Partly allowed

Sri Anand v. State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC26 Jul 2024CRL.A/563/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellants convicted for assault causing grievous hurt appealed against the conviction. The High Court upheld the conviction, finding injured witnesses credible despite a five-day complaint delay explained by an attempted panchayat, but reduced the sentence owing to the 16-year pendency and mitigating personal circumstances.

What did the court decide?

Conviction upheld; sentence reduced to 15 days SI under S.323 and three months SI under S.325 (accused no.3), concurrent; fine undisturbed; bail bonds cancelled.

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

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:29532 CRL.A No. 563 of 2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 563 OF 2014 (C)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. ANAND S/O POTHULAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

¶8

CHANDRAPPA S/O GAJALA VENKATARAVANAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

¶9

KUMBAR ESWARAPPA S/O SHIVAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

¶10

ALL ARE RESIDING AT MUDDAKKAVARIPALLI VILLAGE GULOORU HOBLI, BAGEPALLI TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT PIN:561 207

¶11

Digitally signed by SHAKAMBARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

…APPELLANTS (BY SRI NANJUNDA GOWDA M.R, ADVOCATE [PH]) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BAGEPALLI POLICE CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT PIN:561 207 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)

¶13

(BY SRI NANJUNDA GOWDA M.R, ADVOCATE [PH])

¶14

AND:

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:29532 CRL.A No. 563 of 2014

¶16

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:27.6.2014 PASSED BY THE PRL.DIST. AND S.J., CHICKBALLAPUR IN SPL.C.C.NO.2/2009 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 323 AND 325 R/W 34 OF IPC.

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF THIS DAY, RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR J., DELIVERED/PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

¶19

CAV JUDGMENT

¶20

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)

¶21

Appellants-accused Nos.1 to 3 have filed this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment passed in Special Sessions Case No.2/2009 dated 27.06.2014, convicting and sentencing them for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 325 r/w Section 34 of IPC, by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura.

¶22

Parties to this appeal are referred to as per

¶23

their rank before the trial Court.

¶24

That, one Lakshmi Narayanamma w/o the Chikkanarayanappa, resident of Mattaka Varappalli Village,

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:29532 CRL.A No. 563 of 2014

¶27

Guluru Hobli, Bagepalli Taluk, lodged a complaint on 25.11.2008 at 3:30 p.m. by appearing before the Bagepalli police station, alleging that she is the resident of the address so stated in the complaint and belongs to the ST community. There is a land dispute between her husband and one Marappa M.P. resident of her village. To that effect, evidence was given before the Court. Therefore, accused nos.1 to 3 herein together, whenever they find the complainant, used to abuse her in filthy language.

¶28

It is alleged that on 20.11.2008 at 8:00 a.m., the accused persons abused the complainant in filthy language and gave a life threat to them and even they abused the complainant's family by taking their caste. They tried to assault the complainant by using the wooden clubs and macchu. In the said incident, the complainant lost her golden wedlock worth Rs. 10,000/-, so she also lost 30 chain pieces.

¶29

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:29532 CRL.A No. 563 of 2014

¶30

In that incident, the accused assaulted her by

¶31

using the club. When her husband came to rescue her, he was assaulted with stone and he lost his two teeth. Her husband has taken treatment at Bagepalli Government Hospital as an inpatient. Therefore, it was prayed by the complainant to take necessary legal action against the accused.

¶32

6. With these allegations, a complaint as per Ex.P7

¶33

came to be registered against the accused for the offences under Sections 324 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC initially and later Section 334 IPC r/w Section 3(10) and (11) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and criminal law was set in motion. The Investigation Officer, after completion of the investigation, filed the charge sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences.

¶34

Before the trial Court, to substantiate the case of the prosecution, in all, it examined 13 witnesses from PWs.1 to 13 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.15 and closed

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:29532 CRL.A No. 563 of 2014

¶36

prosecution evidence. MO.No.1, the stone came to be marked on behalf of the prosecution.

¶37

The learned trial Court, on hearing the arguments and on evaluation of the evidence, found the accused not guilty of committing the offences under Section 324, 326, 307 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(10)(11) and Section 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and acquitted them, whereas accused Nos. 1 to 3 were found guilty of committing the offence under Sections 323, 325 r/w Section 34 of IPC and sentenced them as under:

¶38

"zÀAqÀ ¥ÀæQæAiÀiÁ ¸ÀA»vÉ «¢ü 235(2)gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ 1 jAzÀ 3£ÉÃ DgÉÆÃ¦UÀ½UÉ ¨sÁ.zÀA.¸ÀA. «¢ü 323gÀ C¥ÀgÁzsÀPÁÌV vÀ%Á 3 wAUÀ¼À PÀpt ¸ÉgÉªÀÄ£É ªÁ¸ÀzÀ ²PÉë «¢ü¸À%ÁVzÉ ºÁUÀÆ 1000/- gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä zÀAqÀ «¢ü¹zÉ. zÀAqÀ PÀlÖ®Ä vÀ¦àzÀgÉ 15 ¢£ÀUÀ¼À PÀpt ¸ÉgÉªÀÄ£É ªÁ¸ÀzÀ ²PÉë C£ÀÄ¨sÀ«¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.

¶39

3£ÉÃ DgÉÆÃ¦UÉ ¨sÁ.zÀA.¸ÀA. «¢ü 325 gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ C¥ÀgÁzsÀPÁÌV 2 ªÀµÀð PÀpt ¸ÉgÉªÀÄ£É ªÁ¸À ºÁUÀÆ 2,000/- gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä zÀAqÀ «¢ü¹zÉ. zÀAqÀ PÀlÖ®Ä vÀ¦àzÀgÉ £Á®ÄÌ wAUÀ¼À PÀpt ¸ÉgÉªÀÄ£É ªÁ¸ÀzÀ ²PÉë C£ÀÄ¨sÀ«¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ".

¶40

¶41

NC: 2024:KHC:29532 CRL.A No. 563 of 2014

¶42

This is how now accused nos.1 to 3/appellants are before this Court.

¶43

The learned counsel for the Appellants-accused with all vehemence submits that, first of all, there is a delay in filing the complaint that is not properly explained. In all, there is a 5-day delay. PW.1 being an eyewitness has been turned hostile. There is no incriminating evidence appearing in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The doctor has not informed the police station about the admission of an injured with a history of assault. This delay is fatal to the case of the prosecution.

¶44

The complaint was drafted on 20.11.2008. The

¶45

police have not chosen to register the same immediately. It is his submission that the evidence so placed on record by the prosecution suffers from material particulars. Overall evidence of the complainant is quite contradictory to the evidence of the doctor. The other important witnesses are not examined by the prosecution. Witnesses

¶46

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC:29532 CRL.A No. 563 of 2014

¶48

so examined in this case are not trustworthy. On 20th itself, the statement of PWs was recorded.

¶49

Further, it is submitted that evidence of all the witnesses, if put together, would not inspire confidence in the Court. There are material contradictions and omissions in the evidence of the witnesses. PWs.8, 9 and 13 are branded as eyewitnesses. There is a civil dispute between the accused family as well as the complainant. Therefore, the false case has been foisted against them. When there is a delay in filing the complaint, it leads to the concoction of the facts against the accused. Therefore, if all these factual features brought on record in the crossexamination are read together, the accused are entitled to acquittal by giving benefit of doubt.

¶50

It is submitted that the trial Court has not considered all these aspects and hence, it is prayed to set aside the impugned judgment by allowing this appeal.

¶51

As against this submission, learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that the complainant has

¶52

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:29532 CRL.A No. 563 of 2014

¶53

explained the delay in filing the complaint. The stone that was used by the accused was seized by the police during the course of the investigation. The evidence of the eyewitnesses as well as the injured witness is sufficient to convict the accused. The trial Court has rightly convicted the accused. Though there are some minor contradictions and discrepancies, they will not go to the root of the case. Therefore, according to him, the trial Court has given cogent reasons to convict the accused for the aforesaid offences. Hence, it is prayed by the Learned HCGP to dismiss the appeal in limine.

¶54

I have considered the rival submissions of both sides and perused the records.

¶55

In view of the rival submissions of both parties,

¶56

the following points arise for my consideration:

¶57

(i) Whether the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court suffers from infirmity, illegality and without

¶58

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:29532 CRL.A No. 563 of 2014

¶59

properly appreciating the evidence in the manner stated in the appeal memo.

¶60

(ii) If so, whether judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court require interference by this court?

¶61

Point Nos.1 and 2 require common discussion. Therefore, they are discussed together.

¶62

Evidently, in this case, the accused were acquitted of the charges under Sections 324, 326 and 307 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(10)(11) and 3(2)(5) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Being aggrieved by the same, the State has not preferred any appeal. Therefore, the judgment of the trial Court on the aforesaid offences has attained finality. Whereas, the trial Court has found the accused guilty of committing the offences under Sections 323 and 325 r/w Section 34 of the IPC and convicted and sentenced him as above. Now, we are very much

¶63

10 -

¶64

NC: 2024:KHC:29532 CRL.A No. 563 of 2014

¶65

concerned about the proof of these offences by the prosecution.

¶66

So far as the contents of the complaint Ex.P7 filed by the complainant is concerned, the alleged incident took place on 20.11.2008 at 8:00 a.m., and she lodged a complaint on 25.11.2008. As rightly submitted by the counsel for the accused, there is a delay of five days in filing the complaint. Based upon Ex.P7, the crime is registered in Crime No.208/2008 by registering the FIR as per Ex.P8.

¶67

Ex.P10 is the scene of offence panchanama, wherein the place of offence has been narrated in para.3 of the said panchanama. Ex.P6 is a letter addressed by the Government Hospital, Bagepalli, to the Dy.S.P. after medically examining the husband of the complainant by name Chikkanarayanappa on 20.11.2008, who was admitted to the hospital with a history of assault.

¶68

11 -

¶69

NC: 2024:KHC:29532 CRL.A No. 563 of 2014

¶70

It is noticed by the doctor that the following

¶71

were the injuries sustained by Chikkanarayanappa, the husband of the complainant. They read as under:

¶72

"1. Missing 2 (evidence of fresh bleeding from socket & root stump)

¶73

2. Root stump of the same tooth was examined in the Radiograph and also root fracture of 1 was noticed.

¶74

3. The above injuries was fresh and was due to the assault.

¶75

4. There was destruction of two teeth (upper left central & lateral incisor) which was in a condition of extraction (Removal of the tooth)".

¶76

Ex.P13 is the wound certificate of complainant

¶77

Lakshmi Narayanamma, wherein the injuries sustained by the complainant are mentioned:

¶78

"1. Abrasion in front of nose 1 x^1/4 cm

¶79

2. Abrasion in front of neck vertically 5 x^1/4 cm".

¶80

12 -

¶81

NC: 2024:KHC:29532 CRL.A No. 563 of 2014

¶82

So far as injuries sustained by the husband of the complainant are concerned, they are grievous in nature as per the submission of the prosecutor. So far as the injuries sustained by the complainant are concerned, they are simple in nature. ExP.15 is another wound certificate of Chikkanarayanappa wherein similar observations have been made by the doctor after medically examining him at 9:30 a.m. on 20.11.2008. He noticed the following injuries on his person:

¶83

"1. Loss of upper lateral teeth and abrasion and swelling Lateral lower lip. Patient referred to dental doctor opinion. Dr. Sammena Kowser, Dentist, GH Bagepalli Examined the patient".

¶84

These are the important documents relied on by the prosecution to prove its case.

¶85

So far as oral evidence is concerned. The prosecution relied upon the evidence of eyewitness PW.1 by name Prakash Gaurappa and also PW2 Gangireddy, who are branded as eyewitnesses by the prosecution. But,

¶86

13 -

¶87

NC: 2024:KHC:29532 CRL.A No. 563 of 2014

¶88

unfortunately, these two witnesses have been turned hostile. Nothing worth is elicited from the mouth of these witnesses so as to disbelieve their version given in the examination-in-chief. Therefore, evidence of PWs.1 and 2 would not help the case of the prosecution.

¶89

PW.3 Dr. Rupashree was the Tahsildar of Bagepalli Taluk at the relevant time and she issued a caste certificate as per Ex.P.3, stating that this complainant belongs to the ST community. Contents of this Exs.P.3 and 5 are not denied by the defence. No cross-examination is directed to this PW.3 to that effect.

¶90

PW.4 Dr. Samina Kauser Hussain was the dentist at Bagepalli Government Hospital at the relevant time. According to her, she examined the husband of the complainant by name Chikkanarayanappa and noticed oozing of the blood from his mouth; the front two teeth of the upper jaw were cut and it was not possible to see with bare eyes and she has taken an X-ray.

¶91

14 -

¶92

NC: 2024:KHC:29532 CRL.A No. 563 of 2014

¶93

Accordingly, one tooth of the lateral incisor and the root stems were found in the upper jaw. Another tooth concerned was fractured. The tooth was existing, but the root was fractured. There was no alternative except to remove both the teeth; she removed the same.

¶94

He came to the hospital with a history of assault with stone. The injuries were fresh in nature. She has been cross-examined at length by the defence, but she has withstood the test of cross-examination. She admits that if a man falls on a hard surface, touching with a mouth, such injuries are possible. The broken tooth pieces were not given to the patient. That means the sustaining of the injuries by the husband of the complainant is stated by PW.4 when she medically examined him and issued the wound certificate as stated above. The factum of such sustained injuries is not denied by the defence.

¶95

PW.5 K.J.Sathisha is a person who has received

¶96

the complaint and registered the same in the Crime

¶97

15 - NC: 2024:KHC:29532 CRL.A No. 563 of 2014

¶98

No.208/2008. He apprehended the accused and produced him before the IO. To that effect, there is no effective cross-examination directed to this PW.5 by the defence. That means, registering the crime and setting the criminal law in motion, apprehending the accused is not denied by the defence. Therefore, evidence of PW.5 can be believed to the extent of registering the crime and apprehending the accused and producing them before the IO.

¶99

Now, the important evidence is that of PW.6 Lakshminarayanamma, the complainant's eyewitness, who was also injured in the said incident. It has come in the evidence of PW.6 that the said incident took place between 7.00 and 8.00 a.m. on that day under the tree. Because of the effect of Katha in respect of land property, the galata took place.

¶100

She states that one Eshwarappa assaulted her husband by using stones identified and marked as MO No.1. Accused Ananda snatched wedlock from her neck. Chandrappa gave a life threat to them. Even they abused

¶101

16 - NC: 2024:KHC:29532 CRL.A No. 563 of 2014

¶102

them in filthy language by taking the name of their caste. It is stated by her that, because of this galata, they approached the Panchayath, but the Panchayath did not conduct the panchayath for five days. Thereafter, a complaint was filed.

¶103

By giving such evidence in the examination-inchief, she has explained about the delay. That means, according to the submission of the prosecutor, though the incident took place about five days back prior to filing the complaint, the complainant waited for conducting the Panchayath in the village. As the panchayath was not conducted, a complaint was filed five days later. This fact is not denied by the defence in material particulars. It is stated that there is a delay in filing the complaint. But the reason for delay is explained by PW1, which is not properly denied in the cross-examination.

¶104

She states with regard to the visit of the police and seizure of MO No. 1 from the scene of the offence. This PW6 Complainant-injured has been directed with the

¶105

17 -

¶106

NC: 2024:KHC:29532 CRL.A No. 563 of 2014

¶107

severe cross-examination. But nothing worth is elicited from the mouth of this witness as to disbelieve her presence when the said incident took place, nor the injuries being sustained by her husband in the said incident. No doubt, there are some minor contradictions, but when lengthy cross-examination is directed, such minor contradictions are bound to occur. They will not go to the root of the case.

¶108

According to her evidence, in the said incident, her husband was assaulted by using the stone by Ishwarappa. He lost his two teeth, which is corroborated by the evidence of the doctor. Though lengthy crossexamination is directed to PW.6 by the defence, nothing worth is elicited from her mouth.

¶109

PW.7 Chikkanarayanappa is none other than the husband of the complainant. He is consistent that, in the said incident, because of the land dispute between himself and accused persons, accused Eshwarappa assaulted him by using stone MO No.1. He states,

¶110

18 -

¶111

NC: 2024:KHC:29532 CRL.A No. 563 of 2014

¶112

Venkatareddy, Shankarappa, Chandrashekhar and

¶113

Narasimhappa came there to rescue him. Even his wife also came forward to rescue him. He states the accused snatched her wedlock and assaulted her. He lost his consciousness. He was given water at that time. After regaining consciousness, he was taken to Bagepalli Hospital.

¶114

In his evidence, he identifies that these accused

¶115

persons are the assailants on him and his wife. This PW.7 is also directed with severe cross-examination, but he is consistent throughout his evidence that it was the accused who assaulted him as well as his wife. When lengthy cross-examination is directed, contradictions and omissions are bound to occur in such evidence. When these PW.6 and 7 are examined before the Court, they have categorically stated who are all the assailants on them. To disbelieve the evidence of these witnesses being injured, no evidence is placed on record by the defence except denial in the cross-examination.

¶116

19 -

¶117

NC: 2024:KHC:29532 CRL.A No. 563 of 2014

¶118

It is the evidence of PW7 that one Chandra

¶119

Shekar came and rescued him and he provided water to him. This PW.8 Chandra Shekar has come before the trial court and deposed that when the said incident took place, he was very much present there. The accused were quarrelling with the injured Chikkanarayanappa. At that time, because of assault on the person of Chikkanarayanappa, he lost his teeth, lost his consciousness, etc. He was taken to Bagepalli Government Hospital, where treatment was given to him. Who

¶120

assaulted this Chikkanarayanappa has not been stated by him. But, in the said incident, Chikkanarayanappa sustained injuries and lost his two teeth, which is not disputed by the defence.

¶121

Chikkanarayanappa stated that it was

¶122

Eswarappa who assaulted him. Such evidence is also spoken to by his wife Lakshminarayamma. Though this eyewitness has been directed with severe crossexamination, he has withstood the test of cross-

¶123

20 -

¶124

NC: 2024:KHC:29532 CRL.A No. 563 of 2014

¶125

examination. Such a statement was given to the police by Lakshminarayamma, the complainant. He being an eyewitness has stated about his presence.

¶126

P.W9 Venkat Reddy is another eyewitness who corroborated the evidence of PWs. 5, 6 and 7 in material particulars. On reading the evidence of this PW.9, it shows he was very much present when the alleged incident took place. He too states about the assault on the person of Chikkanarayanappa by the accused. He too has been cross-examined, but nothing worth is elicited. It is elicited that when the galata took place, he was in his house. His house, which is situated at a distance of 10 feet from the place of the incident. There were 20 to 30 persons gathered there. He has seen who assaulted whom. There is no further denial of this fact by the defence.

¶127

On reading the evidence of these witnesses. PWs.6 and 7 are the injured witnesses. PWs.8 and 9 are the eyewitnesses. No doubt, PWs.1 and 2 have been turned hostile. But these eyewitnesses, being the residents

¶128

21 -

¶129

NC: 2024:KHC:29532 CRL.A No. 563 of 2014

¶130

of the locality of the complainant, are consistent about the galata that took place in between the accused and the complainant's family and the assault on the person of Chikkanarayanappa. When there is no denial in the crossexamination, the version of these witnesses has to be accepted. Under criminal jurisprudence, injured are the best witnesses to speak about the assailants on them. They are the best witnesses. No doubt, there is a land dispute between them. But PWs.6 and 7 are consistent, so also their evidence corroborates with the evidence of PWs.7, 8 and 9 about the said incident. Though there is a delay, it is explained by the complainant in her evidence on oath. There is no proper denial of this fact by the defence. The trial Court considering all these aspects, has come to a definite conclusion that the prosecution is able to prove its case with legal evidence. So far as other offences are concerned, the accused were acquitted. Now, accused are convicted for the offences under Sections 323 and 325 of IPC.

¶131

22 -

¶132

NC: 2024:KHC:29532 CRL.A No. 563 of 2014

¶133

Coupled with that, we have the evidence of PW.10 Narayanayya K.A. being the charge-sheeting officer and PW.11 Harish Reddy, Village accountant, who have issued the RTC extract. PW.12 Dr.K.R.Prakash, who medically examined the injured. He has issued the wound certificate. Even the evidence of the victim also supports the case of prosecution. PW.12- Dr K.R.Prakash speaks about medically examining the complainant PW.3 on 20.11.2008 at 8 a.m. and having noticed the injuries as noticed in the wound certificate. Though lengthy crossexamination is directed to him, he has withstood crossexamination. Sustaining of injuries in the manner stated in the complaint is not denied by the defence. PW.13 Erappa has spoken before the Court about the galata and assault on the person of husband of the complainant. As per his evidence, the accused abused the complainant by taking caste. He too has been cross-examined at length by the defence, but nothing worth is elicited.

¶134

23 - NC: 2024:KHC:29532 CRL.A No. 563 of 2014

¶135

From the evidence of all these witnesses, it

¶136

does demonstrate that the accused have committed the offence in the manner stated by the complainant. Her evidence is corroborated with the evidence of two eyewitnesses. PWs.6 and 7 are the injured witnesses, who were very much present when the said incident took place. It is argued by the Counsel for the appellant-accused that no such offence has taken place and there is a delay in filing the complaint.

¶137

It is argued that there are material contradictions and omissions in the evidence of the prosecution; therefore, such evidence cannot be accepted. These contradictions and omissions, which were brought on record in the cross-examination, would not shake the

¶138

basic evidence of PWs. 6 and 7 injured, as well as the eyewitnesses PWs. PWs.8, 9 and 13. Therefore, as the evidence of all these witnesses is corroborative in nature and the injured have stated about the name of the assailants who assaulted them, that itself is sufficient to

¶139

24 -

¶140

NC: 2024:KHC:29532 CRL.A No. 563 of 2014

¶141

hold that the trial Court, after evaluation of the evidence placed on record by the prosecution, has rightly come to the conclusion that these accused are the assailants and have committed the offences in the manner stated in the charge sheet.

¶142

I do not find any factual or legal error committed by the trial Court in convicting the said accused. The trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence led by the prosecution and has rightly come to the conclusion that the accused are found guilty for the offences under Section 323 and 325 r/w 34 of the IPC. Therefore, the points raised supra are answered against the appellants-accused and in favour of the prosecution.

¶143

So far as sentence is concerned, accused are sentenced to undergo S.I. for three months for the offence punishable under Section 323 and two years imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 325 of IPC and also are held liable to pay the fine imposed by the trial Court. As per the submission of the counsel for

¶144

25 -

¶145

NC: 2024:KHC:29532 CRL.A No. 563 of 2014

¶146

the accused-appellants, the accused have already

¶147

deposited the fine amount.

¶148

The alleged incident had taken place in the year 2008 and now we are in the year 2024. Almost 16 years have lapsed since the happening of the said incident. The accused must have suffered mentally and financially because of the pendency of this case for the last 16 years. So, in view of the facts brought on record, as well as the submission of the counsel for the appellants-accused, if the sentence so imposed against the accused is reduced to some extent, it would meet the ends of justice. More so, the mitigating circumstance is that the accused were quite young, aged 35 years, 32 years and 25 years when the incident took place. Now, they must have crossed the age

¶149

of 45 years. It is submitted that they are agriculturists by profession and they are the only bread earners in the whole family. If that is so, if the accused are sentenced to undergo SI for 15 days for the offence under Section 323 and sentenced to undergo SI for three months for the

¶150

26 -

¶151

NC: 2024:KHC:29532 CRL.A No. 563 of 2014

¶152

offence under Section 325 of IPC, it would meet the ends of justice. To that extent, the appeal deserves to be allowed in part and the sentence so imposed against the accused-appellants is to be modified.

¶153

Resultantly, I pass the following

¶154

ORDER

¶155

(i) Appeal is allowed in-part .

¶156

(ii) So far as conviction of the accusedappellants for the offence punishable under Sections 323 and 325 read with Section 34 of IPC is concerned, it is confirmed.

¶157

(iii) However, there shall be modification of the sentence imposed by the Trial Court directing accused nos.1 to 3 to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 15 days for the offence punishable under Section 323 read with Section 34 of IPC and for the offence punishable under Section 325 read with Section 34 of IPC, *accused no.3 undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months.

¶158

**The sentence for both the offences shall run concurrently .

¶159

*Corrected vide chamber order dt.22.11.2024

¶160

**Corrected vide court order dt.21.02.2025

¶161

27 -

¶162

NC: 2024:KHC:29532 CRL.A No. 563 of 2014

¶163

(iv) Accused Nos. 1 to 3 shall surrender before the Trial Court to undergo sentence forthwith.

¶164

(v) Trial Court is directed to secure the presence of accused Nos. 1 to 3 in accordance with law.

¶165

(vi) So far as imposition of fine amount is concerned, it remained undisturbed.

¶166

(vii) The Trial Court shall issue a modified conviction warrant to the accused.

¶167

(viii) Bail bonds of the accused stand cancelled.

¶168

(viii) Send back the trial Court Records along with the copy of this judgment forthwith.

¶169

(ix) Send the operative portion of this judgment to the trial Court for necessary action.

¶170

Sd/(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE

¶171

PSJ

¶172

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2

Sri Anand v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Anand v. State of Karnataka by

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

Barkath @ Kalu Vs the State of Karnataka by

Sri Raghavendra Gupta Vs State of Karnataka

Gangadharaiah Vs State of Karnataka

D Achutha Kamath Vs Rajeshwari P M

Sri Krishna Reddy M Vs Smt N Sharadamma

Nagesh @ Nagaraj Vs the State of Karnataka