- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19647 CRL.A No. 819 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 819 OF 2013 (C) BETWEEN: 1. SUNIL S/O. REVANASIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS 2. SANTHOSHA S/O. SHEKHARAPPA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT MAYAKONDA VILLAGE, DAVANAGERE TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE (AB)) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY THE C.P.I. MAYAKONDA POLICE …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL.SPP) THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 11.07.2013 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DIST. & S.J., DAVANAGERE IN S.C.NO.132/2011 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 448, 504, 323, 506 & 306 R/W 34 OF IPC. THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED ARE SENTENCED TO UNDERGO S.I. FOR 6 MONTHS FOR EACH OF THE OFFENCES P/U/S 448, 504, 323 AND 506 R/W 34 OF IPC. THE Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19647 CRL.A No. 819 of 2013 APPELLANTS/ACCUSED ARE SENTENCED TO UNDERGO S.I. FOR 10 YEARS AND PAY FINE OF RS.50,000/- EACH, IN DEFAULT TO PAY FINE, HE SHALL UNDERGO S.I. FOR FURTHER 6 MONTHS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 306 R/W 34 OF IPC. AFORESAID SENTENCES SHALL RUN CONCURRENTLY. THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED PRAYS THAT THEY BE ACQUITTED. THIS CRL.A., COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL JUDGMENT Accused Nos.1 and 3 in S.C.No.132/2011 on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge at Davanagere, are impugning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.07.2013, convicting them for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 504, 323, 506 and 306 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and sentencing them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months each for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 504, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentencing them to undergo simple imprisonment for 10 years for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC with fine of Rs.50,000/- each, with default sentences. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19647 CRL.A No. 819 of 2013 2. Brief facts of the case as made out by the prosecution is that, about 20 days prior to the incident i.e. on 02.05.2011, PW.11 had parked his motorcycle in front of the house of accused No.1. Taking advantage of the said parking, accused No.1 said to have stolen the petrol from the motorcycle. PW.11 picked up quarrel with accused No.1 regarding stealing of the petrol. Accused No.1 on the assumption that the said information was given by the deceased-Basavaraj to PW.11, he along with accused Nos.2 and 3 had criminally trespassed into the house of the deceased, abused him in filthy language and provoked him to break public peace. The accused have assaulted the deceased, voluntarily caused hurt and abetted commission of suicide. They have also criminally intimidated him of taking away his life and liberty, and as a result of which, he consumed pesticides and committed suicide on the very same day. Therefore, it is stated that accused Nos.1 to 3 have committed the above said offences. 3. PW.1 is the mother of the deceased, who filed the first information as per Ex.P1. The inquest was conducted as per Ex.P4. The Post Mortem examination was held and the report is - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19647 CRL.A No. 819 of 2013 as per Ex.P6. The spot mahazar as per Ex.P2 was drawn, the statements of the witnesses were recorded and the charge sheet came to be filed for the above said offences. The Trial Court took cognizance of the offences and summoned the accused. During pendency of the trial, accused No.2 had died and the criminal case against him was dismissed as abated. 4. The prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 13 and got marked Exs.P1 to P13 in support of its contention. Accused Nos.1 and 3 have denied all the incriminating materials available on record, but they have not chosen to lead any evidence in support of their defence. The Trial Court, after taking into consideration all these materials on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused for the above said offences and accordingly passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Being aggrieved by the same, accused Nos.1 and 3 have preferred this appeal. 5. In spite of giving sufficient opportunity, learned counsel for the appellants has not addressed his arguments. The order sheet dated 17.04.2025 discloses that the matter - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19647 CRL.A No. 819 of 2013 was adjourned to this day, finally as a last chance. In spite of that, there is no representation and hence his argument is taken as nil. 6. Heard Smt.Rashmi Jadhav, learned Additional SPP for respondent No.1-State. Perused the materials on record including the Trial Court records. 7. In light of the contention raised by the learned Additional SPP, and on going through the materials on record and in light of the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal, the point that would arise for consideration is as under: "Whether the appellants have made out any grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court?" My answer to the above point is in the 'negative' for the following: REASONS 8. It is the specific contention of the prosecution that about 20 days prior to 02.05.2011, PW.11 had parked his motorcycle in front of the house of accused No.1. It is alleged - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19647 CRL.A No. 819 of 2013 that accused No.1 had stolen the petrol from the motorcycle belonging to PW.11. In that regard, PW.11 had picked up quarrel with accused No.1 on the assumption that it was the deceased who informed PW.11 regarding stealing of petrol, trespassed into his house, abused him in filthy language, criminally intimidated him, assaulted and caused hurt and abetted commission of suicide. Due to which, the deceased consumed pesticides on 02.05.2011, as a result of which he died. Therefore, it is the contention of the prosecution that accused have committed the offences punishable under Sections 448, 504, 323, 506 and 306 read with Section 34 of IPC. 9. In order to prove its contention, the prosecution has examined PW.1-the mother of the deceased, the first informant who lodged the first information as per Ex.P1 and she has deposed about the incident and also the overt acts committed by the accused in detail. On the basis of EX.P1, FIR came to be registered by PW.12 as per Ex.P10 and spot mahazar was drawn. PW.2 is the witness to the inquest mahazar as per Ex.P4. PW.3 is the uncle of the deceased, who has deposed - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19647 CRL.A No. 819 of 2013 before the Court regarding the incident as heard by him, rather he is a hearsay witness. PW.4 is the witness to the spot mahazar as per Ex.P2. PW.5 is also a hearsay witness. 10. PW.6 is the sister of the deceased. It is stated that she is the eyewitness to the incident along with PW.1. PW.7 is the eyewitness to the incident and he has fully supported the case of the prosecution. PW.8 is the doctor who conducted post mortem examination and issued the Post Mortem report as per Ex.P6, which also supports the contention of the prosecution. PW.9 is the Panchayath Development Officer who issued Ex.P8 confirming that the house where the incident had occurred stands in the name of PW.1. PW.10 is the hearsay witness and PW.11 is the person who had parked his motorcycle in front of the house of accused No.1 and later he had picked up quarrel with accused No.1. But this witness has not supported the case of the prosecution. During cross-examination, this witness has stated that the accused belongs to his own caste. That may be the reason for the witness for not supporting the case of the prosecution. PW.12 is the Head Constable who registered the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19647 CRL.A No. 819 of 2013 FIR as per Ex.P10. PW.13 is the Investigating Officer who filed the charge sheet after investigation. 11. PW.1 being the mother, PW.6 being the sister of the deceased and PW.7 being the independent witnesses are the material witnesses who have spoken regarding the incident in detail. Even though these witnesses were subjected to cross- examination by the learned counsel for the accused before the Trial Court, nothing has been elicited from them to disbelieve their version. PWs.1 and 6 being the mother and sister of the deceased are the natural eyewitnesses to the incident and there is no reason to disbelieve their version. PW.7 is the independent witness who has spoken about the overt acts committed by accused Nos.1 and 3. There are no grounds to disbelieve his version. Taking into consideration the evidence of PWs.1, 6 and 7 in the light of the inquest spot mahazar, P.M report and also the Tax Register extract-Ex.P8, I am of the opinion that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the above said offences. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19647 CRL.A No. 819 of 2013 12. I have gone through the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court. It has taken into consideration the materials on record in proper perspective and passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the negative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed. Registry to send back the original records along with copy of this judgment to the Trial Court, to secure the presence of the accused and to issue conviction warrant, if not issued earlier. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE MKM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31