762 . She has also placed reliance on another decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of

¶41

Goverdhan Dass Vs. Chaman Lal reported in (2021) 14 SCC 757 , wherein the appellant – accused who has been convicted for the offence under Sections 326, 325 and 323 r/w Section 149 of IPC, has been sentenced till raising of the Court by enhancing the compensation to be

¶42

paid by the accused persons from Rs.75,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/-, holding that the offence under Section 326 of IPC carries sentence of life imprisonment as well as cannot be compounded under Section 360 of Cr.P.C or under Section 4 of the P.O.Act.

¶43

The appellant – accused has been acquitted

¶44

by the Trial Court for the offence under Section 302 of IPC

¶45

and he has been convicted for the offence under Section 325 of IPC, sentencing him to undergo simple

¶46

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC:4400 CRL.A No. 1275 of 2012

¶48

imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-. The said acquittal of the appellant – accused

¶49

for the offence under Section 302 of IPC has not been challenged by the State. The accusation against this appellant – accused is that, he has assaulted with club on the stomach of father of PW1 – complainant, but subsequently, while under treatment in the hospital he died, but not due to the assault made by the appellant – accused, but for the other reason, as he was aged 75 years and was suffering from hernia. The appellant –

¶50

accused and PW1 – complainant are cousin brothers. Father of the appellant – accused and father of PW1 – complainant are full brothers. The appellant – accused quarreled with father of PW1 – complainant, ie., the deceased Sri.Muddabyrappa, as his cow poked inside the barbed fence and eaten up the crops in the land of the appellant – accused. The appellant – accused and PW1 – complainant are neighbours and their lands are situated adjacent to each other. Considering the said aspects, there is a close relationship between the appellant –

¶51

¶52

NC: 2024:KHC:4400 CRL.A No. 1275 of 2012

¶53

accused and PW1 – complainant. The incident has taken place in the year 2006 and till this day, there is no allegation of any further quarrel between the appellant – accused and PW1 – complainant and his family members.

¶54

5(i) Learned counsel for the appellant – accused submits that the appellant – accused was in judicial custody for a period of four days as an under-trial prisoner. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Goverdhan’s case (supra), has not extended the benefit of provision of Section 360 of Cr.P.C or Section 4 of the P.O.Act, on the ground that the offence under Section 326 of IPC, carries sentence of life imprisonment. In the case on hand, the offence is under Section 325 of IPC and the sentence provided for the said offence is imprisonment of either description, which may extend to seven years and also liable to fine. The said offence under Section 325 of IPC, is not provided with punishment of life imprisonment and therefore, the said decision is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand.

¶55

¶56

NC: 2024:KHC:4400 CRL.A No. 1275 of 2012

¶57

5(ii) The Hon’ble Apex Court in Muddappa’s case (supra) , has extended the benefit of P.O.Act, for the offence under Section 304 Part-II of IPC. The said offence under Section 304 Part-II of IPC is provided with punishment of imprisonment of either description which may extend to ten years or with fine or with both.

¶58

5(iii) The Division Bench of this Court in Bheemappa’s case (supra) , has extended the benefit of Section 4 of the P.O.Act and Section 360 of Cr.P.C for the offence under

¶59

Section 325 of IPC, considering the nature of the offence, the weapon used, age, character and antecedents of the family background of the appellant – accused and the other attending circumstances. In the case on hand also,

¶60

the appellant – accused has also been convicted for the offence under Section 325 of IPC. The appellant – accused and PW1 – complainant are cousin brothers and their lands are situated adjacent to each other. The appellant – accused was aged 44 years as on the date of offence and now, after lapse of 16 years, he is now aged about

¶61

10 -

¶62

NC: 2024:KHC:4400 CRL.A No. 1275 of 2012

¶63

60 years. There are no criminal antecedents of this appellant – accused. There is no allegation of commission of any of the offence by the appellant – accused during these 16 years. Considering all these aspects, the appellant – accused is entitled to the benefit of Section 4 of the P.O.Act. Considering the above aspects, the following;

¶64

ORDER

¶65

(i) The appeal is partly allowed . The conviction of the appellant – accused for the offence under Section 325 of IPC, passed by the Trial Court in S.C.No.63/2008 dated 11.10.2012 is

¶66

affirmed .

¶67

(ii) The appellant – accused is extended the benefit of Section 4 of the P.O.Act. The appellant – accused is ordered to be released on probation by applying the provision of Section 4 of the P.O.Act.

¶68