- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2243 CRL.A No. 368 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 454 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 368 OF 2012 (C) C/W CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 454 OF 2012 IN CRL.A No. 368/2012 BETWEEN: 1. MANJUNATHA S/O BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS OCC: TRACTOR DRIVER R/O HONNUR VILLAGE DAVANGERE TALUKA AND DISTRICT …APPELLANT (BY SRI UMESH.B.N FOR SRI R B DESHPANDE, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY RMC YARD POLICE STATION DAVANGERE CITY …RESPONDENT (BY SRI CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374 (2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DT.17.02.2012 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, DAVANGERE IN S.C.No.110/10 CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 341, 504, 323, 333, 353, 307 R/W 34 OF IPC. Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2243 CRL.A No. 368 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 454 of 2012 IN CRL.A NO. 454/2012 BETWEEN: 1. SRI RAMACHANDRA @ LINGARAJU S/O BASAVARAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS TRACTOR DRIVER R/O HONNUR VILLAGE DAVANAGERE TALUK ...APPELLANT (BY SRI SHIVAYOGESH SHIVAYOGIMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE BY RMC YARD POLICE STATION, DAVANAGERE, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED:17.02.2012 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, DAVANAGERE IN S.C.NO.110/10, CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.341, 504, 323, 333, 353, 307 R/W 34 OF IPC. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2243 CRL.A No. 368 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 454 of 2012 ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri Umesh B.N., appearing on behalf of Sri R.B. Deshpande, counsel for the appellant in Crl.A.No.368/2012 and Sri Shivayogesh Shivayogimath, counsel appearing for the appellant in Crl.A.No.454/2012 and Sri Channappa Erappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent. 2. These two appeals are filed by accused No.2 and 4 respectively. Both the appeals arise out of judgment of conviction passed in S.C.No.110/2010, on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Davangere, dated 17.02.2012. 3. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeals are as under: 3.1. A complaint came to be lodged with RMC Yard police station, Davanagere, alleging that on 30.11.2008 at about 7.30 p.m., when complainant Purandara Naika, police constable of District Reserve Police, Davanagere, proceeding on his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-17-Q-5772, towards house to take his food and when he reached near Bada cross, these two appellants along with two more accused persons (appellants in Crl.A.No.415/2012, against whom non bailable warrant was issued as they were remained absent continuously - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2243 CRL.A No. 368 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 454 of 2012 before the Court and so also there was no representation on their behalf.) restrained said Purandara Naika from his free movement, near Shakthi Ganapathi Temple, P.B. Road, Davanagere and demanded petrol from his motorcycle. Purandara Naika resisted said demand and a quarrel took place. 3.2. Accused persons abused him in filthy language and assaulted him with their hands. Two of the accused persons held him and remaining two accused persons assaulted him with iron rod, pipe on his face and each one of the accused have tried to kill him and they have caused obstruction to the free movement of Purandara Naika. He raised alarm. At that juncture, accused persons on seeing the people gathered there, have ran away from the spot. Purandara Naika immediately was shifted to the medical aid. Thereafter police visited the hospital and enquired the complainant and based on his complaint case came to be registered. 4. RMC yard police after registering the case in Cr.No.81/2008, investigated the matter thoroughly and filed the charge sheet against the accused persons for the offences - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2243 CRL.A No. 368 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 454 of 2012 punishable under Section 341, 504, 323, 332, 353, 307 r/w Section 34 IPC. 5. On receipt of the charge sheet, learned Trial Magistrate committed the matter to the Sessions Court. Learned Sessions Judge secured the presence of the accused persons and framed the charges for the aforesaid offences. Accused persons pleaded not guilty, therefore, trial was held. 6. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, twenty one witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution as P.Ws.1 to 21 and twenty documents were placed on record which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P.1 to P.20, besides, marking four material objects as M.Os.1 to 4, comprising of iron pipe, iron rod, blood stained shirt and pant of the complainant and a mobile telephone. 7. On conclusion of recording of evidence of the prosecution witnesses, accused statement as contemplated under Section 313 Cr.P.C., was recorded wherein accused persons have denied all the incriminatory materials. They did not choose to place any written submissions on record as is contemplated under Section 313 (4) Cr.P.C., nor they have placed any defence evidence on their behalf. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:2243 CRL.A No. 368 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 454 of 2012 8. Thereafter, learned Sessions Judge heard the parties in detail and on appreciation of the material evidence on record in a cumulative manner, convicted the accused persons and passed an order of sentence as under: “For the offence P/U/Sec.341, 504, 323 R/w. 34 of IPC, accused No.1 to 4 shall undergo R.I. for 10 days for each offence. For the offence P/U/Sec.333 R/w.34 of IPC, each one of the accused shall undergo R.I. for 5 years and each one of them shall pay fine of Rs.10,000/ -, in diefaulit to undergo R.1 for one year. For the offence P/U/Sec.307 R/w.34 of IPC, each one of the accused shall undergo R.I. for 7 years and each one of them shall pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in defauit to undergo R.I. For one year. The aforesaid substantive sentence of all the offenses shall run concurrently. Acting under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. It is ordered that each one of accused are entitled for set off in respect of their period of JC if any in the period of their respective imprisonment. Out of the fine amount paid by the accused or recovered from them, an amount of Rs.50,000/- is ordered to be paid to injured PW.1 Purandara Naika as compensation under Sec.357(3) of Cr.P.C., as he has suffered severe injuries from these accused. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:2243 CRL.A No. 368 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 454 of 2012 M.O.1 being worthless shall be destroyed after the appeal period is over. M.O.2 and 3 are ordered to be confiscated to the Government after the appeal period is over. M.O.4 Mobile is ordered to be returned to the injured PW.1 if he did not claim it, then the same shall be confiscated to the Government after the appeal period is over. Office is directed to issue free copy of the judgment to all the accused forthwith and to issue conviction warrant against them.” 9. Being aggrieved by the same, these two appellants being accused Nos.2 and 4 have preferred these appeals respectively. 10. Sri Umesh B.N., representing Sri R.B. Deshpande, Sri Shivayogesh Shivayogimath, learned counsel for the appellants, have reiterated the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum and contended that the entire case of the prosecution is based on the self serving testimony of Purandara Naika and there were no eyewitnesses to the incident. Therefore, learned Sessions Judge ought not to have convicted the accused persons for the aforesaid offences, which has - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:2243 CRL.A No. 368 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 454 of 2012 resulted in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the appeals. 11. They also pointed out that among the prosecution witnesses, serious contradictions are elicited which were marked as Exs.D.1 to D.3 in the evidence of P.W.5 and so also in the evidence of P.W.9 as Ex.D.4. They also pointed out that the wound certificate issued by the Doctor vide Ex.P.11 does not indicate any serious injury, more so, if P.W.1 was assaulted with M.Os.2 and 3. 12. They also contend that the radiological report marked at Ex.P.12 does not clearly indicate as to the nature of the injury which would not corroborate with the wound certificate marked at Ex.P.11. Therefore, sought for allowing the appeals. 13. They further contend that material evidence on record is hardly sufficient to convict the accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and at the most the action attributed by accused No.2 and 4 would only be to the extent of offence under Section 324 IPC and sought for allowing the appeal. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:2243 CRL.A No. 368 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 454 of 2012 14. Alternatively, learned counsel appearing for the appellants contend that in the event of this Court upholding the order of conviction, the custody period already under gone by accused No.2 and 4 about four months twenty one days may be treated as period of conviction by enhancing the fine amount reasonably and portion of the fine amount will be paid as compensation to the injured. 15. Per contra, Sri Channappa Erappa, learned High Court Government Pleader, opposes the appeal grounds vehemently. He further contended that P.W.1 being the police constable was returning to his house for taking food as he had to attend the night duty and all of a sudden all the accused persons intercepted his free movement near Shakthi Ganapathi Temple at Bada cross and demanded petrol. When P.W.1 refused, all the accused persons assaulted mercilessly to P.W.1. 16. He also pointed out that P.W.1 was in police uniform at the time of incident. Despite the same, all the accused persons picked up quarrel voluntarily. He further argued that weapons used by the accused are the deadly weapons and they assaulted on head which is vital organ. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:2243 CRL.A No. 368 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 454 of 2012 Therefore, all the ingredients are attracted to maintain the conviction of the appellants for the aforesaid offences. 17. He also pointed out that no leniency can be shown for such people who have assaulted P.W.1 with deadly weapons without there being any reason whatsoever and therefore, sought for dismissal of the appeals in toto. 18. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 19. On such perusal of the material on record, the following points would arise for consideration: (i) Whether the prosecution was successful in establishing all the ingredients to attract the offence under Section 341, 504, 324, 333, 307 r/w Section 34 IPC? (ii) Whether the appellants have established that the impugned judgment is suffering from legal infirmity, perversity and thus calls for interference? (iii) Whether the sentence is excessive? (iv) What order? - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:2243 CRL.A No. 368 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 454 of 2012 20. Regarding point Nos.1 and 2: In the case on hand, there is no dispute that P.W.1 sustained blood injuries. Wound certificate marked at Ex.P.11 coupled with the radiological certificate marked at Ex.P.12, would sufficiently establish the nature of injury sustained by P.W.1. 21. The injuires mentioned in Ex.P.11 reads as under: “1. Lacerated wound over the forehead, bone deep, size ½” x 1½”. Fresh wound. 2. Cut lacerated wound left temporal area, size ½” x 3" 3. Cut Slit and lacerated upper lip size ¼” x ¾”. 4. Nasal bone #2 5. X-ray chest Ap-view No.38951 date 30.11.2008, Report no fracture Ribs are seen. Normal chest X-ray. 6. Skull-Ap No.38951 date 30.11.2008. Report Fracture of frontal bone on the left side 7. X ray - Nasal bone No.39131 date 02.12.2008. Report fracture of nasal bones 8. Provisional report. The C.T. Scan brain, report entered in separate sheet and attested and enclosed separately. I am of opinion that the injury No.1, 4, 5, 7 are grievous in nature” 22. According to the version of P.W.1, he was returning to his house for taking food on his motorcycle bearing - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:2243 CRL.A No. 368 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 454 of 2012 registration No.KA-17-Q-5772, as he was required to attend his night duty later. 23. When he was so returning to the house, near Shakathi Ganapathi Temple at Bada cross, all the accused persons intercepted his free movement and thereafter they demanded petrol to be taken out from his motorcycle. When P.W.1 refused for the said demand, quarrel took place. At that juncture, accused persons abused P.W.1 in filthy language and they also told that they would somehow take the petrol from his motorcycle. So saying, among the accused persons, accused No.4 Lingaraja and accused No.3 Anneshi held the hands of P.W.1 and accused No.2 - Manjunatha assaulted him with an iron rod on his lips, accused No.1 -Mahesha assaulted him with iron pipe on his head. As a result, he sustained bleeding injuries on his lips and on the head. At that juncture, P.W.1 raised alarm. Noticing said alarm, Manjunatha, Narayana Naika, Gurulingappa came there. Seeing them, all the accused persons ran away from the spot. 24. Court has noted the scar on the forehead of P.W.1 as a result of the injuries at the time of recording of the evidence. P.W.1 was shifted to S.S. High Tech Hospital. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:2243 CRL.A No. 368 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 454 of 2012 Doctor admitted P.W.1 in Intensive Care Unit and he took treatment for a period of twenty days. 25. He further deposed that RMC yard police came to the hospital and took statement of P.W.1 and thereafter registered the case and apprehended the accused persons. 26. In the cross-examination of P.W.1, he denied the suggestion that the injuries are sustained by him due to assault made by some other vehicle owners and a false complaint has been lodged. 27. He denied the suggestion that when he admitted to the hospital, he was unconscious and he was unable to speak. He has specifically answered that he was acquainted with the accused persons earlier but he was not knowing their names correctly. As such, he had not given the details of the accused persons while giving the statement to the police. 28. On behalf of fourth accused, he has answered that the place of incident is a busy road and there was a barricade installed. 29. Manjunatha, Naryana Naika and Shivu have supported the case of the prosecution by deposing that on - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:2243 CRL.A No. 368 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 454 of 2012 seeing the quarrel they arrived at the scene and at that juncture, accused persons ran away from the spot. 30. Doctor who examined the complainant and issued wound certificate vide Ex.P.11, supported the case of the prosecution. 31. No useful material is elicited in the cross- examination so as to disbelieve the version of above witnesses. 32. Ex.P.12 radiological report would sufficiently corroborate the contents of Ex.P.11 wound certificate. 33. The Doctor in Ex.P.11 has specifically stated that the injury Nos.1, 4, 5 and 7 are the grievous in nature based on the radiological report issued at Ex.P.12. 34. All these aspects of the matter on cumulative consideration would be sufficient enough to establish the offences alleged against the accused even after re-appreciation of the material evidence on record. 35. In order to establish that these findings are suffering from legal infirmity or perversity, no material whatsoever is forthcoming on record. Accused persons did not place any material on record to substantiate that they have been falsely implicated in the incident, more so, in the absence - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:2243 CRL.A No. 368 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 454 of 2012 of previous enmity or animosity between complainant and accused. 36. Cross-examination in detail of the prosecution witnesses did not yield any materials so as to probabilise the theory of false implication. The suggestions made to P.W.1 that he sustained the injuries because of the assault made by other vehicle owners is nothing but farfetched imaginary suggestion. 37. Crowing all these things, the accused persons did not place their version about the incident and where they were there at the time of incident. As such, the finding recorded by the learned Sessions Judge in the impugned judgment with regard to the guilty of the accused is based on sound and logical reasons. 38. In the light of appeal grounds, even after re- appreciation of the material evidence on record, this Court does not find any legal infirmity or perversity in arriving at such a finding by the learned Sessions Judge. 39. From the above discussion, this Court has no hesitation whatsoever to hold point No.1 in the affirmative and point No.2 in the negative and accordingly they are answered. - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:2243 CRL.A No. 368 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 454 of 2012 40. Regarding point No.3: Counsel for appellants have stated that accused persons were in custody during the period of trial to some extent and thereafter passing of conviction order. In all they were in custody for a period of four months twenty one days. They submit that there was no motive for the incident even according to the prosecution. They further contended that since they are first time offenders, leniency can be shown by considering the period of custody already undergone by them as the offence under Section 307 IPC would not get attracted. 41. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the custody period already under gone by them, if treated as period of imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each and portion of which could be paid as compensation to P.W.1, would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, point No.3 is answered partly in the affirmative. 42. Regarding point No.4: In view of finding of this Court on point Nos.1 to 3 as above, following order is passed: ORDER (i) Criminal appeals are allowed in part. - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:2243 CRL.A No. 368 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 454 of 2012 (ii) While maintaining the conviction of accused persons for the offences punishable under Section 341, 504, 323, 333, 353, 307 r/w Section 34 IPC, the custody period of four months twenty one days already undergone by the appellants is treated as period of imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each in addition to the fine amount already imposed by the learned Sessions Judge to be paid on or before 28th of February, 2025, failing which they shall undergo imprisonment as ordered by the learned Sessions Judge. (iii) Out of the fine amount received, a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to P.W.1 under due identification. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE MR, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0