- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8529 CRL.A No. 253 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 253 OF 2013 BETWEEN: 1. SANTHOSH SON OF KESHAVAMURTHY, AGED 25 YEARS, OCCUPATION: OWNER OF FANCY STORES GUNAVANTHE ROAD, 1ST CROSS, HARANDUR VILLAGE, KOPPA TALUK. 2. K V MAHESH KUMAR ALIAS KATTINAMANE MAHESH SON OF VENKATEGOWDA, AGED 36 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST, KATINAMANE, BOMLAPURA POST, KOPPA TALUK. 3. MANJUNATHA B ALIAS ANNU, SON OF BOBEGOWDA, AGED 25 YEARS, BEHIND TURBO GARAGE, AAGESHWARA ROAD, JAYAPURA. 4. SATHISH POOJARI SON OF KATTI POOJARI, AGED 38 YEARS, Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8529 CRL.A No. 253 of 2013 OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST, RESIDENT OF NARASIPURA KOPPA TALUK. 5. ARJUN SON OF SUBRAMANYA, AGED 29 YEARS, OCCUPATION: MERCHANT, RESIDENT OF KALKATTE, SRINGERI TALUK. 6. SUNIL ALIAS SHASHI, ALIAS SHASHIDHARA, SON OF K.N.VELU, AGED 27 YEARS, OCCUPATION: COOLIE, RESIDENT OF MELINAKOWRI, KOPPA TALUK. 7. K M BHASKAR SON OF MANJUNATHA, AGED 23 YEARS, OCCUPATION: WORKING IN A GARAGE, KUVEMPUNAGAR, GUNAVANTHE, 1ST CROSS, HARANDUR VILLAGE, KOPPA TALUK. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. M.R. BALAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KOPPA POLICE, CHIKMAGALUR. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP) - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8529 CRL.A No. 253 of 2013 THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S.374(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE DATED 04.02.2013/05.02.2013 PASSED BY THE PRL. S.J., CHIKMAGALUR IN SESSIONS CASE NO.37/2012 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 504,324 AND 307 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri.M.R. Balakrishna, learned counsel for the accused Nos.1 to 7/appellants and Sri.Channappa Erappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State. 2. The appellants herein have suffered an order of conviction, for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 324, 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC' for short) in Sessions Case No.37/2012, on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge at Chikmagalur, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the "Sessions Judge"), by judgment dated - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8529 CRL.A No. 253 of 2013 04.02.2013/05.02.2013. They have been sentenced as under: "(1) Accused nos.1 to 7, viz., (1) Santhosh, S/o Keshavamurthy, (2) K.V.Mahesh Kumar @ Kattinamane Mahesh, S/o Venkategowda, (3) Manjunatha B @ Annu, Slo Bobegowda, (4) Sathish Poojari, S/o Kutti Poojari, (5) Arjun, S/o Subramanya, (6) Sunil @ Shashi @ Shashidhara, S/o K.N.Velu and (7) K.M.Bhaskar, S/o Manjunatha, are sentenced, each to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs 20,000/-, in default to pay fine, to undergo further Imprisonment for a period of one year, for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. (2) Accused nos.1 to 7, viz., (1) Santhosh, S/o Keshavamurthy, (2) K.V.Mahesh Kumar @ Kattinamane Mahesh, S/o Venkategowda, (3) Manjunatha B @ Annu, S/o Bobegowda, (4) Sathish Poojari, S/o Kutti Poojari, (5) Arjun, S/o Subramanya, (6) Sunil @ Shashi @ Shashidhara, S/o K.N.Velu and (7) K.M.Bhaskar, S/o Manjunatha, are further sentenced, each to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs 4,000/-, in default to pay fine, to undergo further Imprisonment for a - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8529 CRL.A No. 253 of 2013 period of six months, for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. (3) Accused nos.1 to 7, viz., (1) Santhosh, S/o Keshavamurthy, (2) K.V.Mahesh Kumar @ Kattinamane Mahesh, S/o Venkategowda, (3) Manjunatha B @ Annu, S/o Bobegowda, (4) Sathish Poojari, S/o Kutti Poojari, (5) Arjun, S/o Subramanya, (6) Sunil @ Shashi @ Shashidhara, S/o K.N.Velu and (7) K.M.Bhaskar, S/o Manjunatha, are also sentenced, each to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of ` 1,000/-, in default to pay fine, to undergo further Imprisonment for a period of three months, for the offence punishable under Section 504 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. The substantive sentences of imprisonment on all the three counts shall run concurrently." 3. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under: 3.1. A complaint came to be lodged with the Koppa Police, by the complainant - Mohd. Asif @ Asif, alleging that, on account of previous ill-will, on 25.11.2011, at - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8529 CRL.A No. 253 of 2013 about 8:00 p.m., the appellants formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, when Mohd. Asif was proceeding to Malpe in a Goods Auto rickshaw bearing registration No.KA-18/A-7726, which was driven by Sri. Zuber, having empty boxes of fish which were secured from his friend Raheem. When the said three wheeler Goods vehicle came near the garage of one Harish Shetty, which was situated opposite to Arur Lakshminarayana Rao School, the appellants intercepted the free movement of the vehicle. The complainant got down from the vehicle and noticing the situation wherein the vehicle was being damaged by the group, the driver of the goods vehicle was asked to take away the vehicle by the complainant. 3.2. The appellants, at that juncture, abused the complainant in filthy language and mercilessly attacked the complainant with sickle, clubs and stones. The complainant got injured and on seeing public being gathered there, all the accused persons left the place. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:8529 CRL.A No. 253 of 2013 3.3. Later on, the complainant was shifted to the Government Hospital by CW-2 and CW-3 in an Autorickshaw. The matter was intimated to Koppa Police by the Hospital authorities. The Station House Officer of the Koppa Police Station visited the Hospital and enquired the injured about the incident in the presence of Dr. Kumar. The incident was narrated by the complainant, which was reduced into writing. 3.4. Thereafter, the Station House Officer came back to the Police Station and registered a case in Crime No.131/2011, for the offences punishable under Sections 504,307, 324, 506 and 395 read with Section 34 of IPC. 4. The Koppa Police, after detailed investigation, filed a charge sheet against the appellants, inter alia, apprehended the appellants and sent them to judicial custody. 5. The jurisdictional Magistrate, on receipt of the charge sheet, took cognizance and committed the matter to the Sessions Court. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:8529 CRL.A No. 253 of 2013 6. The learned Sessions Judge, after taking cognizance of the aforesaid offences, secured the presence of the appellants and framed the charge for the aforesaid offences. 7. All the accused/appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Therefore, trial was held. 8. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused/appellants, the prosecution, in all, examined eleven witnesses, comprising of the complainant, spot mahazar witnesses, persons who rescued the complainant from the clutches of the appellants, Doctor, who examined the complainant and issued the Wound Certificate and the Investigating Officers. 9. The prosecution placed on record, thirteen documents which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P-1 to P-13, comprising of complaint, spot mahazar, seizure mahazar, Wound Certificate, opinion of the Doctor, MLC intimation, FIR, report of the Police personnel, who - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:8529 CRL.A No. 253 of 2013 were deputed to apprehend the appellants, rough sketch and the photographs. 10. The prosecution also placed on record thirteen Material Objects as MO-1 to MO-13, comprising of one sickle, three clubs, three stones, a cover containing currency notes of `500/-, a Samsung Mobile handset, a Tata Indicom Mobile handset, Nokia mobile handsets - two in number, one 'For-me' Mobile hand set. 11. On conclusion of recording of the evidence, learned Sessions Judge recorded the accused statements as is contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., wherein the accused/appellants have denied all the incriminatory circumstances that were found against them, but did not choose to place their version on record as is contemplated under Section 313 (4) of Cr.P.C., nor placed any defence evidence. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:8529 CRL.A No. 253 of 2013 12. Subsequent thereto, the 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 accused/appellants for the offences and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment, as referred supra. 13. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellants are before this Court in this appeal. 14. Sri.M.R.Balakrishna, learned counsel for the accused/appellants, reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum, vehemently contended that, the material evidence placed on record is hardly sufficient to convict the accused at least for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC inasmuch as the Wound Certificate would not reveal any grievous injuries, especially, if seven persons have assaulted the complainant with MO-1 sickle, three clubs and stones. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:8529 CRL.A No. 253 of 2013 15. Learned counsel would also contend that a trivial incident has been blown out of proportion on account of previous ill-will and therefore, the appellants ought not to have been convicted at least for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. 16. Learned counsel would further contend that, as could be seen from the Wound Certificate, in fact, it is one of the appellants who has actually accompanied the injured to the Hospital and therefore, there was no intention on the part of the appellants to commit the murder of the complainant and had it been so, the best opportunity would not have been allowed to be lost by the appellants. Therefore, no ingredients, much less, all the ingredients to maintain conviction of the appellants under Section 307 of IPC, are available in the case on hand and thus sought for allowing the appeal. 17. Alternatively, learned counsel for the appellants would also contend that, in the event of this Court upholding the order of conviction of the appellants, the - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:8529 CRL.A No. 253 of 2013 offence under Section 307 may be scaled down to the offence under Section 324 of IPC, having regard to the bleeding injuries that have been found on the body of the complainant, as could be seen from the Wound Certificate and thus sought for modifying the sentence by directing the custody period undergone by the appellants as period of imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC, by enhancing the fine amount, reasonably. 18. Per contra, Sri. Channappa Erappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State supports the impugned judgment. He would contend that, the material evidence on record, especially, the sickle that has been used in the incident and clubs and stones are to be classified as 'deadly weapons'. 19. The Wound Certificate marked at Ex.P-5, no doubt, mentions that the injuries are simple in nature, but the injuries found on the scalp of frontal region along the midline, measuring about 2.5 cms x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm, tenderness found on the left cheek, tenderness present on - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:8529 CRL.A No. 253 of 2013 and all over the abdomen and tenderness present all over the chest would only go to show that, deadly weapons have been used in the incident and the body parts chosen for assaulting are vital parts, viz., head and abdomen. Therefore, the Court is required to infer the intention on the part of the assailants, which has been done by the learned Sessions Judge, which is in consonance with the settled principles of law, while appreciating the material evidence, especially, when the charge under Section 307 of IPC has been leveled against the accused persons and thus sought for dismissal of the appeal. 20. He would further contend that, mere nature of injuries is not the sole factor in sustaining the conviction of the appellants for the offence under Section 307 of IPC and thus sought of dismissal of the appeal. 21. Insofar as the alternate submission made by the learned counsel for appellants is concerned, Sri. Channappa Erappa, would contend that, if people like the appellants are shown mercy and leniency by this - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:8529 CRL.A No. 253 of 2013 Court, then similarly placed perpetrators of the crime would get encouraged and they may indulge in similar acts in future which may send wrong message to the society and thus sought for dismissal of the appeal in toto. 22. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously and on such perusal of the material on record, the following points would arise for consideration: 1) Whether the material evidence placed on record would be sufficient enough to sustain the order of conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge, for the aforesaid offences? 2) Whether the impugned judgment suffers from any legal infirmity or perversity? 3) Whether the sentence ordered by the learned Sessions Judge needs modification? 4) What order? REG. POINT Nos.1 AND 2: 23. In the case on hand, the acquaintance of the complainant with the appellants is not in dispute. Even - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:8529 CRL.A No. 253 of 2013 according to the case of the prosecution, the daughter of the sister of accused No.1 had been teased by the complainant and therefore there was a previous ill-will. The incident has taken place near the garage of one Harish Shetty, in front of Arur Lakshminarayana Rao School, when the complainant was proceeding with driver Zuber in a three wheeler vehicle bearing registration No.KA-18/A- 7726. 24. When the vehicle was intercepted by the appellants, the complainant got down and already the appellants had started damaging the vehicle and therefore the complainant told driver Zuber to take away the vehicle from the spot. At that juncture, abuses were hurled by the appellants to the complainant and started mercilessly beating the complainant with clubs and stones and MO-1 sickle. Later on, Riyaz and others assembled there and on hearing them, the appellants left the place and the injured was shifted by Riyaz and other persons to Government Hospital in an Autorickshaw. - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:8529 CRL.A No. 253 of 2013 25. MLC report was sent to the Koppa Police Station by the Medical Officer. Thereafter, the Station House Officer rushed to the Hospital and enquired the injured in the presence of Dr. Kumar, who has been examined as PW-8. 26. Based on the complaint, the Koppa Police registered a case and investigated the matter. The material evidence placed on record thus clearly establishes that, it is the appellants who assaulted the complainant with material objects MO-1 to MO-7. Seizure mahazar, spot mahazar, spot sketch and photographs would sufficiently corroborate the oral evidence placed on record on behalf of the prosecution. However, on noticing the Wound Certificate marked at Ex.P-5, all the injuries are termed as simple injuries by the Doctor. 27. However, as is rightly contended on behalf of the appellants, if the material on record is properly appreciated, if the appellants had an intention to takeaway the life of the complainant, which is a sine qua non for - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:8529 CRL.A No. 253 of 2013 maintaining the order of conviction under Section 307 of IPC, why would they leave such an opportunity in not attacking the complainant again and again, is a question that needs to be looked into in the attendant facts and circumstances of the case. 28. The fact of only simple injuries being noted in the Wound Certificate marked at Ex.P-5 shows that the inference drawn by the learned Sessions Judge to convict the appellants for the offence under Section 307 of IPC needs a re-look. 29. Therefore, as is rightly contended by the learned counsel for appellants, the conviction of the appellants for the offence under Section 307 needs a re- look. 30. Learned Sessions Judge did not find any material evidence so as to convict the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 395 of IPC. Acquittal of the appellants for the offence punishable under Section - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:8529 CRL.A No. 253 of 2013 395 of IPC is not even questioned by the State or by the informant complainant and therefore, it has become final. 31. Taking note of the above factual aspects, especially, the Wound Certificate at Ex.P-5 and the oral testimony of the Doctor and the complainant, this Court is of the considered opinion that the conviction of the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC needs to be set aside on re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record and appellants are to be convicted for the offence under Section 324 of IPC. 32. In view of the foregoing discussion, point Nos.1 and 2 are answered partly in the affirmative. REG. POINT No.3: 33. Since this Court has modified the order of conviction by acquitting the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC, the custody period of 22 days of the appellants, if treated as period of - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:8529 CRL.A No. 253 of 2013 imprisonment for the offence under Section 324 and 504 of IPC, ends of justice would be met, by enhancing the fine amount by `20,000/-, payable by each of the appellant. A portion of the total fine amount if paid as compensation to the injured PW-1/complainant, ends of justice would serve better. 34. Accordingly, point No.3 is answered partly in the affirmative. REG. POINT No.4: 35. In view of the findings of this Court on point Nos.1 to 3 as above, following: ORDER i. The criminal appeal is allowed in part; ii. While maintaining the conviction of the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 504 read with Section 34 of IPC, the appellants are acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:8529 CRL.A No. 253 of 2013 read with Section 34 of IPC. Consequently, the period of imprisonment undergone by the appellants is treated as period of imprisonment for the aforesaid offences by directing each of the appellants to pay the enhanced fine of 20,000/- (20,000/- + 20,000/- by each appellant) before the learned Sessions Judge on or before 30.03.2025, failing which, each of the appellant shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. iii. After receipt of the entire fine amount, a sum of ₹2,00,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to PW-1/complainant and the balance amount of ₹80,000/- shall be appropriated to the State, towards defraying expenses. - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC:8529 CRL.A No. 253 of 2013 Office is directed to return the Trial Court records with a copy of this judgment forthwith, for issuing a modified conviction order. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE BMV* List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4 CT:SNN