- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5353 CRL.A No. 382 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 313 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL APPEAL No.382 OF 2012 (C) C/W CRIMINAL APPEAL No.313 OF 2012 IN CRL.A No.382/2012 BETWEEN: 1. H P ANILKUMAR S/O PAPANNA, AGED 21 YEARS, STUDENT, 6TH SEMESTER, MECHANICAL ENGINEERING, A.I.T. COLLEGE, CHIKMAGALUR R/O NO.17/G, I MAIN, II STAGE, GANGOTRI LAY-OUT, MYSORE CITY 2. VINAY GOURAV S/O S.K.RAVINDRANATH, AGED 21 YEAERS, STUDENT, 6TH SEMESTER, MECHANICAL ENGINEERING, A.I.T.COLLEGE, CHIKMAGALUR, R/O CHIKKANNA STREET, CHIKMAGALUR …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. C H HANUMANTHARAYA A/W SMT.ABHINAYA.K, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY RURAL P.S., CHIKMAGALUR, CHIKMAGALUR TOWN, Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5353 CRL.A No. 382 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 313 of 2012 CHIKMAGALUR DISTRCT. …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.07.03.2012 PASSED BY THE PRL. S.J. CHIKMAGALUR IN S.C.NO.107/2008-CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 148, 323 AND 304 PART II R/W SECTION 149 OF IPC. IN CRL.A NO. 313/2012 BETWEEN: 1. H N ABHISHEK S/O R NAGENDRAPPA WORKING AS RELATIONSHIP MANAGER IN WAY2 WEALTH, FINANCIAL COMPANY AT BANGALORE, PERMANENT R/AT NEAR N.D.R.K.COLLEGE, UDAAYAGIRI, HASSAN. 2. VISHAL ARUN HALBHAVI S/O ARUN HALBHAVI OCC :ASSISTANT MANAGER GENPACK INDIA LIMITED, ELECTRONIC CIIY, BANGALORE PERMANENT R/AT CHENNAPURA VILLAGE BHADRAVATHI TALUK, DISTRICT SHIMOGA. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. R B DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY RURAL POLICE STATION, CHICKMAGALUR. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) CR.P.C - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5353 CRL.A No. 382 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 313 of 2012 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DT.07/08.03.2012 PASSED BY THE PRL. S.J. CHIKMAGALUR IN S.C.No.107/2008-CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS / ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 148, 323 AND 304 PART II R/W SECTION 149 OF IPC. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri R.B.Deshpande, learned counsel, and Sri C.H.Hanumantharaya along with Smt.Abhinaya, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Channappa Erappa, learned High Court Government Pleader. 2. Accused Nos.1 and 3 have filed Crl.A.No.382/2012 and accused Nos.2 and 4 are the appellants in Crl.A. No.313/2012. All appellants have been convicted in S.C.No.107/2008 dated 07.03.2012 on the file of the Prl. Sessions Judge, Chikmagaluru, for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code being the major offence and sentenced as under: “Accused Nos.1 to 4, viz. (1) H.P.Anilkumar, S/o Papanna, (2) H.N.Abhishek, S/o R. Nagendrappa, (3) - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5353 CRL.A No. 382 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 313 of 2012 Vinay Gourav S/o S.K.Ravindranath and (4) Vishal Arun Halbhavi, S/o Arun Halbhavi, are sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each in default to pay fine, to undergo further Imprisonment for a period of one month, for the offence punishable under Section 143 of I.P.C. Accused No.1 to 4, viz., (1) H.P.Anilkumar S/o Papanna (2) H.N.Abhishek S/O R.Nagendrappa (3) Vinay Gourav S/o S.K.Ravindranath and (4) Vishal Arun Halbhavi, S/o Arun Halbhavi are also sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs 3.000/- each in default in to pay fine, to undergo further imprisonment for a period of one month, for the offence punishable under Section 148 of IPC. Accused Nas I to 4 VIZ., (1) H.P.Anilkumar S/o Papanna 2) H.N Abhishek, S/o R.Nagendrappa (3) Vinay Gourav S/o S.K.Ravindranath and (4) Vishal Arun Halbhavi, S/o Arun Halbhavi, are further sentenced to undergo simple Imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1.000/- each in default to pay fine to undergo further imprisonment for a period of fifteen days, for the offence punishable under Section 323 read with Section 149 of IPC. Accused Nos.1 to 4, viz, (1) H.P.Anilkumar, S/o Papanna, (2) H.N.Abhishek S/o R. Nagendrappa (3) Vinay Gourav, S/o S.K.Ravindranath and (4) Vishal Arun Halbhavi, S/o Arun Halbhavi, are also again sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/-each in default to pay fine, to undergo further Imprisonment for a period of six months, for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II read with Section 149 of I.P.C. All the substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. Further, by exercising the powers under Section 357 of Cr.P.C., out of the fine amount realised, Rs.2,00,000/- is ordered to be paid to C.W.5, Smt. Polibor - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5353 CRL.A No. 382 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 313 of 2012 Pathrorian Gogoyi wife of P.W.4 Akash Jyothi Gogoyi, the sister of the deceased Rithin Borpatragohain, as compensation. Since none of the accused was custody either during investigation or during trial, the question of giving set off as required under Section 428 of Cr.P.C does not arise at all. Furnish copy of this judgment to each of the accused free of cost forthwith.” 3. Being aggrieved by the same, separate appeals are preferred by accused Nos.1 and 3, and accused Nos.2 and 4 in these appeals. 4. Facts of the case in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeals are as under: An incident occurred on 22.04.2006 after the annual day function known as ‘Chunchana’ in Adichunchanagiri Institute of Technology, Chikkamagaluru, at about 9.00 pm wherein a student of the said college by name Rithin Borpatragohain, Sachinkumar Lochad, Aniruddh Loha, Abhijeet Sharma, assembled in the front gate of the college wherein there is a canteen called ‘COOL JOINT’. When Rithin was smoking a cigarette, present appellants and others who are students of - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:5353 CRL.A No. 382 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 313 of 2012 the same college formed an unlawful assembly, came there and picked up the quarrel. 5. In the quarrel, accused No.1-H.P.Anil Kumar demanded a cigarette from Rithin. Said demand was refused and there was oral altercation to begin with. Immediately, accused No.1 pulled the ear phone of Rithin and slapped him. Accused No.2- H.N.Abhishek assaulted Rithin with hands on his back and accused No.3-Vinay Gourav kicked Rithin. Accused No.5- Dushyanth also punched Rithin on his face and caused twist injuries and kicked him. All the accused persons pushed Rithin and dragged him to security and again pushed him to culvert. Thereafter, they stamped him whereby, Rithin sustained severe injuries. 6. It is further case of the prosecution that C.W.10- Sachin Kumar Lochad, C.W.4-Sukumar Kalith, C.W.8-Mohammed Minajur Islam and C.W.9-Akhil G. Rao, took the injured to house No.137 situated in Housing Board and got him a T-shirt and they all went to house No.28 where Rithin used to stay. Thereafter, Rithin called accused No.1-Anil Kumar over mobile telephone and asked him what was the reason for assaulting - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:5353 CRL.A No. 382 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 313 of 2012 him. He also enquired as to why the person wearing blue T- shirt assaulted him. 7. Anil Kumar replied saying that they are from Karnataka State and powerful in the locality and, Rithin being an outsider should understand the power of the localites and again abused Rithin in filthy language and told him that he has come from far off place and he cannot do anything to them. Anil Kumar said to have given life threat to Rithin. 8. After the said conversation, at about 10.45 pm, accused Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 again came near the house of Rithin in a Maruthi Zen Car and motorcycles with localites and after getting down from the car with an intention to kill Rithin they were equipped with rod, katthi and clubs. Accused No.5 said to have told Rithin that he is the person who was wearing the blue T-shirt and punched Rithin on his face. Thereafter, Rithin was assaulted with cricket wickets and accused Nos.1 and 5 assaulted on the head and back of Rithin. One more blow was given by accused No.1 with a wicket on his back and accused No.4 tried to strangulate Abhijeet Sharma who wanted to rescue Rithin. Heeral Patel-C.W.13 tried to pacify the incident - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:5353 CRL.A No. 382 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 313 of 2012 and at that juncture, accused No.2 abused him in filthy language and assaulted him with rod on the right shoulder and again assaulted with rods and wickets and they left the spot. 9. Prosecution case further reveals that Pranjitdas-C.W.14 took Rithin on his motorbike to Holy Cross Hospital in the intervening night of 22nd and 23rd April 2006 at about 12.45 am and got him treated. They thought that since they had come from North India, they were assaulted and, if they are fixed in a criminal case, they would be required to go to Court and face many difficulties. Therefore, they did not reveal the true facts before the Doctor. 10. It is further case of the prosecution that Rithin was suffering with injuries and despite best treatment, on 25.04.2006, at about 6.00 pm, Rithin complained severe body pain and pain on the back side of the head. 11. When other friends had been to their friends for dinner, at about 9.45 pm, Rithin did not speak to them and door was latched from inside. When the other friends of Rithin peeped through window, they saw that Rithin had fallen unconscious on the floor. Immediately they broke open the door and took - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:5353 CRL.A No. 382 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 313 of 2012 Rithin to Holy Cross Hospital at 10.30 pm. The doctors who examined Rithin in the hospital declared that he has been brought dead. 12. It is further case of the prosecution that noticing the death of Rithin, fact was reported to Akash Jyothi Gogoyi-C.W.1 who is brother-in-law of Rithin who was staying in Bengaluru. Said Akash Jyothi Gogoyi, thereafter rushed to Chikkamagalur and after enquiring with friends of Rithin, he came to know that because of the assault made by accused persons, Rithin lost his life and therefore, he approached the police and lodged the complaint. 13. After registering the case, police investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet inter alia apprehending the appellants and others. Learned Trial Judge on receipt of the charge sheet, took cognizance of the case and committed the matter to the Sessions Court. 14. Learned Sessions Judge, securing the presence of the accused persons and framed the Charge for the offences - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:5353 CRL.A No. 382 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 313 of 2012 punishable under Sections 323, 143, 148, 302 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 15. Accused persons pleaded not guilty and therefore, trial was held. 16. During pendency of the trial, accused No.5 died and therefore, case was proceeded against accused Nos.1 to 4. 17. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused persons, prosecution in all examined 18 witnesses who are, the complainant, friends of Rithin, doctor who issued wound certificates, doctor who conducted the post mortem, doctor who treated the other injured persons, mahazar witnesses and the Investigation Officer. As many as 22 documents were placed on record on behalf of the prosecution which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P.1 to P.22. 18. The contradictions elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.9 is marked as Ex.D.1 on behalf of the defence. 19. On conclusion of recording of evidence, learned Sessions Judge recorded the accused statement as is contemplated - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:5353 CRL.A No. 382 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 313 of 2012 under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein accused persons denied all the incriminatory circumstances and did not chose to place their version on record nor lead any defence evidence. 20. Subsequent thereto, learned Sessions Judge heard the arguments of the parties in detail and on cumulative consideration of material placed on record, convicted the accused persons and sentenced them as referred to supra. 21. Being aggrieved by the same, two sets of appeals are filed by accused Nos.1 and 3, and accused Nos.2 and 4, as referred to supra. 22. Sri C.H.Hanumantharaya and Sri R.B.Deshpande, learned counsel representing the appellants in each of these appeals, vehemently contended that the very fact that the learned Sessions Judge has appreciated the material evidence on record and convicted the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II as against the charge for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code itself shows that the incident is not a premeditated incident. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:5353 CRL.A No. 382 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 313 of 2012 23. According to them, incident that occurred near the canteen viz., ‘COOL JOINT’ and the injuries sustained by Rithin was not so grave as he could get back to his home. 24. They further contend that second incident said to have occurred at 10.45 pm near the house of Rithin i.e., house No.22. The appellants were not at all present and it is the localites who had actually assaulted Rithin resulting in injuries and same is reflected while narrating the history before the doctor and explanation offered by the prosecution that under fear that they may have to face criminal prosecution, wrong history has been narrated before the doctor, when Rithin was taken to Holy Cross Hospital for treatment of injuries is an afterthought. Therefore, finding of the guilt recorded by the learned Sessions Judge in the impugned judgment cannot be countenanced in law and sought for allowing the appeals. 25. They also pointed out that there is no proper nexus that has been established by the prosecution as to the death of Rithin and the incident that is alleged to have taken place near ‘COOL JOINT’ canteen or near the house of Rithin. Therefore, - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:5353 CRL.A No. 382 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 313 of 2012 prosecution case suffers from lot of legal infirmities and appellants have been proceeded by the prosecution only on suspicion which is impermissible under criminal jurisprudence and sought for allowing the appeal. 26. Alternatively, Sri R.B.Deshpande and Sri C.H. Hanumantharaya, learned advocates, would contend that taking note of the fact that the isolated incident has taken place long back and appellants are now middle aged persons who are married and settled in the Society, further taking note of the fact that the incident that occurred near ‘COOL JOINT’ is not the incident which ultimately resulted in death of Rithin, this Court may set-aside the Order of imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount reasonably. 27. Per contra, Sri Channappa Erappa, learned High Court Government Pleader supports the impugned judgment. He would further contend that admittedly Rithin and other prosecution witnesses hailed from Assam State and they had come to Chikkamagaluru to the College for pursuing Engineering graduation. On account of the previous enmity - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:5353 CRL.A No. 382 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 313 of 2012 especially in the festival ‘Chunchana’ the incident has occurred at the spur of the moment. 28. He also pointed that even after assault near ‘COOL JOINT’, accused persons followed the injured near his house and again picked up quarrel at about 10.30 pm wherein there were number of assaults made by appellants including accused No.5 with rod and cricket wickets on the vital parts of Rithin’s body whereby Rithin had to sustain injuries. When his friends tried to rescue, one of the accused persons also tried to strangulate Abhijeet Sharma. 29. All these aspects would sufficiently establish that there was an intention to take away the life of Rithin by appellants and accused No.5 on the ground that they had challenged the power of localites and thus all ingredients to attract the offence has been established by the prosecuting by placing cogent evidence on record and thus sought for dismissal of the appeal. 30. Insofar as alternative submission is concerned, learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that life of Rithin would not come back by paying some additional fine amount and therefore, imprisonment ordered by the learned - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:5353 CRL.A No. 382 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 313 of 2012 Sessions Judge should be maintained to see that proper justice is rendered to deceased Rithin and sought for dismissal of the appeal in toto. 31. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 32. On such perusal of the material on record, the following points would arise for consideration: (i) Whether the material evidence placed on record by the prosecution would be sufficient enough to maintain the conviction of the appellants for the aforesaid offences? (ii) Whether the appellants make out a case that the impugned judgment is suffering from legal infirmity, perversity and thus calls for interference? (iii) Whether sentence needs modification? (iv) What order? 33. REGARDING POINT Nos.1 and 2: In the present case, Rithin losing his life pursuant to the injuries sustained by him in the incident that occurred on 22.04.2006 at about 9.00 pm near ‘COOL JOINT’ canteen and again at about 10.45 pm near - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:5353 CRL.A No. 382 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 313 of 2012 the house of the deceased stands established by placing necessary evidence on record. 34. Suggestions made to the prosecution witnesses when considered cautiously, defence did not suggest to the witnesses that in the second incident that occurred near house No.28 at 10.45 pm, appellants were not present. It is their case that localites got enraged with the behavior of Rithin and his friends and it is they who assaulted Rithin. 35. Prosecution case reveals that after changing T-shirt in their house, Rithin came back to his house which is house No.28 and then at about 10.30 pm, he called accused No.1 over mobile phone and enquired as to why he has been assaulted by accused No.1 and person who was wearing blue T- shirt which clearly shows that Rithin was not even knowing the name of accused No.5. 36. Accused No.1 at that juncture, said to have replied to Rithin that they are from North India and they should not under estimate the power of localites and told him that they will have to behave properly and abused him in filthy language. If the - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:5353 CRL.A No. 382 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 313 of 2012 matter had stopped there itself, probably Rithin would have survived. 37. On the contrary, accused No.1 and other accused persons came in a Maruthi Zen car and motorcycle near the house of Rithin and again picked up quarrel at about 10.45 pm. It is also found from prosecution witnesses apart from accused persons, some localites had also assembled there. 38. When accused No.5 proclaimed that he was the person who was wearing blue T-shirt and whatever Rithin was intending to do, he can do so, altercation got aggravated and there was not only exchange of words but also exchange of blows. 39. It is specific case of the prosecution that at the time of the second incident, appellants were armed with cricket wickets and rods. Assault has taken place according to the prosecution on the body parts of Rithin with rods and wickets. There is specific allegation that appellant No.1 assaulted Rithin on the back of the head. When Abhijeet Sharma tried to pacify the quarrel, accused No.4 tried to strangulate him. Ultimately, it is Heeral Patel who pacified the quarrel. - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:5353 CRL.A No. 382 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 313 of 2012 40. When Rithin was taken to Holy Cross Hospital at about 12.45 a.m., no doubt, the injured and the persons who accompanied them revealed to the doctor that Rithin had sustained the injuries by fall from motor bike. Prosecution has explained that under the fear that they will have to face the criminal trial in the Court as they were from North India and had come to pursue their education, they intentionally gave such a wrong history while getting Rithin treated in the hospital. 41. Whether at all such an explanation could be accepted or not is a question that needs reconsideration. But, learned Sessions Judge has accepted that it is a proper explanation and has noted that history narrated before the doctor who treated Rithin at the first instance and contents of complaint are contradictory to each other, what is the evidentiary value to be attached to such a contradictory statement is discussed at length by the learned Trial Judge in the impugned judgment and accepted that explanation as a plausible explanation. 42. Fact remains that trend of cross-examination would go to show the incident occurred near ‘COOL JOINT’ canteen is not - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:5353 CRL.A No. 382 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 313 of 2012 seriously disputed but for the second incident is concerned, it is the specific case of the appellants including accused No.5 that it is the localites who assaulted Rithin. Further where the appellants were found at the time of second incident is not forthcoming on record either in the form of suggestion to the prosecution witnesses or when they were examined at the time of recording the accused statement. 43. Further, Rithin, after getting treated in the Holy Cross Hospital, came home. Two days later, he had intimated his friends that he is having severe pain in the head and back. After having dinner, when his friends came to house of Rithin, they noticed that there was no response from Rithin when they knocked the door and being suspicious, friends peeped into window and noticed that Rithin was lying unconscious. It is then they broke open the door on 25.04.2006 at 9.45 pm and again shifted him to the hospital at about 10.30 pm wherein, Rithin was declared dead. 44. The time gap between first incident, second incident and death of Rithin is only 2 to 3 days. On 22.04.2006 the first incident occurred at ‘COOL JOINT’ at 9.00 pm, second incident - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:5353 CRL.A No. 382 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 313 of 2012 is at 10.45 pm on the same day and last incident is on 25.04.2006 at 9.45 pm friends noticed that Rithin was unconscious and on 25.04.2006 Rithin was declared to be dead at 10.45 pm. 45. Therefore, argument putforth on behalf of the appellants that there is no nexus between the injuries sustained by Rithin in the incident occurred on 22.04.2006 and his death is not established by the prosecution cannot be countenanced in law. 46. Admittedly, other injured persons have also supported the case of the prosecution which is corroborated by placing wound certificate on record. It is well settled that testimony of injured eyewitness must be kept at higher pedestal. 47. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, learned Sessions Judge has clearly considered the case of the prosecution as well as the defence in a harmonious and judicious manner and analyzed the material on record and rightly recorded an order of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code as a major offence. - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC:5353 CRL.A No. 382 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 313 of 2012 48. There is no material on record to scale down the said offence on behalf of the appellants to still lesser offence under Section 324 IPC. Injured eye witnesses having supported the case of the prosecution and in the absence of any previous enmity established by the defence so far as the other injured persons to depose falsely against them, this Court is of the considered opinion that evidentiary value attributed to the injured eye witnesses by the learned Sessions Judge does not require any further interference in these appeals even after re- appreciation of the material evidence on record. 49. Contradictions elicited in the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses is also taken note of by the learned Sessions Judge in more than one paragraphs while considering the case of the appellants arguing for acquittal. 50. However, those contradictions, on re-appreciation, this court is of the considered opinion that they are minor in nature, as no witness is expected to depose like a tape recorder and evidence that is to be adduced before Court is not a memory test. - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC:5353 CRL.A No. 382 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 313 of 2012 51. Applying these principles of law to the case on hand, this Court does not find any legal infirmity or perversity in the impugned judgment while recording the conviction of the appellants for the aforesaid offences. 52. In view of the foregoing discussion, point Nos.1 and 2 are answered in the affirmative and negative respectively. 53. REGARDING POINT No.3: As rightly contended on behalf of the appellants, when the learned Sessions Judge has recorded an order of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code and State did not chose to file any appeal nor de facto complainant, this Court is of the considered opinion that for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, there need not be compulsory imprisonment. 54. To appreciate said aspect of the matter, it is necessary to cull out Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, which reads as under: - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC:5353 CRL.A No. 382 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 313 of 2012 304. Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.— Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. 55. On careful reading of second portion of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code which is usually termed as Part II of Section 304, it is crystal clear that convicting Court has got discretion to impose imprisonment or fine or both unlike offence falling under first part of Section 304 IPC where there is no discretion to impose only fine. 56. Taking note of the argument put forth on behalf of the appellants that the incident is an isolated incident and occurred at the spur of the moment and appellants are now middle aged persons who are settled with family, at this distance of time, if they are directed to undergo imprisonment as ordered by the - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC:5353 CRL.A No. 382 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 313 of 2012 learned Sessions Judge in the impugned judgment, it would work out harsh on them. 57. No doubt, by enhancing fine amount and setting aside imprisonment period for the appellants would not bring back the life of Rithin, who lost his life in the incident at the young age. 58. Criminal justice system especially sentencing policy is a developing system in our country. One of the celebrated principles which would govern sentencing area in the Indian Criminal Justice system is that role of Courts while appreciating the material evidence for recording an order of conviction is altogether different from the role to be exercised by the Court while passing appropriate sentence in a given case. 59. Yet another important principle that would govern the sentencing policy is that Courts are required to “hate the crime and not criminal”. Likewise, one cannot forget the principle that “every sinner has a future”. 60. Keeping the above in the background, when material on record is analyzed, the incident is of the year 2006. The appeal - 25 - NC: 2025:KHC:5353 CRL.A No. 382 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 313 of 2012 is being decided in the year 2025. Taking note of the developments in the life of the appellants and family of the deceased, this Court is of the considered opinion that instead of directing the appellants to undergo imprisonment as ordered by the learned Sessions Judge, if the fine amount is enhanced by another one lakh for each of the appellants for all the aforesaid offence (along with Rs.50,000/- already imposed by the learned Sessions Judge in all Rs.1,50,000/-) ends of justice would be met. 61. Out of the fine amount recovered, if a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to C.W.5, ends of justice would be better served. 62. Accordingly, point No.3 is answered partly in the affirmative. 63. REGARDING POINT No.4: In view of the finding of this Court on point Nos.1 to 3 as above, the following: ORDER (i) Criminal Appeals are allowed in part. - 26 - NC: 2025:KHC:5353 CRL.A No. 382 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 313 of 2012 (ii) While maintaining the conviction of the appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 148, 323 and 304 Part II r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, sentence of imprisonment ordered by the learned Sessions Judge is set-aside by directing each of the appellants to pay enhanced fine in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in addition to Rs.50,000/- imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, in all Rs.1,50,000/-, on or before 10th March 2025 failing which each of the appellants shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. (iii) Out of the fine amount recovered, Rs.4,00,000/- inclusive of compensation if any, ordered by the learned Sessions Judge in the impugned judgment, is ordered to be paid to C.W.5 under due identification. (iv) Office is directed to return the Trial Court Records with copy of the order, forthwith. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53