- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8175 CRL.A No. 15 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL APPEAL No.15 OF 2013 (C) BETWEEN: 1. NAYYU @ NAYEEM S/O LATE BASHEER AHMED AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS 15TH CROSS, P H COLONY TUMKUR 2. JABI @ JABEEULLA S/O MOHAMMED IBRAHIM AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS 3RD CROSS, VEERASAGARA TUMKUR. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI AHAMED.S.N, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE BY TILAK PARK POLICE, TUMKUR. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 05.12.2012 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU IN S.C.NO.34/2012 CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 307 READWITH 34 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE. Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8175 CRL.A No. 15 of 2013 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri Ahamed S.N. learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Channappa Erappa, learned High Court Government Pleader. 2. Complainant is present. He has been identified by learned High Court Government Pleader on the basis of the Aadhar Card. Though the name mentioned in the Aadhar Card varies from the name that has been mentioned in the Court records, but all other particulars are tallying. 3. Appeal is by the accused persons who have been convicted in Sessions Case No.34/2012 dated 05.12.2012 on the file of the Prl. Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, whereby, they have been sentenced as under: “Acting under Section 235(2) Criminal Procedure Code, accused No.1)Nayyu @ Nayeem, S/o late Basheer Ahmed, 20 years, Coolie, r/o 15th Cross, P.H.Colony, Tumkur, A3) Jabi alias Jabeeulla, S/o Mohammed Ibrahim, 22 years, r/o 3rd Cross, Veerasagra, Tumkur, are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, and in case of - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8175 CRL.A No. 15 of 2013 default to pay fine amount, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of five months each for the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. Out of fine amount deposited by the accused 1 and 3, if any, a sum of Rs.8,000/- be paid to P.W.1 Fazeel (the injured) as compensation u/S 357 Cr.P.C. Since the case against accused No.2 Ashraf is split up, M.O.1 be preserved for the purpose of trial against split up accused. The period undergone by the accused 1 and 3 in judicial custody, if any, be given set off in the sentence.” 4. Brief facts of the case which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under: Upon complaint lodged with Thilak Park Police, Tumakuru, police registered a criminal case and investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet against the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Gist of the prosecution case as per the charge sheet material would go to show that on 16.05.2011, Dinesh Patil who is Inspector of Thilak Park Police Station received an - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8175 CRL.A No. 15 of 2013 information that a person by name Fazeel @ Papu is taking treatment in Tumakuru District Hospital with the history of assault. 6. Accordingly, he proceeded to the hospital and with the consent of the Medical Officer enquired said Fazeel @ Papu. Based on the oral statement given by the victim, he reduced the same into writing and based on the said complaint, he registered a criminal case in Cr. No.69/2011. 7. As per the oral statement given by the complainant, it is revealed that complainant had a friend by name Irfan and they were sitting in the premises of Siddartha High School, within the limits of Thilak Park Police Station. At that juncture, Nayyu, Ashraf and Jabi approached them and demanded the said Irfan about repayment of loan of Rs.5,000/-. 8. When Irfan refused to pay the amount, there was exchange of words in the beginning, ultimately resulting in Nayyu holding the complainant for having interfered with the quarrel and assaulted on his neck with a razor and caused - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8175 CRL.A No. 15 of 2013 bleeding injury. Ashraf and Jabi co-operated for the said act of Nayyu. 9. In order to escape away from the clutches of the accused persons, complainant ran away near the bride of Ring Road. Irfan and Mushraf shifted the injured to the hospital. 10. After thorough investigation of the above complaint, charge sheet came to be filed. Appellants were produced before the Sessions Court and Ashraf was not available to the Investigation Agency and therefore, split up charge sheet came to be filed against Ashraf. After due trial, appellants have been convicted and sentenced as referred to supra. 11. Sri Ahamed, learned counsel representing the appellants reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum, at the outset submitted that the incident has occurred at the spur of the moment and custody period already undergone by the accused No.1 for the period of more than one year and custody period undergone by accused No.3 for about eight months may be treated as period of imprisonment for the proved offence by enhancing the fine amount reasonably. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8175 CRL.A No. 15 of 2013 12. He would also submit that the dispute is now settled amicably between the complainant and accused persons inasmuch as they are known to each other and complainant is saved from any serious health hazards. 13. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the submission made on behalf of the appellants by contending that the weapon that has been used in the incident is that of a razor and the body part chosen for assault is neck of the complainant. 14. Therefore, Court has to infer the existence of necessary mens rea resulting in conviction for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence ordered by the learned Trial Judge is thus just and proper and sought for dismissal of the appeal. 15. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record, meticulously. 16. On such perusal of the material on record, the only point that would arise for consideration by this Court is: “Whether the sentence needs modification?” - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:8175 CRL.A No. 15 of 2013 17. In the case on hand, there are overwhelming material on record to maintain the conviction of the appellants for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. However, taking note of the incident having occurred on 16.05.2011 and thereafter, there are no complaints against the appellants herein, this Court is of the considered opinion that the submission made on behalf of the appellants has sufficient force. 18. Moreover, complainant who is present before the Court submits that he is prepared to pardon the appellants for the act that has been committed by them at the spur of the moment way back in the year 2011 and he is not having any threat from the appellants for his life in future. 19. Therefore, taking note of the above factual aspects of the matter, if the custody period already undergone by the appellants is treated as period of imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.25,000/- payable by each of the appellants (Rs.50,000/- in all), ends of justice would be met in the attendant facts and circumstances of the case. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:8175 CRL.A No. 15 of 2013 20. Accordingly, the point raised for consideration is answered partly in the affirmative, and following Order is passed. ORDER (i) Criminal Appeal is allowed in part. (ii) While maintaining the conviction of the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian penal Code, the custody period already undergone by appellant Nos.1 and 2 who are accused Nos.1 and 3 is treated as period of imprisonment by directing each of the appellants to pay the enhanced fine amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rs.50,000/- in all). (iii) Time is granted till 25th March 2025 to deposit the enhanced fine amount failing which, appellants shall undergo remaining part of the sentence as ordered in the impugned judgment. (iv) Office is directed to return the Trial Court Records with copy of this judgment for issuing modified conviction warrant. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34