- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6215 CRL.A No. 708 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 708 OF 2013 (C) BETWEEN: 1. SUJENDRA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, S/O SOOREGWODA, R/AT SHINDENAHALLI VILLAGE, HUNSUR TALUK, MYSORE DISTRIC-571 105. 2. VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, S/O ANNEGOWDA, R/AT HONNENAHALLI VILLAGE, HUNSUR TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT-571 105. 3. VENKATARAMANEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/O LATE KRISHNEGOWDA, R/AT SHINDENAHALLI VILLAGE, HUNSUR TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT-571 105. PRESENTLY R/AT NEGATHURU HUNSUR TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT-571 105. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. P NATARAJU, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HUNSUR RURAL POLICE STATION, Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6215 CRL.A No. 708 of 2013 MYSORE DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 22.06.2013 PASSED BY THE P.O., F.T.C., HUNSUR IN S.C.NO.322/2012 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 341,504,332,333 AND 506 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri P. Nataraju, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Channappa Erappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State. 2. Appellants, who are accused Nos.1 to 3, suffered an order of conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 504, 332, 333 and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced as under: "Accused-1 to 3 are sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each for the offence punishable under Section 341 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C. In case of default of - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6215 CRL.A No. 708 of 2013 payment of fine, they shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of ten days. Similarly, accused-1 to 3 are sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 504 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C. In case of default of payment of fine, they shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment Accused-1 to 3 are further sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each for the offence punishable is under Section 332 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C., for having assaulted P.W.2-wal Santhoshkumar. In case of default of payment of fine, they shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of two months. Accused-1 to 3 are also sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 333 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C., for having assaulted P.W.1-Kiran and causing him grievous injury. In case of default of payment of fine, they shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months. Lastly, accused-1 to 3 are sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-each for the offence punishable under Section 506 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C. In case of default of payment of fine, they shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months Accused Nos.1 to 3 are entitled for benefit of set the office is directed to re-list this petition on for the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6215 CRL.A No. 708 of 2013 period which they have undergone as under trial prisoners in the course of trial, as provided under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. MOs.1 to 8 being worthless, shall be destroyed after the appeal period is over and if appeal is preferred, after disposal of appeal." 3. Facts in brief, which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal, are as under: 3.1 On 06.07.2012 at about 10.00 a.m., Shankar (PW.8), as per the instructions of the official superior, went to General Hospital, Hunsur. As per the information received from the Hunsur Rural Police, said Shankar being the Head Constable, contacted Sri Kiran, who was undergoing treatment in the Hunsur Hospital. On such enquiry, Sri Kiran being the forest official, revealed that he was working as a forest guard at Veeranahosalli Wildlife Range for the past two years and in June 2012 near Negathuru Village, four persons were carrying deer flesh. Forest officials tried to apprehend them, but they were successful in escaping from the chase. In that regard, a case came to be lodged in that regard in FOC No.3/2012-2013 against Sujendra, Venkatesha, Venkataramanegowda and - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6215 CRL.A No. 708 of 2013 others. Sri Kiran was deputed to find out the whereabouts of the accused persons in respect of said crime. 3.2 While they were in search of culprits on 05.07.2012, Sri Kiran and other staff received credible information that the accused in the said crime were proceeding from Hanagodu. Immediately, Sri Kiran and others proceeded in the official jeep bearing No.KA-09-G-353 and were waiting for the absconding accused persons near Kunteri Tank. 3.3 Around 6.00 p.m., accused Nos.1 and 3 (present appellants) came from a Bar in Hanagodu village. On seeing them, forest officials including the complainant tried to apprehend them. At that juncture, present appellants with their henchman threatened complainant and three more forest officials to take away their life. There was an oral altercation initially. Quarrel got aggravated and in the said quarrel, Venkatesha assaulted Kiran with a club on his left forehead and a right shoulder causing bleeding injuries. Accused No.1- Sujendra assaulted Kiran with stone on his chest. 3.4 When PW.2 tired to intervene and pacify the quarrel, Venkataramanegowda assaulted PW.2 with stone on - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6215 CRL.A No. 708 of 2013 his forehead. Appellants and their henchman were pelting stone on the forest officials and they hurled abusive words on them and also threatened them with dire consequences. Accused No.2 torn the pant worn by Kiran and snatched mobile phone from his pocket. Somehow, Kiran and other forest officials escaped from the clutches of the appellants and their henchman. Sri Kiran and another forest official by name Santhoshkumar were injured in the incident and they were shifted to Hunsur hospital. 3.5 On narration of the above facts, Head constable reduced the same into writing and based on the said complaint, Hunsur Rural Police registered a case in Cr.No.228/2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 332, 504, 506 r/w Section 149 of IPC. After thorough investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against the appellants for the aforesaid offences. 4. Accused persons were in custody for a period of three months during the time of investigation and thereafter, they were enlarged on bail. Learned Magistrate took cognizance - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:6215 CRL.A No. 708 of 2013 of the aforesaid offences and committed the matter to the Sessions Court for trial. 5. On receipt of the records, learned Sessions Judge secured the presence of the appellants and after completing necessary formalities, 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 appellants, prosecution in all examined 10 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.10 comprising of the injured forest officials (PW.1 and PW.2), mahazar witnesses, Doctor who issued the wound certificate and investigation officer. 7. Prosecution placed on record 13 documentary evidence, which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P1 to P13 comprising of spot mahazar, complaint, wound certificate, opinion of the doctor, MLC extract, attendance register etc. 8. Prosecution also placed on record 8 material objects, which were marked as MO.1 to MO.8 comprising of - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:6215 CRL.A No. 708 of 2013 torn pant worn by PW.1 as on the date of incident, club, stone, glass pieces of beer bottle and stone. 9. On conclusion of recording of evidence, accused statements as is contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. were recorded by the learned trial Judge. Accused persons denied all the incriminatory materials that were found in the investigation of the prosecution and did not place their version about the incident by filing written submission as is contemplated under Section 313 Cr.P.C., nor they placed any defence evidence. 10. Thereafter, learned trial Judge heard the arguments of the parties in detail and on cumulative consideration of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, learned trial Judge convicted the appellants and sentenced as referred to supra. 11. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellants are before this Court, in this appeal. 12. Sri P.Nataraju, learned counsel for the appellants reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum, - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:6215 CRL.A No. 708 of 2013 contended that material evidence placed on record suffers from necessary ingredients to maintain the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Judge in the impugned judgment and sought for allowing the appeal. 13. He further contended that identity of the appellants were not noted when the case came to be registered in FOC No.3/2012-13 and without conducting the necessary Test Identification Parade, appellants have been falsely implicated in the incident and therefore, very genesis of the crime itself is doubtful, which has been ignored by the learned trial Judge in the impugned judgment and sought for allowing the appeal. 14. He would further contend that admittedly even according to the version of PW.1, apart from the appellants, there were other 15 to 20 henchman, who had gathered near the place of incident and same is found from the very lodging of the FIR with the aid of Section 149 of IPC and therefore, proceeding case against only three of the appellants has resulted in miscarriage of justice and thus, sought for the allowing of the appeal. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:6215 CRL.A No. 708 of 2013 15. Alternatively Sri P.Nataraju, learned counsel contended that in the event of this Court upholding the order of conviction, taking note of the advanced age of the appellants and in the absence of any criminal antecedents, the custody period already undergone by the appellants may be treated as imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount reasonably and sought for allowing the appeal to that extent. 16. Per contra, Sri.Channappa Erappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State/respondent supports the impugned judgment. 17. He would further contend that materials on record would be sufficient enough to maintain the conviction of the appellant for the aforesaid offences. Admittedly, PW.1 and PW.2, who are the injured in the incident, are the forest officials. They were in search of the appellants and yet another person who had absconded in FOC No.3/2012-13. In the said case, the crime alleged against the appellants are that they were carrying flesh of the deer and they got escaped from the Negathuru Village after seeing the forest officials. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:6215 CRL.A No. 708 of 2013 18. He further argues that when appellants were found in Hanagodu, attempt was made to apprehended them by PW.1 and PW.2 with other forest officials. At that juncture, the incident has occurred. Therefore, there is direct nexus between the appellants and the incident. 19. He would further contend that merely non- impleading the other persons as accused persons in the incident and not apprehending them would not be sufficient enough to doubt the case of the prosecution inasmuch as the appellants have been identified by the injured witnesses. Why would PW.1 and PW.2 falsely implicate the appellants in the case by allowing the real culprits to escape from the rigors of law is not explained by the accused and thus, sought for dismissal of the appeal. 20. He also contended that the alternate submission advanced on behalf of the appellants cannot be considered inasmuch as showing them leniency would encourage the similarly placed perpetrators of the crime and thus, sought for dismissal of the appeal in toto. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:6215 CRL.A No. 708 of 2013 21. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the materials on record meticulously. On such perusal of the materials on record, following points would arise for consideration: 1. Whether the material evidence placed on record would be sufficient enough to maintain the conviction of the appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 504, 332, 333 and 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC? 2. Whether the appellants make out a case that the impugned judgment is suffering from legal infirmity and perversity and thus calls for interference? 3. Whether the sentence needs modification? 4. What order? REGARDING POINT Nos.1 AND 2: 22. In the case on hand, PW.1 and PW.2 being the injured forest officials, have deposed with graphic details as to what transpired on 05.07.2012 at about 6.00 p.m. near Kunteri tank of Hanagodu village. It is the testimony of PW.1 and PW.2 that present appellants along with another absconding accused were the culprits in FOC No.3/2012-13, who were carrying deer - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:6215 CRL.A No. 708 of 2013 flesh during the month of June, 2012 near Negathuru Village. Appellants escaped from the clutches of the forest officials on said date and forest officials were in search of the appellants and the absconding accused. 23. They further deposed that on credible information that appellants are in Hanagodu village, PW.1 and PW.2 with other forest officials came in a jeep and they were waiting near Kunteri tank. After spotting the appellants coming out from a Bar in Hanagodu Village, PW.1 and PW.2 with other forest officials, tried to nab the appellants. At that juncture, there was an altercation and in the quarrel, it is the appellants who have assaulted PW.1 and PW.2. In the said process, pant worn by PW.1 also torn by the appellants. Since there were many others who are pelting stones on PW.1 and PW.2, the forest officials somehow escaped from the clutches of the appellants and their henchman. PW.1 and PW.2, who were injured, were shifted to Hunsur hospital. 24. It is noticed that Head constable of Hunsur rural police on receipt of the MLC information, proceed to the hospital and enquired PW.1. On enquiry, he came to know - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:6215 CRL.A No. 708 of 2013 about the incident and thereafter, he reduced the contents into writing and based on such complaint, case came to be registered in Cr.No.228/2012 for the aforesaid offences and also for the offence of unlawful assembly. However, investigation agency could not get the details of other persons, who were gathered there, who also pelted stones on PW.1 and PW.2 and other forest officials. Ultimately, charge sheet came to be filed against the appellants for the aforesaid offences with the aid of Section 34 of IPC. 25. During the course of investigation, the appellants were arrested and they were sent to judicial custody and thereafter, they were enlarged on bail. PW.1 and PW.2 being the forest officials, who are totally strangers to the appellants, did not nurture any previous enmity so as to falsely implicate the appellants in the present incident. 26. It is the specific case of PW.1 and PW.2 that on credible information received by them on 05.07.2012 that the appellants are in Hanagodu village, PW.1 and PW.2 and other two forest officials came in a Government jeep bearing No.KA- 09-G-353 and they were waiting near Kunteri tank. When - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:6215 CRL.A No. 708 of 2013 appellants came out from a Bar in Hanagodu village, the forest officials spotted them and they wanted to apprehend the appellants. At that juncture, the altercation has taken place at about 6.00 p.m. 27. In the incident, the injuries sustained by PW.1 and PW.2 are clearly mentioned in the wound certificate issued by the doctor marked at Exs.P4 and P5. MLC report is also marked on behalf of the prosecution so also the complaint and FIR. There is no loss of time in lodging the complaint nor there was a scope for falsely implicate the present appellants in the incident. 28. Therefore, the prosecution is successful in establishing the incident that occurred in Hanagodu village at about 6.00 p.m. on 05.07.2012, whereunder PW.1 and PW.2 have been injured by the action attributed by the appellants and others. Merely non-impleading the other assailants as accused persons would not ipso facto result in doubting the case of the prosecution in toto inasmuch as injuries noted by the doctor in Exs.P4 and P5 could not be treated as self inflicted injuries. Therefore, material evidence on record would be - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:6215 CRL.A No. 708 of 2013 sufficient enough to maintain the conviction of the appellants for the aforesaid offences. 29. Grounds of appeal would not make out any grounds whatsoever muchless good grounds. Thus, even after re-appreciation of the appeal grounds, they are not sufficient to term the impugned judgment as suffering from legal infirmities or perversity. 30. In view of the foregoing discussion, point Nos.1 and 2 are answered in the affirmative and negative, respectively. REGARDING POINT No.3 31. Admittedly what is the result of the case in FOC No.3/2012-13 is forthcoming on record. Neither the prosecution placed any material in that regard nor proceedings which is being continued in respect of the said crime. 32. Therefore, the present incident is to be treated as an isolated incident. In the absence of any criminal antecedents attributable to the appellants, this Court is of the considered opinion that the custody period of three months already undergone by the appellants during the course of investigation - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:6215 CRL.A No. 708 of 2013 is treated as period of imprisonment for the aforesaid offences by enhancing fine amount in a sum of Rs.75,000/- payable by each of the appellants within a time frame and ordering sum of Rs.50,000/- to PW.1 and a sum of Rs.25,000/- to PW.2 as compensation would meet the ends of justice in the facts and circumstances of the case. Moreso, having regard to the advanced age of the appellants. Accordingly, point No.2 is answered partly in the affirmative. REGARDING POINT No.4: 33. In view of the findings of this Court on point Nos.1 to 3 as above, following: ORDER i. Criminal Appeal is allowed-in-part. ii. While maintaining the conviction of the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 504, 332, 333 and 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC, the custody period already undergone by them is treated as period of imprisonment for the aforesaid offences and each of the appellants are directed to pay enhanced fine at Rs.75,000/- on or before - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:6215 CRL.A No. 708 of 2013 15.03.2025, failing which they shall undergo imprisonment as ordered by the trial Judge. iii. Out of the fine amount recovered, a sum of Rs.50,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to PW.1 and a sum of Rs.25,000/- to PW.2 under due identification. Office is directed to return the Trial Court Records with copy of this judgment forthwith to issue modified conviction order. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SA,VM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41