- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20779 CRL.A No. 889 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 889 OF 2013 (C) BETWEEN: 1. ASHOKA S/O NARASIMHA NAYAKA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, 2. RAJAPPA, S/O NARASIMHA NAYAKA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 3. SRINIVAS, S/O NARASIMHA NAYAKA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, 4. BABU, S/O MUNINANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, 5. VENKATESHA, S/O NARASIMHA NAYAKA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, APPELLANTS ARE RESIDENT OF MEDAHATTI VILLAGE, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. A.H. BHAGAVAN, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE BY KARNATAKA BY MALUR POLICE, REPTD. BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. HARISH GANAPATHY, HCGP) Digitally signed by NANDINI B G Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20779 CRL.A No. 889 of 2013 THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 29.08.2013 PASSED BY THE PRL. DIST. & S.J., KOLAR IN S.C.NO.163/2012 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 304 PART II AND 324 OF IPC AND ETC., 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 The appellants being accused Nos.2 to 5 and 7 in SC.No.163 of 2012 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge at Kolar, are impugning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.08.2013, convicting accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC'), and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/-, and convicting accused Nos.3 to 5 and 7 for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC and sentencing them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year each and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each, with default sentences. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20779 CRL.A No. 889 of 2013 2. Brief facts of the case as made out by the prosecution is that, on 25.08.2012 at about 11.00 p.m. accused Nos.1 to 5, 7 to 9 formed into an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons, went to the house of PW.4 with an intention to cause his death. When the deceased opened the door, accused No.2 has assaulted the deceased with the club on his head and caused fatal injuries. Whereas, accused Nos.3 to 5 and 7 have assaulted PWs.2, 3, 6 and 7 with deadly weapons and caused hurt. Thereby, they have committed the above said offences. After investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed. 3. The Trial Court took cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 323, 324, 504, 506, 307, 302 read with Section 149 of IPC and summoned the accused. Thereafter, the accused had appeared before the Trial Court and pleaded not guilty for the charges levelled against them. 4. The prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 16, got marked Exhibits P1 to 21 and identified MOs.1 to 14 in support of its contention. The accused have denied all the incriminating materials available on record, but have not chosen to lead any - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20779 CRL.A No. 889 of 2013 evidence in support of their defence. Exhibits D1 to 5 were marked during cross-examination of PWs.1 and 3. The Trial Court, after taking into consideration the materials on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of IPC. While it has proved the guilt of accused Nos.3 to 5 and 7 for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC and accordingly passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellants-accused Nos.2 to 5 and 7 are before this Court. 5. Heard Sri. A.H.Bhagavan, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri. Harish Ganapathy, learned HCGP for the respondent-State. Perused the materials on record including the Trial Court records. 6. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is as under: "Whether the appellants have made out any grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20779 CRL.A No. 889 of 2013 conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court?" My answer to the above point is 'partly in the affirmative' for the following: REASONS 7. As per the case as made out by the prosecution, the accused were having ill-will against PW.4. They had motive to cause his death and, in that regard, they had conspired together. Accused Nos.1 to 9 armed with deadly weapons went to the house of PW.4, and after hearing the noise, the deceased who was inside the house came and opened the door, accused No.2 assaulted him with a club on his head. In the meantime, PWs.1 to 5 have rushed to the spot. PWs.6 and 7 who were the neighbourers also came to the spot. Accused Nos.3 to 7 have assaulted PWs.2, 3, 6 and 7 and caused hurt. 8. Even though the prosecution has contended that the accused have committed the above said offences, the Trial Court had rejected the claim of the prosecution in that regard. But it has formed an opinion that it was accused No.2 who committed the offences punishable under Section 304 Part II, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20779 CRL.A No. 889 of 2013 and accused Nos.3 to 5 and 7 who committed the offences punishable under Section 324 of IPC. Admittedly, the prosecution has not challenged the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 9. The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that there was no motive or intention to cause death of the deceased by accused No.2, and when there is no such intention, why the Trial Court has convicted accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II instead of Section 302 of IPC. 10. The second contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that there were no eyewitnesses to the incident to depose with precision that it was accused No.2 who assaulted the deceased. According to him, all the witnesses have deposed that they came to the spot on hearing the scream by the deceased. By that time, he had already collapsed and the act of assaulting the deceased was complete. But on going through the deposition of the eyewitnesses, including the injured eyewitnesses, they have stated that the incident had occurred just in front of the house of PW.4. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20779 CRL.A No. 889 of 2013 Immediately after opening the door of the house by the deceased, it was accused No.2 who assaulted with a club on his head. Post Mortem report supports the contention of the prosecution and as per the same, the deceased has sustained the following injuries: (i) Ecchymosis with swelling of right eye with subconjuctures haemorrhage noted in the lateral aspect; (ii) sutured wound on right temeroparietal region; (iii) abrasion on posterior aspect of right elbow; and (iv) abrasion on lateral aspect of right leg. 11. It is pertinent to note that the death of the deceased was due to cardiovascular respiratory failure as a result of massive haemorrhage due to head injury sustained. Therefore, it is clear that the deceased died due to failure of massive haemorrhage due to head injury sustained which is attributable to accused No.2. Even though these eyewitnesses including the injured eyewitnesses were cross-examined at length, the version of these witnesses remained unshaken. The evidence of the injured eyewitnesses is placed at a higher pedestal and there are no reasons to disbelieve their version. The Trial Court has also accepted their version regarding causing of homicidal - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20779 CRL.A No. 889 of 2013 death not amounting to murder of the deceased for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of IPC. Hence, I do not find any reason to differ with such finding. 12. It is the contention of the prosecution that accused No.3 to 5 and 7 have assaulted PWs.2, 3, 6 and 7 with chopper, club and knife. The wound certificates pertaining to these witnesses are produced by the prosecution as per Exhibits P5, 6, 14 and 15. Ex.P15 is pertaining to PW.3, according to which he had sustained three simple injuries, Ex.P14 is pertaining to PW.2, according to which, he had sustained one simple injury. Ex.P5 is pertaining to PW.6, as per this document, he had sustained one simple injury. Ex.P6 is pertaining to PW.7, as per this document, he had sustained one grievous injury and one simple injury. The grievous injury referred to in Ex.P6 is lacerated wound with swelling below right eye measuring 3 x 1.5 cm. which was fresh in nature. The Trial Court, considering these description of the wound certificates, came to the conclusion that the injuries sustained by the injured are simple injuries and not grievous injuries as defined under the code. Looking to the evidence of the injured, and the doctor and in - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20779 CRL.A No. 889 of 2013 the light of Ex.P6, I am of the opinion that the reasons assigned by the Trial Court are fair and reasonable and the same is to be accepted. 13. From the materials on record it is clear that accused No.2 assaulted the deceased with club and caused injuries, which resulted in his death. Even though he had no intention to cause the death of the deceased, he had the knowledge of the consequences of his acts. Therefore, Section 304 Part II of IPC squarely applies to the offence committed by accused No.2. 14. Accused Nos.3 to 5 and 7 have assaulted PWs.2, 3, 6 and 7 who sustained simple injuries, therefore it could be concluded that they have committed the offences punishable under Sections 324 of IPC. I do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court. 15. Learned counsel for the appellants prays for showing leniency in favour of the appellants, contending that there was no motive for the accused to assault either the deceased or PWs.2, 3, 6 and 7. The incident must have occurred in a heat of - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20779 CRL.A No. 889 of 2013 passion. It is also contended that the incident is of the year 2012, and 13 years have already lapsed from the date of occurrence. Learned counsel for the appellants further contended that accused No.2 is in judicial custody for a period of little more than one year, while accused No.3 to 5 and 7 were in custody for a period of 18 days. Therefore, he prays for set-off to the imprisonment they have already undergone. 16. However, learned HCGP seriously opposes his submission and contends that the deceased lost his life, and has left behind PW3-his son and PW2-his wife, and they were not being compensated for the acts of accused No.2. Moreover, the other injured eyewitnesses have also sustained injuries. Therefore, they are not entitled for any leniency. 17. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case that the accused never had intention to cause the death of the deceased, but they had gone to the house of PW.4 for the purpose of causing his death. However, he escaped, while the deceased sustained fatal injuries. The appellants are rustic villagers. Detaining them in custody to serve the remaining - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20779 CRL.A No. 889 of 2013 sentence will not inure to the benefit of the family of the deceased. 18. As per Section 304 Part II of IPC, the punishment for this offence is imprisonment for up to ten years, or with fine, or with both. Instead of imposing substantive sentence on accused No.2, for the offence under Section 304 Part II of IPC, I am of the opinion that reasonable imprisonment of one year may be imposed while enhancing the fine amount to Rs.2,50,000/-, which, could be paid to PWs.3 or 5 as compensation. 19. Accused Nos.3 to 5 and 7 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of ₹ 10,000 each with default sentence. It is stated that they were in custody for more than 18 days. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the injured i.e., only simple injuries, I am of the opinion that while confirming the conviction for the offence punishable under Section 324, they may be sentenced to under go imprisonment of 15 days with the fine of Rs.10,000/- each, with default sentences. 20. In view of the above, I proceed to pass the following: - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20779 CRL.A No. 889 of 2013 ORDER i. The appeal is allowed in part; ii. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.08.2013 passed in Sessions Case No.163/2012 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge at Kolar, is hereby confirmed; iii. The order of sentence passed by the Trial Court is modified as under: Accused No.2 is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year with fine of Rs.2,50,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months; Accused Nos.3 to 5 and 7 are sentenced to undergo SI for a period of 15 days and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo SI for a period of 15 days each; On deposit of fine amount by the accused, a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- is ordered to be paid to PW.5- the wife of the deceased, and in case she is not alive to PW.3-the son of the deceased as compensation as provided under Section 357 of Cr.PC, on due identification; - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20779 CRL.A No. 889 of 2013 The accused shall deposit the fine amount, within four weeks from today; The Registry to send back the original records along with copy of this judgment to the Trial Court, for information and necessary action. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE MKM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25