Mr Narasimhappa Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S 374(2) CR.PC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.07.2023 AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 02.08.2023 IN S.C.NO.129/2022 PASSED BY THE HONBLE I ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE DAVANAGER FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 323,324,304 PART II OF IPC AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL OF THE APPELLANT.

¶19

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶20

2 -

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC:8186 CRL.A No. 1432 of 2024

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

Heard Sri. Renspre Prithesh D'Souza, learned counsel

¶25

for the appellant and learned High Court Government Pleader for the State.

¶26

Though the matter is listed for admission, the matter is taken up for final disposal by consent of the parties.

¶27

The appellant-accused is questioning the validity of the judgment passed in S.C.No.129/2022, in particular about the sentence ordered by the learned Sessions Judge for the proved offence under Section 304

¶28

Part II of IPC. The sentence ordered by the learned Sessions Judge is culled out herein for the ready reference:

¶29

"Acting U/Sec.235(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused is convicted for the offence punishable U/Sec.304 Part II of IPC.

¶30

Consequently, the accused is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 6 years (six years only), and to pay fine amount of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment

¶31

3 -

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:8186 CRL.A No. 1432 of 2024

¶33

for three months for the offence punishable U/Sec.304 Part II of IPC.

¶34

The payment of fine amount imposed against the accused is mandatory.

¶35

The accused is entitled to seek set off of the period in which he is already in judicial custody as under trial prisoners out of total period of conviction.

¶36

Acting U/Sec.235(1) Cr.P.C., accused is acquitted for the offence U/s 504 of IPC.

¶37

MO.1 to 10 being worthless is ordered to be destroyed, after appeal period is over.

¶38

Send copy of this judgment to the District Legal Service Authority, Davanagere to consider compensation to complainant PW.1 who is the wife of deceased, under Karnataka Victim's Compensation Scheme.

¶39

Office is directed to supply the copy of this judgment to the accused at free of cost."

¶40

4. Essential factual matrix required for the

¶41

disposal of the appeal on merits are as under:

¶42

4.1. A charge sheet came to be filed by Honnali

¶43

Police Station against the appellant herein alleging commission of the offence punishable under Sections 504, 323, 324 and 302 of IPC. Charge sheet materials would reveal that deceased Manjappa is the father of the appellant herein. The complainant is the mother of the

¶44

4 -

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:8186 CRL.A No. 1432 of 2024

¶46

appellant. Old couple were drawing old age pension in a sum of Rs.1,200/- from the Government under ‘Sandya Suraksha Scheme’ and the amount was transferred to their post office Savings Bank Account. Deceased Manjappa and his wife Maramma were leading their life apart from receiving old age pension, by doing coolie work.

¶47

4.2. Appellant said to have addicted to liquor and

¶48

used to nag money from the old age parents. Whenever there used to be refusal to part away with the money for consuming liquor, there used to be quarrel. On the fateful day, i.e., 07.04.2022, at about 8 p.m., when Manjappa and Maramma were in their house, appellant visited the house and demanded money for consuming liquor. Quarrel ensued at that juncture. In the quarrel, appellant said to have abused his father in filthy language and gave him life threat.

¶49

4.3. Despite repeated demands, when Manjappa did

¶50

not part away the money for consuming liquor, the

¶51

5 -

¶52

NC: 2025:KHC:8186 CRL.A No. 1432 of 2024

¶53

accused got enraged and with an intention to kill his father, dragged his father out of the house and assaulted with hands and legs all over his body and made him to fall down, stood on his chest, stamped his chest and neck and thereafter the accused picked the stone lying by the side of the road and dumped it on his face, head and chest. As a result, Manjappa sustained grievous injuries. Blood started oozing from his mouth.

¶54

4.4. Hearing the hue and cry, Basavaraj, chandrappa

¶55

and Tippesh Kadakara came to the spot and rescued Manjappa from the clutches of the accused and shifted him to hospital in a private vehicle. On the way to the hospital, Manjappa succumbed to the injuries and hospital authorities declared him dead.

¶56

4.5. A complaint came to be lodged by Maramma

¶57

with regard to the incident which was registered by Honnali Police Station and later on the matter was thoroughly investigated inter alia arresting the appellant.

¶58

6 -

¶59

NC: 2025:KHC:8186 CRL.A No. 1432 of 2024

¶60

After thorough investigation, charge sheet came to be filed

¶61

against the appellant for the aforesaid offences.

¶62

4.6. Learned Trial Judge committed the matter to

¶63

the Sessions Court and thereafter the matter was made over to the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere.

¶64

Learned Sessions Judge took cognizance of the offences alleged against the appellant herein and secured the presence and framed charges against the appellant. The accused pleaded not guilty. Therefore, trial was held.

¶65

In order to bring home the guilt of the appellant, prosecution proceeded to examine 19 witnesses as PW-1 to PW-19.

¶66

Prosecution also placed on record 34 documentary evidence which were marked as Exs.P1 to P.34. Prosecution also placed on record 10 material objects marked as MO-1 to MO-10.

¶67

7 -

¶68

NC: 2025:KHC:8186 CRL.A No. 1432 of 2024

¶69

On conclusion of recording of prosecution

¶70

evidence, learned Sessions Judge recorded the accused statement as is contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., wherein the accused has denied all the incriminating materials, but did not choose to place his version on record by filing written submission as is contemplated under Section 313(4) of Cr.P.C. There was no defence evidence placed on record either.

¶71

Thereafter, learned Sessions Judge heard the arguments of the parties in detail and on cumulative consideration of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the prosecution in a cumulative manner, convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 304 Part II of IPC and sentenced as referred to supra .

¶72

Being aggrieved by the same, the appellantaccused is before this Court in this appeal.

¶73

Sri. Renspre Prithesh D'Souza, learned counsel representing the appellant, reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum, contended that a trivial

¶74

8 -

¶75

NC: 2025:KHC:8186 CRL.A No. 1432 of 2024

¶76

incident has been blown out of proportion and there is no material evidence placed on record to establish the nexus between the alleged incident and the death of Manjappa and therefore, the appeal is to be allowed.

¶77

Alternatively, he would contend that in the event of this Court upholding the order of conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 304 Part II of IPC, the custody period of 2 years 10 months, already undergone by the appellant during the time of investigation, may be treated as period of conviction by enhancing the fine amount reasonably and thus sought for allowing the appeal to that extent.

¶78

Per contra , Learned High Court Government Pleader supports the impugned judgment by contending that admittedly, the mother being present at the place of incident, has deposed before the Court with graphic details as to the conduct of the appellant and what transpired on the fateful day.

¶79

9 -

¶80

NC: 2025:KHC:8186 CRL.A No. 1432 of 2024

¶81

He would further contend that independent

¶82

witnesses have also supported the case of the prosecution, though a couple of prosecution witnesses have turned hostile.

¶83

He would also contend that the findings recorded in the postmortem report sufficiently corroborates the oral testimony of the complainant who is none other than the mother of the appellant and therefore conviction of the appellant for the aforesaid offence is just and proper.

¶84

Insofar as alternate submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is concerned, learned High Court Government Pleader contended that if people like appellant are shown mercy, the same would send a wrong message to the Society at large.

¶85

He also tried to impress the Court by contending that if the appellant is set at free, he may take away the life of PW-1, who is none other than his own mother, by repeating such offence and bargain the money

¶86

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:8186 CRL.A No. 1432 of 2024

¶87

to consume liquor and therefore sought for dismissal of the appeal in toto .

¶88

Having heard the arguments of learned counsel

¶89

for the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on

¶90

record meticulously.

¶91

On such perusal, following points arise for

¶92

consideration in this appeal:

¶93

(i) Whether the material evidence placed on record would be sufficient enough to maintain the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of the IPC?

¶94

(ii) Whether the appellant makes out a case of legal infirmity and perversity in the findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge in convicting the appellant for the aforesaid offence?

¶95

(iii) Whether the sentence needs modification?

¶96

(iv) What Order?

¶97

20. REG. POINT NOS.1 & 2: In the case on hand,

¶98

death of Manjappa on account of bodily injuries sustained by him, is established by placing cogent and convincing evidence on record. The postmortem report placed on

¶99

11 -

¶100

NC: 2025:KHC:8186 CRL.A No. 1432 of 2024

¶101

record on behalf of the prosecution and the opinion of the autopsy surgeon is crystal clear that death is due to asphyxia as a result of shock and hemorrhage due to multiple injuries and also due to head injury.

¶102

PW-1 has deposed before the Court with

¶103

graphic details as to what transpired on the fateful day. Her deposition would make it clear that as usual, the appellant came home and demanded money for consuming liquor on 07.04.2022, in the night hours. When the same was refused by Manjappa, quarrel took

¶104

place and in the quarrel, initially appellant abused the deceased in filthy language. Thereafter dragged him out of the house and assaulted him all over the body. The appellant made Manjappa to fall down on the ground and thereafter claimed on his body and stamped on his chest and face. He also took a stone which was lying in the road and thereafter dumped the same on the face, head and chest of the deceased.

¶105

12 -

¶106

NC: 2025:KHC:8186 CRL.A No. 1432 of 2024

¶107

She further deposed that because of the

¶108

injuries that has been sustained by Manjappa, blood started oozing out from his mouth. There was lot of hue and cry raised by Manjappa and herself. Hearing the same, Basavaraj, Chandrappa and Tippesh Kadakara arrived at the scene. Among them, Basavaraj and Tippesh Kadakara have been examined as PW-7 and PW-8, respectively.

¶109

They rescued Manjappa and shifted him in a private vehicle to the hospital. However, because of the severity of the injuries sustained by Manjappa and also on account of his old age, he succumbed to the injuries en route the hospital.

¶110

Therefore the argument put forth on behalf of the appellant that there is no nexus between the death of Manjappa and the acts committed by the appellant, cannot be countenanced in law.

¶111

Having said thus, admittedly, the appellant was not armed with any deadly weapons at the inception of the

¶112

13 -

¶113

NC: 2025:KHC:8186 CRL.A No. 1432 of 2024

¶114

incident. Genesis of the crime, even according to the prosecution, is refusal of the deceased to part away with the money for consuming liquor.

¶115

Therefore, in the absence of any strong motive and preparation made by the appellant, the learned Sessions Judge, rightly convicted the accused for the offence under Section 304 Part II of the IPC, which requires no interference by this Court in this appeal.

¶116

On the contrary, material evidence placed on record is sufficient enough to maintain the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 304 Part II of the IPC, inasmuch as MO-1 is a stone which has been seized by the police containing blood stains.

¶117

Therefore, the impugned judgment cannot be termed as suffering from legal infirmity or perversity. In view of the foregoing discussion, point No.1 and point No.2 are answered in the affirmative and negative, respectively.

¶118

14 - NC: 2025:KHC:8186 CRL.A No. 1432 of 2024

¶119

REG. POINT NO.3: In the case on hand, the

¶120

appellant is none other than the son of the deceased. He

¶121

has got old age mother to maintain. As on the date of incident, he was aged 35 years. Taking note of the same and taking note of the fact that appellant has already spent 2 years 10 months in prison, directing the accused to get released from the prison by treating the custody period as period of imprisonment for the offence under Section 304 Part II of IPC, by enhancing fine amount in a sum of Rs.50,000/- would serve the ends of justice. Accordingly, point No.3 is answered in the partly in

¶122

affirmative .

¶123

30. REG. POINT NO.4: In view of the findings of

¶124

this Court on point Nos.1 to 3 as above, following:

¶125

ORDER

¶126

i) The appeal is allowed in part .

¶127

ii) While maintaining the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 304 Part II of IPC, sentence ordered by the learned Sessions Judge in the impugned

¶128

15 - NC: 2025:KHC:8186 CRL.A No. 1432 of 2024

¶129

judgment is hereby modified by treating the custody period already undergone by the appellant as period of imprisonment for the offence under Section 304 Part II of IPC, by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.50,000/- payable on or before 25.03.2025, failing which, the appellant shall undergo remaining period of the sentence as ordered by the learned Sessions Judge.

¶130

iii) Entire fine amount of Rs.50,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to PW1 (mother of the accused-appellant), by keeping the said amount in fixed deposit and PW-1 is permitted to withdraw the monthly interest.

¶131

Office is directed to return the Trial Court records with copy of this judgment, for passing the modified conviction warrant, forthwith.

¶132

Ordered accordingly.

¶133

Sd/(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

¶134

RD

Mr Narasimhappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Narasimhappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Venkatesha Vs the State of Karnataka

Muniyandi Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Ganjam Shivu Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Mahadevaiah Vs the State by the Public Prosecutor

Mohammed Neslin Vs State of Karnataka

Kushalappa @ Sakkare Vs State of Karnataka