Partly allowed

Anand v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Sept 2024CRL.A/406/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal appeal against conviction of three accused under Section 324 IPC for an assault over a hand-loan dispute. The court confirmed conviction of accused Nos.1 and 2 but acquitted accused No.3 for want of common intention, and reduced their sentence to time already served with increased fine partly payable as compensation to the injured.

What did the court decide?

Conviction of accused No.3 set aside; sentence of accused Nos.1 and 2 modified to period already undergone plus Rs.6,000 fine each; Rs.10,000 compensation to injured PW1.

Anand Vs State of Karnataka — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:39363 CRL.A No. 406 of 2013

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 406 OF 2013

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

ANAND S/O GURU JOGAIAH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS

¶8

PRAMOD S/O ANANDAPPA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS

¶9

HANUMAIAH S/O RAMAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS

¶10

Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

THE APPELLANTS ARE THE R/O BALAGERI RAMANAGARA TOWN AND TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-571511

¶12

…APPELLANTS

¶13

(BY SRI. CHANDRAPPA H N., ADVOCATE AS AMICUS CURIAE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY RAMANAGARA TOWN POLICE BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS AT BANGALORE-560001

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI. RANGASWAMY R., HCGP)

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:39363 CRL.A No. 406 of 2013

¶19

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED AGAINST THEM DATED 19.03.2013 PASSED BY THE P.O., F.T.C., RAMANAGARA IN S.C.NO.47/2010 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 324 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC.

¶20

THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

Heard the learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants and

¶24

the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent/State and perused the evidence and material on record.

¶25

Appellants/accused Nos.1 to 3 were charged for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 504 r/w 34 IPC. Case of the prosecution is that the complainant/injured had provided hand loan of Rs.500/- to accused persons and he was insisting to return the said hand loan. Hence, on 3.10.2009, accused

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:39363 CRL.A No. 406 of 2013

¶27

asked him to meet them near Shishu Vihar in Balageri and thinking that they have called him to return the hand loan, complainant went near Shishu vihar. At that time, accused Nos.1 to 3 picked up quarrel with him and accused Nos.1 and 2 assaulted him on his head with iron pipes, further, accused No.2 held him and accused No.3 tried to stab him with a knife on his abdomen.

¶28

The learned Sessions Judge vide impugned judgment dated 19.03.2013 held accused Nos.1 to 3 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w 34 of IPC and acquitted them of the offence punishable under Sections 307, 504 r/w 34 of IPC.

¶29

The trial Court has observed that the prosecution

¶30

has not proved that there was intention for accused Nos.1 to 3 to commit the murder of PW1 and also utterly failed to prove the offence under Section 504 IPC.

¶31

The injured in this case is examined as PW1. In his complaint marked as Ex.P1, he has stated that after taking treatment at Government Hospital, Ramanagara, he lodged the complaint.

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:39363 CRL.A No. 406 of 2013

¶34

PW10 is the PSI, who received the complaint - Ex.P1 from injured/PW1 and after registering the case, forwarded FIR-Ex.P6 to the jurisdictional Court. He has stated

¶35

that he prepared the spot mahazar-Ex.P2 and one of the witness by name Murgesha (PW6) produced 2 iron pipes and a knife as well as blood stained blue colour T-shirt of the injured, which are marked as MOs.1 to 3.

¶36

In Ex.P1, complainant has stated that on hearing

¶37

his hue and cry, one Prabhu, Umesh, Venkatesh, Subramani, Murugesha and his mother Sarojamma came and rescued him. The said witnesses are examined as PWs.2 to 7. PW6-Murugesha has deposed that the accused threw the weapons at the spot and ran away and the said weapons were kept by him and he handed over the same to the police. The said weapons were seized while conducting the spot mahazar. He has further stated that police seized the blood stained T-shirt of the injured.

¶38

PW1 / injured in his evidence has reiterated the

¶39

complaint averments. He has stated that accused No.1 had taken hand loan of Rs.500/- from him and at that time,

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:39363 CRL.A No. 406 of 2013

¶41

accused Nos.2 and 3 were also present. He was insisting to return the said hand loan and on 03.10.2009 at about 5.00 pm, when he was near his house, all the three accused called him, then abused him and accused No.1 assaulted him with a pipe on his head and accused No.2 assaulted him on his head with iron pipe and again accused No.2 threw the iron pipe and held him and accused No.3 tried to stab him with a knife, but he escaped. He has stated that, when he shouted, others came and rescued him and then all the three accused went away threatening him with dire consequences. His mother then shifted him to hospital and after taking treatment, he went to the police station and lodged complaint as per Ex.P1. He has stated that the on the next day, the police came and prepared the spot mahazar and he handed over a blue T-shirt to them and the police have also seized the weapons, MOs.1 to 3.

¶42

PWs.2 to 4 have corroborated the evidence of PW1. As per PW5, by the time she went to the spot, PW1 had already sustained injuries to his head and he was bleeding. She has stated, accused No.2 was trying to stab him. Similarly, PW6 has stated that he came to know about the incident subsequently. However, he has stated that he kept the iron

¶43

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:39363 CRL.A No. 406 of 2013

¶44

pipes and knife which were thrown by the accused at the spot and gave them to the police.

¶45

The defence of the accused is that, on the date of incident there was a quarrel while playing cards and in the said quarrel PW1 fell down and sustained injuries to his head by coming into contact with stone. PW1 and other witnesses have denied the said suggestion made in the cross-examination.

¶46

The defence has got examined 01 witness by name Ananda as DW1, to establish that PW1 sustained injuries on account of a fall. He has stated that on the date of incident he along with PWs.1,2 and others were playing cards and there was a quarrel and in the said quarrel PW1 held his shirt collar and assaulted him. At that time, the accused persons came and tried to pacify the quarrel and in the said quarrel PW1 fell on the stone and sustained injuries to his head.

¶47

The above evidence given by DW1 is not in consonance with the defence taken by the accused. As per the specific defence taken by the accused, quarrel took place between PW1, accused and Ananda i.e., DW1 while playing cards, whereas DW1 has stated that the quarrel took place

¶48

¶49

NC: 2024:KHC:39363 CRL.A No. 406 of 2013

¶50

while PW1, himself and two others were playing cards. He has not stated that the accused were also playing cards, on the other hand, he has stated that when PW1 was quarrelling with him, accused persons came to the spot and tried to pacify the quarrel and at that time PW1 fell down and sustained injuries to his head.

¶51

The incident has taken place at Balageri in Ramanagara town at about 5.00 pm. In the cross-examination of DW1, it is elicited that at the time of lodging the complaint, he was in Bengaluru and he returned from Bengaluru after one week. In fact, the case was registered by the police at 6.30 pm on 3.10.2009 itself. Hence, the presence of DW1-Anand at the place of incident is doubtful. Defence taken by the accused is improbable and not established.

¶52

Prosecution has got examined PW8, who treated PW1 at Government Hospital, Ramanagara. His evidence reveal that on 3.10.2009 at about 5.45 pm, Raveena i.e., PW1 came to the hospital and on examination he noticed two injuries on his head. He has issued the wound certificate-

¶53

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:39363 CRL.A No. 406 of 2013

¶54

Ex.P3, as per which, the said injuries can be caused with iron pipes.

¶55

The prosecution has also examined PW9, Scientific Officer, who has issued a report-Ex.P4, as per which, the T- shirt belonging to PW1 was stained with human blood.

¶56

The specific case of the prosecution is that accused Nos.1 and 2 assaulted PW1 with iron pipes, on account of which he sustained bleeding injuries to his head. PW7-Doctor has issued the wound certificate pertaining to PW1, as per which PW1 has sustained two injuries. The said injuries are stated to

¶57

be simple in nature. It is no doubt true PW1 has stated that accused No.3 tried to stab him with a knife, but he escaped. He has not sustained any injuries by means of knife. The learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused of the charge leveled against them under Section 307 of IPC, observing that the prosecution has not proved the intention on their part to commit the murder. It cannot be said that accused No.3 also shared a common intention to cause injuries to PW1, in the absence of PW1 sustaining injuries by means of knife. In fact, PW5-Sarojamma has not stated that when she came

¶58

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:39363 CRL.A No. 406 of 2013

¶59

out of the house, accused No.2 tried to stab the injured-PW1, which is contrary to the prosecution case. Hence, accused No.3 is entitled to benefit of doubt.

¶60

Learned Amicus Curiae, based on records submitted that accused No.1 was in custody from 3.10.2009 to 4.12.2010 and accused No.2 was in custody from 3.10.2009 to 31.10.2009.

¶61

The incident took place in the year 2009. Almost 15 years have lapsed. The trial Court has sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each. Sending the accused to the prison at this stage may not serve any purpose. Hence, sentence of imprisonment imposed against accused Nos.1 and 2 can be modified. Accordingly, the following:

¶62

ORDER

¶63

I. Appeal is allowed- in-part.

¶64

II. The Judgment dated 19.03.2013 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Ramanagara in

¶65

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:39363 CRL.A No. 406 of 2013

¶66

SC No.47/2010, convicting accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC is confirmed.

¶67

III. The impugned judgment of conviction passed against accused No.3 for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC is set aside.

¶68

IV. The sentence imposed against accused Nos.1 and 2 is modified as under:

¶69

i. They are sentenced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by them.

¶70

ii. They shall pay fine of Rs.6,000/- (Rupees

¶71

six thousand only) each and in default of payment of fine, shall undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months each.

¶72

iii. Out of the fine amount, if recovered, a sum of Rs.10,000/- shall be paid to PW1/injured as compensation.

¶73

iv. Balance amount shall be defrayed towards State expenses.

¶74

NC: 2024:KHC:39363 CRL.A No. 406 of 2013

¶75

11 -

¶76

Fee payable to the learned Amicus Curiae, Sri Chandrappa K.N. is fixed at Rs.6,000/- (Rupees six thousand only), which shall be paid by the High Court Legal

¶77

Services Committee.

¶78

SD/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE

¶79

TL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28

Anand v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anand v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kumar G N Vs State of Karnataka

Ramesh Kumar Ghaji Vs State of Karnataka by

Mr Harish Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Guruprasad Vs State of Karnataka

Shri Shivaraj Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Zakir Hussain Vs Union of India