Sri Nanjundappa Vs the State by Kythasandra Police

(BY SRI. R. PRAMOD, ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT NO.2 & 3 V/O DATED 10/02/2025, APPEAL AGAINST APPELLANT NO.1 IS ABATED, V/O DATED 06.11.2024, APPEAL AGAINST APPELLANT NO.4 IS ABATED.)

¶17

AND:

¶18

THE STATE BY KYTHASANDRA POLICE, KYATHASANDRA - 577 501 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K., HCGP)

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:5863 CRL.A No. 1363 of 2012

¶21

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C FOR THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 4 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 04.12.2012 PASSED BY THE PRL. S.J., TUMKUR IN S.C.NO.73/2012 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 324, 307 AND 506(B) R/W 34 OF IPC.

¶22

THIS CRL.A., COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

Heard Sri.R.Pramod, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri.R.Rahul Rai K., learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State.

¶25

Appellants are the accused persons, who suffered an order of conviction in Sessions Case No.73/2012 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Tumkur dated 04.12.2012 wherein the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short,

¶26

'IPC') and ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- each and

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:5863 CRL.A No. 1363 of 2012

¶29

convicted for the offence punishable under Section 506(B) read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years and both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

¶30

Facts in a nutshell, which are most essential for disposal of the appeal, are as under:

¶31

3.1. A complaint came to be lodged with Kyathasandra Police, Tumkur District, alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 324, 504, 307 and 506-B read with Section 34 of IPC. The complaint averments reveal that on 12.08.2011 at about 6.30 p.m., one R.Jagadeesh appeared before G.L.Gopalachar, the then Assistant Sub-Inspector of the Kyathasandra Police Station, for lodging the written complaint stating that land in Sy.No.169 of Shettihallii - Uttarakatte measuring 2 acre 1 gunta belonged to the family of the complainant. First accused, being the junior grandfather of complainant, and his son Shivalingaiah filed

¶32

a case claiming a share in the said property.

¶33

4 -

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:5863 CRL.A No. 1363 of 2012

¶35

3.2 When the matter stood thus, on 12.08.2011,

¶36

the complainant, his brothers and uncle went to the said land and noticed that all the four accused persons with two or three other people were cultivating the land belonged to them and on enquiry, they threatened the complainant party and with an intention to kill them, assaulted them with chopper and club, stating that they would take away their life. After so assaulting, all the accused persons threw the weapons on the spot and ran away from the place. The complainant and Kumar sustained injuries in the incident and they were taken to the hospital for treatment.

¶37

3.3 Based on the said complaint, the Kyathasandra Police registered the case in Crime No.271/2011 for the aforesaid offences and conducted detailed investigation inter alia arrested the accused persons and filed charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 504, 506-B and Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶38

5 -

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:5863 CRL.A No. 1363 of 2012

¶40

On receipt of the charge sheet, learned Trial

¶41

Magistrate committed the matter to the learned Sessions Court.

¶42

Learned Sessions Judge secured the presence of

¶43

the accused persons and on compliance of Section 207 of

¶44

Cr.PC, framed the charges for the aforesaid offences.

¶45

All the accused persons pleaded not guilty and therefore, trial was held.

¶46

In order to bring home the guilt of the accused

¶47

persons, prosecution, in all, examined nine witnesses as PWs.1 to 9 comprising of complainant, injured witnesses

¶48

and the Doctor who issued the wound certificates as PWs.1

¶49

to 9

¶50

Prosecution placed on record six documents which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P1 to P6 comprising of spot mahazar, complaint, FIR, wound certificates of the injured persons and FSL report.

¶51

6 -

¶52

NC: 2025:KHC:5863 CRL.A No. 1363 of 2012

¶53

During the course of cross-examination of PW.1 and 2, contradictions were elicited and marked as Exs.D1 to D3.

¶54

The prosecution also placed on record eight material objects as MO.1 to 8 which are a stick, chopper, sickle, wooden clubs, bloodstained shirt, bloodstained baniyan and bloodstained trousers of the injured persons.

¶55

On conclusion of recording of evidence, learned Trial Judge recorded the statements of accused persons as is contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.PC. Accused have denied all the incriminatory materials but did not chose to place their version on record as is contemplated under Section 313(4) of Cr.PC, nor placed any defence evidence.

¶56

Thereafter, the learned Trial Judge heard the parties in detail and convicted and sentenced the accused persons for the aforesaid offences.

¶57

Being aggrieved by the same, the appellants are before this Court in this appeal.

¶58

7 -

¶59

NC: 2025:KHC:5863 CRL.A No. 1363 of 2012

¶60

Sri. R.Pramod, learned counsel for the appellants reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum vehemently contended that the incident has occurred at spur of the moment and the seized material objects are usually available with the persons who indulge in agriculture. Therefore, the learned Trial Judge convicting the accused persons for the offence under Section 307 of IPC is per se illegal and sought for allowing the appeal.

¶61

He would further contend that wound certificates marked at Exs.P4 and 5 would not indicate any grievous injuries. Therefore, no ingredients are available to attract the offence under Section 307 of IPC. Thus, sought for setting aside the impugned judgment.

¶62

Sri R.Pramod also contended that in the event, this Court up-holding the order of conviction for the lesser offence, custody period already undergone by the appellants may be treated as period of imprisonment taking note of the fact that first and fourth appellants are

¶63

8 -

¶64

NC: 2025:KHC:5863 CRL.A No. 1363 of 2012

¶65

no more and by enhancing the fine amount reasonably.

¶66

Thus, sought for allowing the appeal in toto .

¶67

Per contra, Sri. Rahul Rai K., learned High Court Government Pleader, for the respondent/State, opposes the appeal grounds vehemently.

¶68

He would further contend that material evidence placed on record, especially the wound certificates exhibited and marked at Exs.P4 and P5, and the injured witnesses have been examined and the deposition of Doctor who examined as PW.7 would make it clear that the material evidence on record would be sufficient enough to attract all the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. He pointed out that the weapons used in the incident being deadly weapons and the body part that has been chosen by the appellant to attack complaint are vital parts, the appeal needs to be dismissed by up-holding the order of conviction even for the offence under Section 307 of IPC.

¶69

9 -

¶70

NC: 2025:KHC:5863 CRL.A No. 1363 of 2012

¶71

Further, he would contend that alternate submission cannot be accepted in the absence of the defacto complainant showing concession to the appellants. Therefore, appeal needs to be dismissed in toto .

¶72

In this regard, Sri R.Pramod has secured the presence of de-facto complainant, Sri Dayanand who is present before the Court. He submits that appellants are his cousins and at this distance of time since civil matter is settled in between them and the de-facto complainant is showing concession to the appellants, jail sentence may be modified by accepting the submissions on behalf of the appellants.

¶73

Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the materials on record meticulously.

¶74

On such perusal, the following points would arise for consideration:

¶75

1. Whether the material evidence on record by the prosecution would be sufficient enough to

¶76

10 -

¶77

NC: 2025:KHC:5863 CRL.A No. 1363 of 2012

¶78

maintain the conviction of the appellants for the aforesaid offences?

¶79

2. Whether the appellants make out a case that the impugned judgment is suffering from legal infirmity or perversity in recording the findings of the guilt of the appellant for the aforesaid offences?

¶80

3. Whether the sentence needs modification?

¶81

4. What order?

¶82

Reg.Points No.1 and 2 :

¶83

In the case on hand, acquaintance and identity of the appellants with the de-facto complainant is not in dispute as they are relatives. Admittedly, there was a civil dispute in respect of the land in Shettihalli - Uttarakatte, Tumkur District measuring 2 acre 1 gunta in Sy.No.169. In respect of the same, there was also civil litigation pending between the parties. Unfortunately, on the alleged date of incident i.e. 12.08.2011, when the appellants were ploughing the land belonging to the de-facto complainant, quarrel had taken place and the appellants said to have assaulted Dayanand and Kumar, who sustained injuries.

¶84

11 -

¶85

NC: 2025:KHC:5863 CRL.A No. 1363 of 2012

¶86

After quarrel was pacified, they rushed to the hospital and the police have registered the complaint without delay. These factors would make it clear that the false implication of the appellants as is contended on behalf of appellants is per se impermissible.

¶87

Wound certificates marked at Exs.P4 and P5 would depict the injuries sustained by Dayanand and Kumar. The Doctor, who examined the injured persons has supported the case of the prosecution in issuing the wound certificates marked at Exs.P4 and 5, which reads as under:

¶88

a) Abrasion over the left elbow and right forearm;

¶89

b) Laceration over the right side of scalp measuring (8x2x1 cm);

¶90

c) Laceration over the left side of scalp measuring (9x2xcm);

¶91

d) Laceration over left side of scalp measuring (2x1cm).

¶92

On careful consideration of material evidence on

¶93

record including the seizure of the material objects under

¶94

the panchanama which has been marked before the Trial

¶95

12 -

¶96

NC: 2025:KHC:5863 CRL.A No. 1363 of 2012

¶97

Judge as MOs.1 to 5, would make it clear that the injured persons have sustained injuries by use of MOs.1 to 5. Bloodstained clothes worn by the injured persons were also marked at MOs.6 to 8. If all these factors considered cumulatively it would depict that on 12.08.2011, the quarrel has taken place in the land bearing Sy.No.169 of Shettihalli - Uttarakatte of Tumkur District stands established by the prosecution by placing cogent and convincing evidence on record.

¶98

Now, whether the injuries caused by the appellants to the injured persons would be sufficient enough to treat that they have committed an offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code, especially after re-appreciation of the material evidence on record.

¶99

Taking note of the fact that there was a pendency of the civil proceedings, and the incident has occurred at the spur of the moment and the weapons used in the incident were said to be the equipments to carry out agriculture operations in general, this Court is of the

¶100

13 -

¶101

NC: 2025:KHC:5863 CRL.A No. 1363 of 2012

¶102

considered opinion that offence under Section 307 could not be made out.

¶103

On re-appreciation it is to be scaled down to 324 of IPC as there is voluntary hurt caused by appellants resulting in Blood injuries. Therefore, points No.1 and 2 are answered partly in the affirmative.

¶104

REG. POINT No.3 :

¶105

In view of findings of this Court on points No.1 and 2, it is clear that act attributed by the appellants would not come under the purview of Section 307 of IPC and in the absence of any other material evidence on record to convict them for the offence under Section 324 of IPC, the custody period already undergone by the appellants if treated as period of imprisonment for the said offence by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.35,000/- each on the remaining appellants would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, point No.3 is answered partly in the affirmative.

¶106

14 -

¶107

NC: 2025:KHC:5863 CRL.A No. 1363 of 2012

¶108

REG. POINT No.4:

¶109

In view of the findings of this Court on points

¶110

No.1 to 3 as above, following:

¶111

ORDER

¶112

i. Criminal Appeal is allowed in part .

¶113

ii. Criminal Appeal against appellant Nos.1 and 4 stands abated in view of their death during the pendency of the appeal.

¶114

iii. By setting aside the impugned judgment, the appellants are convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 506-B of IPC and custody period already undergone by the appellants is treated as period of imprisonment and ordered to pay enhanced fine amount of Rs.35,000/each on or before 15.03.2025, failing which they shall undergo imprisonment for a period of eight months each.

¶115