- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8577 CRL.A No. 850 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 850 OF 2013 BETWEEN: VENKATESH, S/O NARASE GOWDA @ KOORAIAH, AGED 32 YEARS, R/A HUNASEMARADA DODDI, HANCHAGULI DAKHLE, KODIHALLI HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGARAM DIST. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. PRAKASH M.H, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, REPRESENTED BY KODIHALLI POLICE STATION, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K, HCGP) THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C BY THE ADV. FOR THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 23.07.2013 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. DIST. & S.J./SPL. JUDGE, RAMANAGARA IN SPL.C.NO.57/2008 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 326 OF IPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8577 CRL.A No. 850 of 2013 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri.M.H.Prakash, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.Rahul Rai, learned High Court government pleader for the State/respondent. 2. Appellant who has been convicted for the offences punishable under section 326 of IPC and ordered to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year for the offences punishable under Section 326 of IPC and to pay fine of Rs.500/- is challenging the validity of the impugned judgment. 3. Facts which are at most necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under: 3.1. A complaint came to be lodged with Kodihali police station, Ramanagara District contending that on 27.05.2008 at about 5:00 p.m. in Hunasimaradoddi village of Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagara District, there was an altercation, wherein calf belonging to Shanthamma had come near the house of the appellant and other accused persons and was gracing in the backyard. At that juncture, accused No.1 said to have beaten the said calf and when the same was questioned by - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8577 CRL.A No. 850 of 2013 Shanthamma, there was a quarrel that was picked up and in the quarrel, there were abusive words hurled by the accused persons and also assaulted Shanthamma and she was tried to be rescued by Chinnagiribovi and he was also assaulted and quarrel was pacified and thereafter, complaint came to be lodged. 4. On receipt of the complaint, police registered the case for the aforesaid offences and after detailed investigation, filed the charge sheet. 5. Accused persons including the appellant voluntarily appeared before the learned Trial Judge and they were enlarged on bail. Thereafter, charges came to be framed against the appellant and other accused persons for the aforesaid offences. They pleaded not guilty and therefore, trial was held. 6. After due trial, other accused persons were acquitted of all the charges where as the appellant alone was convicted in the impugned judgment and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and fine of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8577 CRL.A No. 850 of 2013 Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under section 326 of IPC with default sentence. 7. Being aggrieved by the same, appellant is before this Court, in this appeal. 8. Sri.M.H.Prakash, learned counsel for the appellant reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum, vehemently contended that since the appellant is the first time offender, the learned Trial Judge ought not to have convicted the appellant and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and should have imposed fine alone. 9. He would also contend that material evidence placed on record do not warrant the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC and therefore, sought for allowing the appeal. 10. Alternatively, he contended that, in the event, this Court up holding the order of conviction of the appellant, the offence should be scaled down from 326 of IPC to 324 of IPC, taking note of the bleeding injuries caused to the complainant and Chinnagiribovi as per the wound certificated marked at Exs.P.3 and 4 and thus, sought for allowing the appeal to such - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8577 CRL.A No. 850 of 2013 extent and also setting aside the sentence of imprisonment ordered by the learned Trial Judge by enhancing the fine amount reasonably. 11. Sri.Rahul Rai, learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the appeal grounds in toto. 12. He would further contend that material evidence placed on record have been properly appreciated by the learned Trial Judge inasmuch as the charges levelled under the provisions of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, has been held not to be proved and appellant has been acquitted for the said offence which shows that learned Trial Judge has taken into consideration all relevant aspects of the matter while passing the impugned judgment and sought for dismissal of the appeal. 13. Sri.Rahul Rai, would also contend that alternate submission on behalf of the appellant cannot be countenanced in law taking note of the injury caused to Shantamma being grievous in nature as could be seen from Ex.P.3 and thus, sought for dismissal of the appeal in toto. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8577 CRL.A No. 850 of 2013 14. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 15. On such perusal of the material on record, following points would arise for consideration: 1. Whether the material evidence placed on record by the prosecution would be sufficient enough to maintain the conviction of the appellant for the offences punishable under Section under section 326 of IPC? 2. Whether the appellant makes out a case of legal infirmity or perversity in the finding of the guilt recorded by the learned Trial Judge insofar as the aforesaid offences are concerned? 3. Whether the sentence needs modification? 4. What order? REG.POINT Nos.1 AND 2: 16. In the case on hand, appellant and complainant are known to each other and therefore, false implication of the appellant in the case is per se impermissible. 17. Injuries sustained by Shantamma by use of material objects is established by placing necessary oral and - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:8577 CRL.A No. 850 of 2013 documentary evidence on record. The injuries noted in Ex.P.3 substantially corroborates with the oral testimony of Shantamma. Likewise, injuries sustained by Chinnagiribovi, who tried to rescue the Shantamma from the clutches of the appellant has also sustained injuries as mentioned in Ex.P.4. 18. In the absence of any previous enmity or animosity between the appellant and the complainant, why would Shantamma falsely implicate the appellant and other accused persons in the case is a question that remains unanswered. 19. Learned Trial Judge however opined that necessary material evidence was not available for convicting the accused persons and two of the accused persons had the benefit of discharge at the time of framing the charge itself. Therefore, appellant alone has been convicted is based on the material evidence placed on record especially oral testimony of Shantamma and Chinnagiribovi. The recovery of the weapons used in the incident has been established by the prosecution by placing cogent evidence on record. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:8577 CRL.A No. 850 of 2013 20. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, incident stands established by the prosecution by placing cogent and convincing material evidence on record. 21. However, to establish the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC, especially with regard to the grievous hurt, in the wound certificate of Shantamma, there is no specific mention as to which injury is grievous in nature. However, oral testimony of the Doctor who issued Exs.P.3 and 4 would go to show that there was a fracture of nasal bone. 22. In his cross-examination, Doctor clearly admits that the x-ray was not taken in the Government hospital and in fact, x-ray was taken in the private hospital and he has not obtained the original x-ray film nor the radiological report before issuing Ex.P.3 and classifying the injuries mentioned in Ex.P.3 as grievous injuries. 23. Noting the said lacuna on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the material evidence placed on record is hardly sufficient to maintain the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:8577 CRL.A No. 850 of 2013 24. View of this Court in this regard is supported by the principles of law enunciated by Division Bench of this Court in the case of State v. Sheenappa Gowda and Others reported in 2010 SCC ONLINE KAR 5294. 25. Therefore, there is sufficient force in the argument put forth on behalf of the appellant that the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC cannot be sustained and same must be scaled down to offence under Section 324 of IPC in view of the bleeding injuries caused by the overt act attributable to the appellant. Accordingly, point Nos.1 and 2 are answered partly in the affirmative. REG.POINT No.3: 26. Taking note of the fact that, appellant has been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC and he is to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC, if the appellant is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for the day till rising of this Court by directing him to pay sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as the enhanced fine amount so as to award suitable compensation to the injured persons, would meet the ends of justice in the facts and - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:8577 CRL.A No. 850 of 2013 circumstances of the case especially, the incident having occurred at this spur of the moment on 27.05.2008. Accordingly, point No.3 is answered partly in the affirmative. REG.POINT No.4: 27. In view of the foregoing discussions on point Nos.1 to 3 as above, following: ORDER i. Criminal appeal is allowed in part. ii. Accused No.1/appellant is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC instead he has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC. iii. Consequently, the sentence ordered by the learned Trial Judge is modified as under: a. Appellant is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for the day till rising of the Court and to pay enhanced fine amount in a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- on or before - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:8577 CRL.A No. 850 of 2013 30.03.2025 which is to be paid in two instalments, one on or before 20.03.2025 and balance on 20.04.2025 failing which, the appellant shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. b. Out of the fine amount imposed, sum of Rs.50,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to Shantamma – P.W.1 and sum of Rs.25,000/- to be payable for Chinnagiribovi P.W.2 under due identification. c. Balance fine amount shall be appropriated towards the defraying expenses of the State. Office is directed to return the Trial Court Records with copy of this order forthwith for the purpose of issuing modified conviction warrant. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1 CT: BHK