Dinesh Vs State of Karnataka

SWAMY GOWDA S/O SANNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURIST, R/AT BOOKAHALLIKOPPALU VILLAGE, BOOKANAKERE HOBLI, K.R.PET TALUK - 571426, MANDYA DISTRICT.

¶14

MANJEGOWDA S/O GANDHANAHALLI GANDU SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS OCC:AGRICULTURIST, R/AT BOOKAHALLIKOPPALU VILLAGE, BOOKANAKERE HOBLI, K.R.PET TALUK-571426, MANDYA DISTRICT.

¶15

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7712 CRL.A No. 41 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 40 of 2013

¶16

4. DODDEGOWDA

¶17

S/O LATE SANNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURIST, R/AT BOOKAHALLIKOPPALU VILLAGE, BOOKANAKERE HOBLI, K.R.PET TALUK-571426, MANDYA DISTRICT.

¶18

RATHNAMMA W/O SOMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURIST, R/AT BOOKAHALLIKOPPALU VILLAGE, BOOKANAKERE HOBLI, K.R.PET TALUK-571426, MANDYA DISTRICT.

¶19

SAVITHA W/O SHIVAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURIST, R/AT BOOKAHALLIKOPPALU VILLAGE, BOOKANAKERE HOBLI, K.R.PET TALUK-571426, MANDYA DISTRICT.

¶20

…APPELLANTS

¶21

(BY SRI. P PRASANNA KUMAR., ADVOCATE)

¶22

AND:

¶23

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY K.R.PET RURAL POLICE, REP.BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001. (BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP)

¶24

…RESPONDENT

¶25

THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANTS PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET-ASIDE THE

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7712 CRL.A No. 41 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 40 of 2013

¶27

JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 31.12.2012 PASSED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, SRIRANGAPATNA IN S.C.NO.55/2011 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NOS.2 TO 7 ARE CONVICTED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.143,148,323,324,326 AND 504 R/W. SEC.149 OF IPC. AND THE APPELLANTS/ ACCUSED NOS.2 TO 7 ARE SENTENCED TO UNDERGO S.I. FOR A PERIOD OF THREE MONTHS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.143 OF IPC. FURTHER, THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NOS.2 TO 7 ARE SENTENCED TO UNDERGO S.I. FOR A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.148 OF IPC AND ETC.

¶28

IN CRL.A NO. 40/2013 BETWEEN:

¶29

SHIVAMURTHY S/O LATE MALLEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/A BOOKAHALLIKOPPALU VILLAGE, BOOKANAKERE HOBLI, K R PET TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT

¶30

...APPELLANT

¶31

(BY SRI. P PRASANNA KUMAR., ADVOCATE)

¶32

AND:

¶33

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY K R PET RURAL POLICE REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE-560001

¶34

...RESPONDENT

¶35

(BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP)

¶36

THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 31.12.2012 PASSED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, SRIRANGAPATNA IN S.C.NO.77/2011 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.1 IS CONVICTED FOR THE OFFENCE

¶37

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7712 CRL.A No. 41 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 40 of 2013

¶38

P/U/S.143,148,447,323,324,326 AND 504 R/W. SEC.149 OF IPC. AND THE APPELLANT/ ACCUSED NO.1 IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO S.I. FOR A PERIOD OF THREE MONTHS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.143 OF IPC AND ETC.

¶39

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

¶40

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶41

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants

¶42

Sri. P. Prasanna Kumar and learned HCGP Sri. Channappa Erappa for respondent.

¶43

Appellants in Crl.A.No.41/2013 are the accused

¶44

Nos.2 to 7 and appellant in Crl.A.No.40/2013 is the accused No.1 who suffered an order of conviction in S.C.No.55/2011 and S.C. No. 77/2011 respectively, on the file of Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court at Srirangapatna by the judgment dated 31.12.2012.

¶45

Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under:

¶46

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7712 CRL.A No. 41 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 40 of 2013

¶47

A complaint came to be lodged with K.R. Pet

¶48

Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 447, 323, 324, 326, 114, 504 and 307 r/w Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as IPC for short).

¶49

It is contended in the complaint that on 31.10.2010 at 9.00 a.m. at Bookahallikoppalu Village, Bookanakere Hobli, K.R. Pet Taluk in Sy.No.51/cp59, within the limits of K.R.Pet Police Station, the complainant, his wife, his sister -in-law and parents were cultivating the land. The appellants and other accused persons formed unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons like choppers, machets etc., trespassed into their land with an intention to dispossess them and also to take away the life of the complainant party, committed rioting and assaulted the complainant and his family members and all of them sustained blood injuries. The quarrel was pacified by the

¶50

other villagers and thereafter accused persons escaped from the place.

¶51

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:7712 CRL.A No. 41 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 40 of 2013

¶52

Upon receipt of the complaint, K.R.Pet police

¶53

having registered a case as aforesaid, investigated the matter thoroughly inter-alia arresting the

¶54

appellants/accused persons filed charge sheet.

¶55

7. On receipt of charge sheet, learned Magistrate

¶56

committed the matter to the Sessions Court as the offence under Section 307 of IPC was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions.

¶57

On committal, the matter was made out to Fast

¶58

Track Court, established in Srirangapatna by learned District Judge, Mandya. Learned Judge in the Fast Track Court after securing the presence of the accused, on due compliance of Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C. for short) framed the charges for the aforesaid offences. The appellants and other accused persons pleaded not guilty, therefore trial was held.

¶59

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:7712 CRL.A No. 41 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 40 of 2013

¶60

In order to bring home the guilt of the accused persons, prosecution in all, proceeded to examined 16 witnesses comprising of the complainant, injured witnesses, spot mahazar witnesses, seizure mahazar witnesses and investigating Officers.

¶61

Prosecution placed on record 25 documents which were registered and marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.25 comprising of pahani, seizure mahazar, spot mahazar, wound certificate of the injured persons, FIR, FSL report, photographs and report. Prosecution also placed on record 16 material objects comprising of clubs, machets, stones, insecticide tin, clothes worn by the injured persons with blood stains, sample mud and blood stained mud.

¶62

On conclusion of the recording of evidence, learned trial Judge recorded the statement of the accused persons as is contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused persons have denied all the incriminatory materials placed on record but did not chose to place their version on records, in the form of written submission as is

¶63

8 -

¶64

NC: 2025:KHC:7712 CRL.A No. 41 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 40 of 2013

¶65

contemplated under Section 313(4) of Cr.P.C. nor placed

¶66

any defence evidence on record.

¶67

Learned trial Judge thereafter heard the

¶68

arguments of both sides and on cumulative consideration of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, acquitted accused Nos.8 and 9 and convicted the accused Nos. 1 to 7 and sentenced them as under:

¶69

“Accused No.s 1 to 7 is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 143 of I.P.C.

¶70

Accused No.s 1 to 7 is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 148 of I.P.C.

¶71

Accused No.s 1 to 7 is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 447 of I.P.C.

¶72

Accused No.s 1 to 7 is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 323 of I.P.C.

¶73

Accused No.s 1 to 7 is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 324 of I.P.C.

¶74

9 -

¶75

NC: 2025:KHC:7712 CRL.A No. 41 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 40 of 2013

¶76

Accused No.s 1 to 7 is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 504 of I.P.C.

¶77

Accused No.s 1 to 7 is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of two years and fine of Rs.2,000/- each in default they undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 326 of I.P.C.

¶78

The substantive sentences shall run concurrently.

¶79

The period for which the accused No.s 1, 3 and 5 already undergone during the time of trial is given set off against substantive sentence.

¶80

Out of realised fine amount a sum of Rs.5,000/- Rupees five Thousand Only) is ordered to be given to the P.W.1. Ramegoda, and Rs.2,000/- each to P.W.2- Kumari @ Kumaramma, P.W.3-Manjula, P.W.4-Nagamma and P.W.9-Kendegowda as compensation under Section 357 (1)(b) of Cr.P.C.

¶81

M.O.4 and M.O.5 is ordered to be confiscated to the State after expiry of the appeal period.

¶82

M.O.1 to M.O.3, and M.O.6 to M.O.16 since being worthless is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of the appeal period.

¶83

Free copy of the judgment be supplied to the accused No.s 1 to 7 forthwith.

¶84

The original judgement is kept in S.C.55/11; copy of the same is retained in R.A.77/11.”

¶85

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:7712 CRL.A No. 41 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 40 of 2013

¶86

Being aggrieved by the same, the appellants in both the appeals who are accused Nos.2 to 7 and accused No.1 respectively, have preferred these appeals.

¶87

Sri. P. Prasanna Kumar learned counsel or the appellants in both the appeals reiterated the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum and vehemently contended that the learned trial Judge grossly erred in convicting the appellants for the offence under Section 326 of IPC in the absence of any cogent material placed on record to attract the ingredients of Section 326 of IPC.

¶88

He would further contend that a trivial incident has been blown out of proportion and the same has not been properly appreciated by the learned trial Judge while passing the impugned judgment resulting in miscarriage of justice and thus, sought for allowing the appeal.

¶89

Alternatively, learned counsel for the appellants Sri. P. Prasanna Kumar would contend that at the most the offence alleged against the appellants could be traced

¶90

11 -

¶91

NC: 2025:KHC:7712 CRL.A No. 41 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 40 of 2013

¶92

one under Section 324 of IPC, having regard to the fact that blood injuries are noted in the wound certificates. Therefore, custody period already undergone by the appellants may be treated as period of imprisonment and by enhancing the fine amount reasonably, appeals can be allowed in part.

¶93

Per contra, Sri. Chennappa Erappa, learned High Court Government Pleader supports the impugned judgment. He further contended that when complainant Ramegowda, his wife, his sister-in-law and others were sowing the land in Sy.No.50/cp59 of Bookanahallikoppalu village voluntarily all the appellants trespassed into the land of the complainant and not only interfered with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land, but, also picked up the quarrel voluntarily and mercilessly attacked the complainant party resulting in injuries noted by doctors in wound certificates, which has been established by the prosecution by placing cogent and convincing

¶94

12 -

¶95

NC: 2025:KHC:7712 CRL.A No. 41 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 40 of 2013

¶96

evidence on record and thus, the appeal grounds san merit

¶97

and sought for dismissal of the appeals.

¶98

He would further contend that the testimony of the injured witnesses shall be kept on higher pedestal while appreciating the material evidence on records and seizure of the material objects under seizure mahazar would corroborate the oral testimony of the prosecution injured eyewitnesses and thus, sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶99

Insofar as, the alternate submission is concerned Sri. Chennappa Erappa, would contend that fracture injury having been noticed by the learned trial Judge in the wound certificate pertaining to the injured, PW-1 Ramegowda, minimum punishment for the offence under Sections 326 is to be imposed to all the appellants as an act of one appellant would bind all appellants with

¶100

the aid of Section 149 of IPC and thus, sought for dismissal of the appeal in toto .

¶101

13 -

¶102

NC: 2025:KHC:7712 CRL.A No. 41 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 40 of 2013

¶103

Heard the parties in detail. This Court perused

¶104

the materials on record meticulously and on such perusal,

¶105

following points would arise for consideration.

¶106

1) Whether the material on record would be sufficient enough to sustain the conviction of the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC?

¶107

2) Whether the appellants are successful in establishing that the impugned judgment is suffering from legal infirmity, perversity thus calls for interference?

¶108

3) Whether the sentence is excessive?

¶109

4) What order?

¶110

Regarding Points No.1 and 2:

¶111

In the case on hand, the incident that occurred on 31.10.2010 stands established by placing necessary oral and documentary evidence on record. Complainant party was in acquaintance with the accused party as the accused party are also from the same village and they are relatives. With regard to the civil dispute, the ugly incident

¶112

has occurred on the fateful day.

¶113

14 -

¶114

NC: 2025:KHC:7712 CRL.A No. 41 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 40 of 2013

¶115

The injured persons have been shifted to the hospital and without loss of time complaint came to be lodged. Allowing the real culprits to escape away from the rigors of the law no injured persons would falsely implicate the accused persons in the incident. Oral testimony of the injured witnesses are sufficiently corroborated by way of seizure of material objects recording of spot mahazar, examination of the injured witnesses by the Government doctors who have issued the wound certificate marked at Exs.P.5, P.6, P.7, P.8 and P.9 by PWs-10 and 15 who are the doctors.

¶116

These factors when viewed cumulatively, material evidence on record would be sufficient enough to hold that in the incident which was occurred on 31.10.2010 with the help of material objects clubs, machets, stones and insecticide tin.

¶117

Doctors have also opined in their testimony that the injuries noted by them on the body of the injured

¶118

15 -

¶119

NC: 2025:KHC:7712 CRL.A No. 41 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 40 of 2013

¶120

persons could be caused by use of material objects from M.O.1 to M.O.8.

¶121

Thus, from the material evidences on record, prosecution is successful in establishing the quarrel and the injury sustained by the injured persons in the incident.

¶122

However, to establish a grievous injury, mere oral testimony or the opinion of the doctor mentioned in the wound certificate would not be sufficient, especially, when it is a fracture injury. No doubt in the wound certificate pertaining to Ramegowda there is a mention that X-ray has been taken and based on the X-ray report the injury No.1 is treated as grievous injury. Opinion of the doctor with regard to injury No.1 in the wound certificate pertaining to Ramegowda PW-1 is only an opinion evidence as per Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

¶123

In order to bring home the guilt of an accused in a given case especially for the grievous hurt as is

¶124

16 - NC: 2025:KHC:7712 CRL.A No. 41 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 40 of 2013

¶125

defined under Section 320 of IPC punishable under Section 326 of IPC, prosecution is required to place original X-ray film or the radiological report. In the absence of the same conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 326 of IPC in every case cannot be sustained.

¶126

View of this Court in this regard is fortified by the principles of law enunciated by the Division Bench of

¶127

this Court in the case of State v. Sheenappa Gowda reported in (2011) 4 KCCR 2759 , wherein it has been held as under:

¶128

“11. Therefore, the question for determination is limited to find out whether the said injury No. 2 is proved to be a grievous injury sustained by PW. 4. It is well settled that in criminal cases, the burden of proving the guilt of the accused is always on the prosecution and that burden would not shift unless there is a presumption or defence as enumerated in the Penal Code, 1860 is taken by the accused. In this case, the defence taken by the accused is one of denial. It is clear from the evidence of PW. 1 that he has given description of injury on physical examination of PW. 4 and has come to

¶129

17 -

¶130

NC: 2025:KHC:7712 CRL.A No. 41 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 40 of 2013

¶131

the conclusion that there was fracture of the middle phalanx. It is well settled that when the prosecution alleges that grievous injury has been caused, it is necessary for the prosecution to prove the same beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence of PW.1. would only show that there was injury as described in the wound certificate - Ex.P2. When PW. 1 suspected such fracture, he ought to have referred the injured - PW. 4 for taking X-ray to confirm his finding that there is fracture of middle phalanx. It is now well settled hat unless the prosecution produces the X-ray for confirmation of fracture opined by the Doctor on medical examination clinically it cannot be said that the accused have caused grievous injury of fracture. It is true that in the crossexamination of PW. 1, the learned Counsel appearing for the accused has not disputed the nature of injuries spoken to by PW.1. However, he same would not dispense with the production the X-ray by the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the injured had sustained fracture of middle phalanx, which is an opinion given by PW. 1 Doctor only on clinical examination of PW. 4, the injured. Therefore, it is clear that the finding of the learned Sessions Judge holding that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 have

¶132

18 - NC: 2025:KHC:7712 CRL.A No. 41 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 40 of 2013

¶133

committed the offence punishable under Section 326 of I.P.C. and the offence committed by them falls within the ambit of Section 324 of I.P.C. is justified.”

¶134

Applying the principles of law enunciated in the

¶135

above case to the facts on hand, in the absence of original X-ray films or the radiological report placed on record, conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC is impermissible. Therefore, since the blood injuries are found on the body of the complainant party, the conviction of the appellants is to be scaled down to offences punishable under Section 324 of IPC. In view of the foregoing discussions points No.1 and 2 are answered partly in the affirmative .

¶136

Regarding point No.3:

¶137

In view of the finding of this Court on points No.1 and 2 wherein, this Court has acquitted the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC and scaled down to offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC and maintaining the conviction of appellants

¶138

19 - NC: 2025:KHC:7712 CRL.A No. 41 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 40 of 2013

¶139

for the other offences, this Court is of the considered opinion that the custody period already undergone by the appellants if treated as period of imprisonment, for such of the accused who are arrested and sent to the judicial custody and enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.25,000/- each payable by each of the appellants in addition to the fine amount already deposited by each of the appellants would meet the ends of justice. Further, if a sum of Rs.50,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to the Ramegowda and a sum of Rs.10,000/- each to the other injured persons PWs-2, 3, 4 and 9 would better serve the ends of justice.

¶140

Accordingly, point No.3 is answered partly in the affirmative.

¶141

Regarding point No.4.

¶142

In view of the finding of this Court on points No. 1 to 3 as above, following order is passed.

¶143

20 -

¶144

NC: 2025:KHC:7712 CRL.A No. 41 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 40 of 2013

¶145

ORDER

¶146

(i) Criminal Appeals are allowed in part.

¶147

(ii) Accused Nos.2 to 7 and accused No.1 who are the appellants in Crl.A.No.41/2013 and Crl.A.No.40/2013 respectively are acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC.

¶148

(iii) While maintaining the conviction of the appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 447, 323, 324, 114,

¶149

and 504 r/w Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1908, custody period already undergone by the appellants is treated as period of imprisonment and each of the appellants are directed to pay enhanced fine of Rs.25,000/- in addition to the fine amount

¶150

already deposited on or before 20.03.2025. Failure to make the payment of enhanced fine amount on or before 20.03.2025,

¶151

21 - NC: 2025:KHC:7712 CRL.A No. 41 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 40 of 2013

¶152

appellants shall undergo simple

¶153

imprisonment for a period of one year.

¶154

(iv) Out of the fine amount recovered, sum of Rs.50,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to the PW-1 Ramegowda and Rs.10,000/each to the other injured witnesses PW-2, 3, 4 and 9 under due identification.

¶155

(v) Office is directed to return the trial Court records with copy of this order forthwith and to issue modified conviction order.

¶156

Sd/(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

¶157

BVK

Dinesh v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh v. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri N Hanumantha Reddy, Vs M Papaiah

Raja @ J.C. Krishnaraju Vs State by Harohalli Police

Suman v B Vs State of Karnataka

Muniyandi Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Ganjam Shivu Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Manjunath Ramakrishnasa Kabadi Vs State of Karnataka