- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6666 CRL.A No. 947 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.947 OF 2013 (C) BETWEEN: 1. RAGHAVENDRASWAMY S/O RAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURIST R/O HULITHOTTILU VILLAGE HIRIYUR TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT – 572 143 2. KUMARASWAMY S/O RAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURIST R/O HULITHOTTILU VILLAGE HIRIYUR TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT -572 143 3. RAJAPPA S/O RANGANAIK AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURIST R/O HULITHOTTILU VILLAGE HIRIYUR TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT 572 143 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI P.B.UMESH FOR SRI RAVINDRA B DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AIMANGALA POLICE STATION Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6666 CRL.A No. 947 of 2013 (CPI HIRIYUR CIRCLE) 577558 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374 (2) CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 13.09.2013 PASSED BY THE ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA IN S.C.NO.10/2011 CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 323, 504 & 304 Part-II 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 Umesh, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Channappa Erappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent. 2. Accused No.1 to 3 who were convicted and sentenced as under in S.C.No.10/2011, dated 13.09.2013, on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, are the appellants. “1. The accused-1) Raghavendraswamy S/o. Rajappa, Aged about 23 years, 2) Kumaraswamy S/o Rajappa, Aged about 32 years, and 3) Rajappa S/o Ranganaik, Aged about 60 years all are agriculturist R/o. Hulithottilu village, Hiriyur Taluk shall undergo simple imprisonment for period of one year, and also - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6666 CRL.A No. 947 of 2013 pay fine amount of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence punishable Under Section 323 of IPC. 2. Further the accused 1 to 3 shall undergo simple imprisonment for period of two years, and shall also pay fine amount of Rs.2,000/- each for the offence punishable U/Sec.504 of IPC. 3. Further the accused-1 alone shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for period of seven years, and shall also pay fine amount of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable U/Sec.304 part-II of IPC. 4. In default to pay the fine amount the accused stated above shall undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of one year. 5. All he substantive sentences hall run concurrently. 6. The bail bonds and surety bonds of accused-1 to 3 are hereby cancelled. 7. M.Os.1 to 13 are ordered to be destroyed after the appeal time is over, as they are worthless. 8. Further the accused are directed to give compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh only) to the wife and son of the deceased-Nagendrappa resident of Hulithuttilu village, Hiriyur Taluk as per Sec.357 of Cr.P.C. 9. The Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga is directed to take all recourse to execute the order of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- as ordered above to the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6666 CRL.A No. 947 of 2013 wife and son of the deceased Nagendrappa R/o Hulithuttilu Village. Hiriyur Taluk from the accused as if arrears of land revenue by the accused by making use of property of the accused-3. The Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga is directed to get create charge over the land of the accused-3 who is father of the accused-1 & 2 until the payment of compensation made to the wife and son of deceased by making use of the land of the accused-3. 10. The Chief administrative Officer of this Court is directed to send certified copy of the judgment of conviction and order on sentence to the District Magistrate/Deputy Commissioner in compliance with Sec.365 of code of Criminal procedure by highlighting order passed by this court while ordering sentence above. 11. The Deputy Commissioner is directed to submit report to this court regarding the action taken as above stated within a period of 6 months from today.” 3. Facts in nutshell for disposal of the present appeal are as under: On account of ill-will nurtured between complainant - Murkannappa and accused persons in respect of a vacant space, situated in between two houses at Hulithotlu village, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6666 CRL.A No. 947 of 2013 Hiriyur Taluk, Chitradurga District, on 09.05.2010 at about 7.00 p.m., when said Murkannappa was digging foundation in front of his house, to construct a bathroom, all the accused persons came there and picked up quarrel with Murkannappa and abused him in filthy language and assaulted him. 4. Smt. Rangamma being the wife of Murkannappa and daughters of Murkannappa namely, Siddeshwari and Shilpa tried to rescue Murkannappa and tried to pacify the quarrel. At that juncture, accused persons assaulted them also. They raised alarm. On hearing the hue and cry, relatives of Murkannappa namely, Nagendrappa arrived on the scene to rescue Murkannappa from the clutches of appellants. At that juncture, first accused Raghavendraswamy pulled Nagendrappa and again purshed him. As such, said Nagendrappa fell on the road, where a heap of stones were stored and sustained injuries on the occipital region of his head. Because of the impact of injury, he died next day i.e., on 10.05.2010 at Chitradurga Government Hospital. Murkannappa reported the incident to Aimangala Police. 5. Aimangala Police thereafter registered the case in Cr.No.73/2010 and investigated the matter thoroughly and filed - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6666 CRL.A No. 947 of 2013 the charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 323, 324 r/w Section 34 IPC, inter alia arrested the accused No.1. 6. Learned Trial Magistrate took cognizance of the offences alleged against the accused persons and noting the fact that the offence under Section 304-A IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, committed the matter to the learned Sessions Court. 7. Learned Principal District Judge made over the case to learned Additional District Judge, who in turn took cognizance of the offences alleged in the charge sheet, secured the presence of the accused persons and after compliance of necessary formalities, framed the charges for the aforesaid offences. 8. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty, therefore trial was held. 9. In order to prove the case of the prosecution as many as fourteen witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 to 14, comprising of complainant Murkannappa, pancha witnesses, one of the daughters of Murkannapa namely, Siddeshwari. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:6666 CRL.A No. 947 of 2013 Doctor who issued the wound certificate and Post Mortem report and the Investigating Agency. 10. Prosecution has also placed on record fifteen documentary evidence which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P.1 to 15, comprising of complaint, spot mahazar, inquest mahazar, rough sketch of the place of incident, letter from District Hospital, wound certificate of P.Ws.1 and 6, DCB register, First Information Report and seizure mahazar. 11. On behalf of the defence, a contradiction elicited in the deposition of P.W.1 which was marked as Ex.D.1. Prosecution placed on record, one stone, shirt and nikker as M.Os.1 to 3. 12. On conclusion of recording of evidence, learned Trial Judge heard the parties in detail and on cumulative consideration of oral and documentary evidence placed on record, convicted the accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 304-II IPC and all the accused persons were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 504 IPC. 13. Being aggrieved by the same, appellants are before this Court. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:6666 CRL.A No. 947 of 2013 14. Sri Umesh P.B., learned counsel for the appellants reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum, vehemently contended that the entire incident as is sought to be portrayed by the prosecution has not at all occurred and Nagendrappa under the influence of liquour, fell down on the heap of stones and lost his life and taking advantage of the same, complainant in order to have an upper hand with the pending of Civil litigation, foisted a false case against the appellants which was ignored by the learned Trial Judge and sought for allowing the appeal. 15. He would further contend that even according to the prosecution, mere pushing or pulling by the accused as is contended in the complaint itself would not be sufficient enough to constitute the offence under Section 304-II of IPC. Therefore, conviction of the appellant No.1 for the offence under Section 304-II needs to be set aside and at the most, offence under Section 323 and 504 IPC need to be upheld and sought for allowing the appeal to that extent. 16. Alternatively learned counsel for the appellant would contend that in the event this Court upholding the order of conviction of accused No.1 for the offence punishable under - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:6666 CRL.A No. 947 of 2013 Section 304-II IPC, apart from Sections 323 and 504 IPC and considering the advanced aged of accused No.3, conviction of appellant Nos.2 and 3 for the offence punishable under Sections 323 and 504 IPC, taking note of the fact that the incident had occurred way back in the year 2010, custody period already undergone by accused No.1 may be treated as period of imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount reasonably. 17. He would also contend that imprisonment ordered by the learned Trial Judge for the offence punishable under Section 323 and 504 IPC in respect of appellant Nos.2 and 3 needs to be set aside as they are first time offenders and thus, sought for allowing the appeal. 18. Per contra, Sri Channappa Erappa, learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the appeal grounds in toto and supports the impugned judgment. 19. He would further contend that material on record is sufficient enough to maintain the conviction of the appellants as is recorded by the learned Trial Judge in the impugned judgment. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:6666 CRL.A No. 947 of 2013 20. He further contended that altercation actually started when complainant Murkannappa wanted to put up foundation for the purpose of erecting the toilet in the vacant space that was available in between the houses of the accused persons and Murkannappa. At that juncture, all the accused persons came to the spot and picked up quarrel and in the quarrel, when wife of Murkannappa namely, Smt. Rangamma and daughters of Murkannappa namely, Siddeshwari and Shilpa were also injured and they raised alarm for help. It is at that juncture, Nagendrappa who is the cousin brother of Murkannappa, tried to intervene and pacify the quarrel. At that juncture, accused No.1 who pushed him and he fell on the heap stones, stored on the road and sustained injuries in the head and lost his life on the next day at Chitradurga Government Hospital. Therefore, all the necessary ingredients to maintain the conviction for the appellants as is recorded in the impugned judgment has been made out and thus sought for dismissal of the appeal in toto. 21. Insofar as alternate submission is concerned, learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that if the people like appellants are shown any leniency, the same - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:6666 CRL.A No. 947 of 2013 would send a wrong message to the society and which would encourage the crime and thus sought for dismissal of the appeal in toto. 22. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. On such perusal of the material on record, following points would arise for consideration: (i) Whether the material evidence available on record would be sufficient enough to maintain the conviction of the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 323, 504 and 304-II IPC? (ii) Whether the appellants make out a case that the impugned judgment of convicting appellants is suffering from legal infirmity, perversity and thus calls for interference? (iii) Whether the sentence needs modification? (iv) What Order? Regarding point Nos.1 and 2: 23. In the case on hand, acquaintance of accused persons to the complainant P.W.1 Murkannappa is not in dispute as they are relatives. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:6666 CRL.A No. 947 of 2013 24. Admittedly, on the fateful day i.e. on 09.05.2010, in the evening hours, when Murkannappa wanted to put up a foundation for erecting a toilet, in the vacant space that was available in between the two houses, all the accused persons gathered there and abused the complainant in filthy language and tried to assault Murkannappa. 25. When wife of Murkannappa Smt. Rangamma and his two daughters namely, Siddeshwari and Shilpa tried to intervene and pacify the quarrel, accused persons also assaulted them with hands and pushed them. They all raised alarm seeking help. It is at that juncture, Sri Nagendrappa who is the cousin brother of Murkannappa arrived at the place of incident and tried to pacify the quarrel. 26. In the process, accused No.1 held his hands, pulled him; whereby Nagendrappa fell down on the heap of stones which stored on the road. Because of the impact of such falling down, he sustained head injuries. Immediately he was shifted to Hiriyur Government hospital for primary treatment and thereafter to the District Hospital, Chitradurga. Despite the best treatment, on 10.05.2010, Nagendrappa lost his life. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:6666 CRL.A No. 947 of 2013 27. Incident was reported to the Aimangala police station, who secured pancha witnesses and conducted the inquest mahazar, after registering the case. They have also further conducted spot mahazar and recorded the statements of witnesses and there after filed the charge sheet. 28. During the course of investigation, first accused was apprehended by the investigating officer and other two accused persons had benefit of anticipatory bail. 29. Thereafter, learned Trial Judge took cognizance of the offences alleged against the accused persons and then committed the matter to the District Court. 30. Learned Sessions Judge thereafter secured the presence of the appellants and framed the charges for the aforesaid offences. 31. P.W.1 Murkannappa, his daughter Siddeshwari who are the injured witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution by narrating the incident with graphic details. They withstood in the detailed cross-examination on behalf of the accused. 32. Admittedly, accused persons were acquainted with the complainant as they are relatives. It is also found from the - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:6666 CRL.A No. 947 of 2013 records that there exists a vacant space between the house of the complainant and the house of the accused at Hulithotlu villge of Hiriyur Tauk. 33. On 09.05.2010 when Murkannappa tried to make use of that vacant space for the purpose of erecting the toilet. Accused persons being the neighbours picked up quarrel with Murkannappa. Accused persons abused Murkannappa in filthy language at the initial stage and later on there was a physical assault on Murkannappa. They have also assaulted daughters and wife of Murkannappa, who came to rescue Murkannappa. 34. At that juncture, Nagendrappa being the Cousin brother of Murkannappa tried to pacify the quarrel. In that process, Nagendrappa was pulled by accused No.1 and because of such pulling, he fell on the heap of stones stored on the road and sustained blood injuries in the head. He was shifted to hospital and despite best treatment, he died. 35. Therefore, all the ingredients to attract the offence under Section 323, 504 and 304-II IPC is made out by the prosecution by placing cogent and convincing evidence on record. - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:6666 CRL.A No. 947 of 2013 36. Alternate theory put up by the defence for the death of Nagendrappa having not been established by placing at least plausible evidence on record. Learned Trial Judge believing the prosecution case, based on sound and logical reasons convicted the accused persons and requires no interference in the said impugned judgment. 37. Further, learned counsel for the appellants is unable to point out any legal infirmity or perversity in recording the finding of guilt insofar as the accused persons are concerned in the impugned judgment. 38. It is also to be noticed that learned Trial Judge has dissected the material evidence in a proper manner and convicted accused No.1 alone for the offence punishable under Section 304-II IPC and convicted the remaining accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 504 IPC sufficiently establishes that there was total application of judicial mind, while recording the order of conviction which requires no interference by this Court in this appeal. 39. In view of the foregoing discussion, point No.1 is answered in the affirmative, point No.2 in the negative. - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:6666 CRL.A No. 947 of 2013 Regarding point No.3: 40. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the incident has occurred on 09.05.2010 and much water flown under the bridge and taking note of the fact that appellants are close relatives of the deceased and accused No.3 who also in advanced age, and the custody period already undergone by the accused No.1 may be treated as period of imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 304-II IPC and for the remaining offences, by enhancing the fine amount reasonably, the jail sentence ordered by the learned Trial Judge for the appellants insofar as aforesaid offences are concerned needs to be set aside. 41. Taking note of advanced age of accused No.3, who is the father of accused No.1 and 2, taking note of the appellants are relatives of the complainant, this Court is of the considered opinion that to put an end to the ill will and the disharmony, jail sentence needs to be set aside by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for all the offences, for and on behalf of all the accused and if entire sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs.1,00,000/- compensation ordered by the learned Trial Judge + Rs.1,00,000/- ordered by this Court) is - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:6666 CRL.A No. 947 of 2013 ordered to be paid as compensation to Smt. Puttalingamma, wife of Nagendrappa (deceased), ends of justice would be met. Accordingly, point No.3 is answered partly in the affirmative. Regarding point No.4: 42. In view of finding of this Court on point Nos.1 to 3, following order is passed: ORDER (i) Criminal appeal is allowed in part. (ii) While maintaining the conviction of the accused No.1 for offence punishable under Section 304-II, 323 and 504 IPC and under Section 323 and 504 IPC for accused Nos.2 and 3, the jail sentence ordered by the learned Trial Judge is hereby set aside by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.1,00,000/- Compensation ordered by the learned Trial Judge + Rs.1,00,000/- ordered by this Court = - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:6666 CRL.A No. 947 of 2013 Rs.2,00,000/-) to be payable by the appellants on or before 15.03.2025, failure to make the payment of enhanced fine amount as ordered above, appellants are directed to undergo imprisonment as ordered by the learned Trial Judge. (iii) After receipt of the enhanced fine amount including the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- compensation (ordered by learned Trial Judge), entire sum of Rs.2,00,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to Smt. Puttalingamma, W/o Nagendrappa, under due identification. (iv) Office is directed to return the trial court records with copy of this order. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE MR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33