Partly allowed

Sri Muniyappa v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Sept 2024CRL.A/413/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal appeal by two accused convicted under Section 324 IPC for inflicting simple knife injuries during a quarrel. The High Court confirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence to imprisonment already undergone with enhanced fine paid as compensation to the injured.

What did the court decide?

Conviction under Section 324 IPC confirmed; sentence modified to imprisonment already undergone plus Rs.10,000 fine each, default two months SI, fine payable as compensation to PWs 1 and 2.

Sri Muniyappa Vs State of Karnataka — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:35939 CRL.A No. 413 of 2012

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 413 OF 2012

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI MUNIYAPPA S/O VENKATARAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

¶9

SRI PAPA @ NARAYANASWAMY S/O VENKATARAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

¶10

BOTH ARE R/AT ATTIGIRIKOPPA VILLAGE, BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563101

¶11

…APPELLANTS

¶12

(BY SRI. S VISWESWARAIAH, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BANGARPET POLICE, BANGARPET, KOLAR DISTRICT-563101

¶16

(BY SRI. RANGASWAMY R., HCGP)

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION PASSED IN S.C.NO.184/2011 DATED 31.03.2012 AND 03.04.2012 BY THE FAST TRACK COURT, K.G.F. BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL.

¶19

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

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶21

¶22

NC: 2024:KHC:35939 CRL.A No. 413 of 2012

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for appellants and learned

¶25

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

¶26

This appeal is preferred by accused Nos.1 and 2

¶27

against the Judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 31.03.2012 and 03.04.2012 passed by the Fast Track Court at K.G.F. in SC No.184/2011.

¶28

It is the case of prosecution that on 19.09.2010 at about 10.00 p.m., the complainant-PW1 and his brother-PW2 went near the house of accused No.1 to ask him as to why he tried to assault their sister-in-law by name Lalithamma. At that time, both the accused quarrelled with them and accused No.1 went inside the house and brought a knife with an intention to kill PW1 and tried to assault on his stomach. When PW1, tried to escape, accused No.2 prevented him and accused No.1 assaulted PW1 on his back and caused bleeding injury to

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:35939 CRL.A No. 413 of 2012

¶30

him. When PW2 came to the rescue of PW1, accused No.2 assaulted PW2 on his right shoulder with knife and caused bleeding injury to him.

¶31

Before the trial Court, the accused were

¶32

charged for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 324 and 341 r/w 34 of IPC.

¶33

In order to establish the guilt of the accused

¶34

persons, prosecution got examined PWs.1 to 8 and marked documents Exs.1 to 8 and MOs.1 and 2.

¶35

The trial Court, appreciating the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove that accused Nos.1 and 2 have committed offences punishable under sections 341 and 307 of IPC. However, held them guilty of the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC. The trial Court convicted accused Nos.1 and 2 for the said offence and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- each, in default of payment

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:35939 CRL.A No. 413 of 2012

¶38

of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months.

¶39

The incident took place on 19.09.2010 at about 10.00 p.m. On a perusal of the complaint-Ex.P1 lodged by one of the injured i.e., PW1, it can be gathered that both PWs.1 and 2 went to the house of the accused to question accused No.1 as to why he assaulted their sisterin-law by name Lalithamma. It is alleged that, both the accused inflicted injuries to them with knives.

¶40

In Ex.P1, it is stated that on hearing the commotion, when PWs.3 and 4 came to the spot, both the accused fled away. One Ramesh (CW7) and Shiva (PW5) shifted the injured to the Government Hospital, Bangarpet and then sent them to S.N.R. Hospital, Kolar, for further treatment.

¶41

Both PWs.1 and 2, injured in this case have supported the case of prosecution. PW1-complainant has deposed in consonance with the complaint averments.

¶42

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:35939 CRL.A No. 413 of 2012

¶43

His evidence is corroborated by the evidence of PW2, another injured. Insofar as the injuries caused to PWs.1 and 2 by accused Nos.1 and 2, there is nothing elicited in their cross-examination to disbelieve their evidence.

¶44

Prosecution has examined PW3 as an eye witness, however, in the cross-examination conducted by the defence, he resiled from his earlier version. Hence, he was treated hostile.

¶45

PW4 is an eye witness, whose name is

¶46

mentioned in the complaint. He is also a witness to the spot mahazar-Ex.P2.

¶47

PW5 is also an eye witness and attestor to Ex.P3-mahazar, under which MOs.1 and 2 - two knives were seized. He has stated that the said MOs.1 and 2 were produced by accused No.1. Both PWs.4 and 5 have spoken about the incident and shifting the injured to the hospital for treatment.

¶48

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:35939 CRL.A No. 413 of 2012

¶49

PW6 is another panch witness to Ex.P3,

¶50

however, he has stated that he was not aware as to from

¶51

where the knives were seized.

¶52

PW7 is the Doctor, who treated the injured at Government Hospital, Bangarpet. He has issued the wound certificate pertaining to PW1 marked as Ex.P4 and pertaining to PW2 marked as Ex.P5. The wound certificates show that both the injured have sustained simple injuries.

¶53

PW8 is the PSI, who registered the case, conducted investigation and filed charge sheet against the accused.

¶54

Both in Ex.P1 and in the evidence of PW2, it is stated that on the date of incident at about 10.00 p.m. when PW1 returned to his house, he was informed that accused No.1 had assaulted his sister-in-law Lalithamma at about 8.00 p.m. on that day. Hence, PWs.1 and 2 went to the house of accused No.1 at about

¶55

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:35939 CRL.A No. 413 of 2012

¶56

10.00 p.m. to question him as to why he assaulted Lalithamma. The incident has taken place at that point of time wherein, it is alleged that accused Nos.1 and 2 caused injuries to PWs.1 and 2 with knives.

¶57

In this case, Lalithamma though cited as a witness i.e., CW4 in the charge sheet, has not been examined by the prosecution to show that on that day at about 8.00 p.m. accused No.1 had assaulted her. However, from the material on record, it can be seen that when PWs.1 and 2 went to the house of the accused in the night i.e., 10.00 p.m. on 19.09.2010, a quarrel took place and in the said quarrel, both accused Nos.1 and 2 caused injuries to PWs.1 and 2 with knife.

¶58

As per Exs.P4 and P5-wound certificates issued by the Doctor-PW7 both the injured have sustained one injury each. The injuries are said to be simple in nature. The medical evidence corroborates the evidence PWs.1 and 2. Hence, the findings recorded by the trial Court for convicting the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2

¶59

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:35939 CRL.A No. 413 of 2012

¶60

for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC cannot

¶61

faulted.

¶62

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted

¶63

that both the accused were in custody from 04.10.2010 to 18.10.2010, which is not disputed.

¶64

Considering the facts and circumstances of the

¶65

case and also considering that the incident took place about 14 years ago, the sentence imposed against the

¶66

appellants can be modified. Accordingly, the following:

¶67

ORDER

¶68

i. Appeal is allowed-in-part.

¶69

ii. The Judgment dated 31.03.2012 convicting the

¶70

appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC, passed by the Fast Track Court at K.G.F. in SC No.184/2011 is hereby confirmed.

¶71

iii. The order on sentence dated 03.04.2012 is modified as under:

¶72

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:35939 CRL.A No. 413 of 2012

¶73

(a) Appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 are sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by them.

¶74

(b) They shall pay fine of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees

¶75

ten thousand only) each and in default of payment of fine, shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months each.

¶76

¶77

(d) The fine amount, on its deposit/recovery shall be paid as compensation to PWs.1 and 2, equally.

¶78

SD/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE

¶79

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26

¶80

Sri Muniyappa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Muniyappa 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

Reshma Vs State by

Ganesha Vs State of Karanataka

Sri Pravina Vs State of Karnataka

Shashikumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sonnegowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Sudhakar @ Sudha Vs the State of Karnataka