- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7435 CRL.A No. 886 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL APPEAL No.886 OF 2011 (C) BETWEEN: 1. SEENA @ SRINIVAS S/O MUNIKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, IN FRONT OF K.C.GENERAL HOSPITAL, MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU. 2. MOHAN KUMAR @ SUMAN S/O MOHAN AGED 25 YEARS, KATTIGENAHALLI, YELAHANKA BANGALORE 3. VISHNU KUMAR @ VISHNU S/O RAJA AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, SARJAPPA COLONY, MATTIKERE BANGALORE …APPELLANTS (BY SRI R.V.RAJASHEKARA, ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT NO.1; SMT.VIJETHA R. NAIK, ADVOCATE AS AMICUS CURIAE FOR APPELLANT NO.2 VIDE ORDER DATED 01.02.2025; VIDE ORDER DATED 28.01.2025 APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED AS ABATED) Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7435 CRL.A No. 886 of 2011 AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KOTHANUR POLICE STATION …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 14.70.2011 PASSED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-XII, BENGALURU IN S.C.No.793/2009 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 394 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 R.V.Rajashekara, learned counsel for appellant No.1 and Smt. Vijetha R Naik, learned amicus curiae for appellant No.2. Appeal stood abated as against appellant No.3 recording his death during pendency of the appeal. 2. Appellant No.2, at present, is in Central Prison, Palavamkottai Prison, Tamil Nadu, in some other case. 3. Appellant No.2 has undergone the custody period and after payment of fine amount imposed in the impugned judgment he has been released from the Central Prison, Bengaluru, in respect of the present case. Therefore, his - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7435 CRL.A No. 886 of 2011 appeal is now only with regard to the academic interest, as submitted by Smt. Vijetha R Naik, who is appointed as amicus curiae to represent appellant No.2. 4. For verification of the said aspect of the matter, appellant No.2 who is produced through video conferencing from the Central Prison, Palavamkottai Prison, Tamil Nadu, is enquired. He confirms that he has undergone the sentence and he has paid the fine amount. 5. Insofar as appellant No.1 is concerned, Sri R.V.Rajashekara, learned counsel submits that appellant No.1 has also undergone the imprisonment for a period of three years five months as he was not granted bail during the course of trial and by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.25,000/-, the sentence may be modified by setting aside remaining period of jail sentence. 6. Per contra, Sri Channappa Erappa, learned High Court Government Pleader submits that appellant No.1 was brought before the Trial Court under the body warrant. As such, period spent by appellant No.1 in the prison cannot be considered as - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7435 CRL.A No. 886 of 2011 the period spent in judicial custody and therefore, request of appellant No.1 cannot be considered and suitable orders may be passed. 7. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 8. The material evidence placed on record would sufficiently establish the guilt of the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Trial Judge acquitted the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code against which State has not filed any appeal. 9. Taking note of the fact that appellant No.2 has already undergone the imprisonment imposed by the learned Trial Judge in the impugned judgment and has also paid the fine amount, he has been released from the Central Prison, Bengaluru. 10. However, insofar as appellant No.1 is concerned, there is no concrete material that has been placed on record that he has also undergone the sentence of imprisonment of three - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7435 CRL.A No. 886 of 2011 years for the offence punishable under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code, inasmuch as records would go to show that appellant No.1 was produced under body warrant. When actually the appellant No.1 got into jail in the other case and how long he continued to be in custody in the present case is the material, which has to be placed on record by the appellant No.1. 11. Sri R.V.Rajashekara, learned counsel representing appellant No.1 would submit that he is unable to get necessary details in this regard; so also the case number wherein appellant No.1 was earlier arrested and brought under body warrant in the present case in S.C.No.793/2009. He also submits that at this distance of time, he is unable to furnish the necessary details as to actual custody period undergone by the appellant No.1. 12. No doubt there may be some force in the argument put forth on behalf of appellant No.1 that, appellant No.1 might have spent three years and five months in custody as per the say of appellant No.1. But, until and unless the date of bail order is furnished in the other case where he was already in - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:7435 CRL.A No. 886 of 2011 custody and from what date appellant No.1 has been taken into custody in S.C.No.793/2009 being not furnished by appellant No.1, the alternate submission made by Sri R.V.Rajashekar to the effect that the custody period already undergone by the appellant No.1 may be treated as period of imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount to Rs.25,000/- needs to be considered which would meet the ends of justice. 13. Sri R.V.Rajashekar, learned counsel for the appellant No.1 submits that the financial condition of appellant No.1 would not permit him to make payment of the enhanced fine amount of Rs.25,000/- at once and he may be granted two installments. 14. Placing the submission made on behalf of appellant No.1, following Order is passed: ORDER (i) Criminal Appeal is allowed in part. (ii) Insofar as appellant No.1 is concerned, custody period already undergone by him is treated period of imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.25,000/- payable in two - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:7435 CRL.A No. 886 of 2011 installments, one on or before 20th March 2025 and the second on or before 20th April 2025. (iii) After payment of entire fine amount, balance imprisonment period of appellant No.1 stands set-aside. (iv) Insofar as appellant No.2 is concerned, since he has already undergone the imprisonment ordered by the learned Trial Judge and he has also paid the fine amount, he has been released from Central Prison, Bengaluru. Accordingly, he is set at free, if not required in any other case. (v) Services rendered by Smt.Vijetha R. Naik, learned amicus curiae is placed on record with appreciation. (vi) Office to return the Trial Court Records forthwith. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37