- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7190 CRL.A No. 782 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 782 OF 2013 BETWEEN: SRI. NANJAPPA S/O. LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT THAGGALI HOSAHALI, JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. NARASIMHARAJU, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE BY HOSKOTE POLICE, REPRESENTED BY LEARNED SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S. 374(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED: 6.7.13 PASSED BY THE PRL.S.J., BANGALORE (R) DIST., BANGALORE IN S.C.NO.23/12 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 304 PART-II OF IPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7190 CRL.A No. 782 of 2013 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri. Narasimharaju, learned counsel for the appellant and learned High Court Government Pleader for the State. 2. The appellant-accused by name Nanjappa who has been convicted in S.C.No.23/2012 vide judgment dated 06.07.2013, and order on sentence dated 08.07.2013, for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of IPC, has questioned the validity of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence in this appeal. The appellant was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- and out of the fine amount recovered, the entire fine amount was ordered to be paid as compensation to the wife of deceased Lokesha. 3. Essential factual matrix required for the disposal of the appeal on merits are as under: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7190 CRL.A No. 782 of 2013 3.1. Lokesha (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') was working as a mason along with accused in Taggali Hosahalli Village, within the limits of Hosakote Police Station. As usual he left the house to go to his workplace on 20.09.2011 at about 8 a.m. He reached the work place around 8.30 a.m., near Kattigenahalli Gate and met the accused and asked him to return the hammer which was taken away by the accused. 3.2. In that regard, there was a quarrel between the accused and Lokesha which was picked up by accused and in the quarrel, accused said to have pushed Lokesha forcibly and he fell down. Thereafter, accused is said to have hit the head of Lokesha to a hard surface about 10 to 12 times. Noticing the said quarrel, brother of Lokesha by name Umesh and two others by name Sadappa and Suresha intervened and rescued Lokesha from the clutches of the accused and sent him home. 3.3. After reaching home, Lokesha developed severe pain the head and there was severe vomiting. Wife of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7190 CRL.A No. 782 of 2013 Lokesha, namely, Mala intimated the same to his brother and thereafter they took Lokesha to Malur Government Hospital. After examining Lokesha, the doctors told that there is head injury and therefore he was referred to NIMHANS Hospital at Bengaluru. On reaching NIMHANS, the doctors told that chances of survival of Lokesha is meagre. 3.4. On 21.09.2011, Umesh and Mala lodged complaint with Hosakote Police Station. After receipt of the complaint, police registered a case for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 307 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the 'SC & ST (POA) Act', for brevity). The matter was investigated and accused was apprehended and thereafter detail investigation was carried out and charge sheet came to be filed. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7190 CRL.A No. 782 of 2013 3.5. In the meantime, Lokesha did not survive and he lost his life on 23.09.2011, and therefore offence under Section 302 of IPC was also invoked. 4. On receipt of charge sheet, learned Trial Judge took cognizance of the offences alleged against the appellant herein and secured the presence and framed charges for the offences under Section 323, 504 and 302 of IPC, as charge under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST (POA) Act came to be dropped noticing the fact that deceased was not belonging to SC/ST Community. 5. The accused pleaded not guilty. Therefore, trial was held. In order to bring home the guilt of the appellant, prosecution proceeded to examine 14 witnesses as PW-1 to PW-14, amongst them, PW-1 Umesh is the complainant and brother of deceased, PW-2 Mala is the wife of deceased. 6. Prosecution also placed on record 9 documents which were marked as Exs.P1 to P9, comprising of complaint, spot mahazar, contradiction marked in the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:7190 CRL.A No. 782 of 2013 statement of PW-3, inquest mahazar, MLC Register extract, post mortem report, caste certificate, FIR and sketch. 7. On behalf of the defense, the statement of PW-2 Mala (wife of deceased) was confronted and contradiction was marked as Ex.D1. 8. On conclusion of recording of prosecution evidence, learned Trial Judge heard the arguments of the parties in detail and on cumulative consideration of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the prosecution in a cumulative manner, convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 304 Part II of IPC and sentenced as referred to supra. 9. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant is before this Court in this appeal. 10. Sri. Narasimharaju, learned counsel representing the appellant, reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum, contended that the prosecution failed to establish that there was a direct - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:7190 CRL.A No. 782 of 2013 nexus between the quarrel that took place around 8.30 a.m., on 20.09.2011 and the death of Lokesha on 23.09.2011. 11. He further contended that PW-1 being the brother of the deceased, said to be an eye-witness of the incident, did not rescue Lokesha, is a strange and unbelievable circumstance, especially when Lokesha was hit to a hard surface about 10 to 12 times by the appellant herein. As such, the theory put forward on behalf of the prosecution, is artificial and therefore sought for allowing the appeal. 12. He would also contend that the very fact that the case has been registered by invoking Section 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST (POA) Act and later on the Investigating Officer dropping the charges noting that the deceased is a 'lingayat', itself shows that a false case has been foisted against the appellant herein, which fact has been totally ignored by the learned Trial Judge while passing the impugned judgment and sought for allowing the appeal. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:7190 CRL.A No. 782 of 2013 13. He would also contend that in the absence of any external injury and time gap between the incident and the actual admission of Lokesha to the hospital, either at Malur or at NIMHANS, shows that Lokesha could have sustained injuries other than in the alleged incident that occurred in the morning and thus sought for allowing the appeal. 14. Alternatively, Sri. Narasimharaju would contend that in the event of this Court upholding the order of conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 304 Part II of IPC, the custody period already undergone by the appellant during the time of investigation, may be treated as period of conviction by enhancing the fine amount reasonably and thus sought for allowing the appeal to that extent. 15. Per contra, learned HCGP supports the impugned judgment by contending that PW-1 being the person who had also accompanied the deceased at the time of incident and two more eye-witnesses namely, - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:7190 CRL.A No. 782 of 2013 Sadappa and Suresha, have pacified the quarrel and they have sent Lokesha to the house, which shows that the incident has occurred at the spur of moment and the accused hitting the head of Lokesha to the hard surface about 10 to 12 times, stands established. 16. He also points out that injuries noted by the autopsy surgeon would fortify the case of the prosecution and therefore conviction of the appellant for the aforesaid offence is just and proper. 17. He further argued that there was no reason for PW-1 to foist a false case against the appellant, as admittedly, appellant and deceased were carrying out the civil work in the same place and if at all Lokesha died on account of the injuries sustained by him other than the incident that has been alleged, there was no necessity for PW-1 to lodge a complaint against the appellant and thus sought for dismissal of the appeal. 18. Insofar as alternate submission on behalf of the appellant is concerned, learned High Court Government - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:7190 CRL.A No. 782 of 2013 Pleader contended that any amount of payment of enhanced fine would not bring back the life of Lokesha and therefore sought for dismissal of the appeal in toto. 19. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. On such perusal, the following points arise for consideration in this appeal: (i) Whether the material evidence placed on record would be sufficient enough to maintain the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of the IPC? (ii) Whether the appellant makes out a case of legal infirmity and perversity in the findings recorded by the learned Trial Judge in convicting the appellant for the aforesaid offence? (iii) Whether the sentence needs modification? (iv) What Order? - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:7190 CRL.A No. 782 of 2013 20. REG. POINT NOS.1 & 2: In the case on hand, the oral testimony of PW-1 who is also an eye-witness to the incident assumes greater significance. PW-1, though being the brother of deceased, he cannot be straight away labeled as an interested witness. Moreover, the testimony of the interested witness cannot be brushed aside in toto. It is a settled principle of law that while appreciating the testimony of the interested witness, Courts should be extra cautious to rule out possible false implication of accused and it is a rule of prudence. 21. In the background of the above principles, when the oral evidence of PW-1 is appreciated, he has narrated before the Court with graphic details as to what happened at 8.30 a.m. on 20.09.2011. Having seen that a trivial issue has got aggravated, the accused made Lokesha to fall on the ground and thereafter hit the head of Lokesha to a hard surface about 10 to 12 times. PW-1, PW-2, CW-2 and CW-3 intervened and they pacified the - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:7190 CRL.A No. 782 of 2013 quarrel and rescued Lokesha from the clutches of the appellant and then Lokesha was sent home. 22. In the cross-examination, there was no dispute about the presence of appellant at the spot. Except suggesting that Lokesha fell down on his own and then lost his life by coming into contact with hard surface, no other alternate theory is either suggested or sought to be proved by at least placing plausible evidence on record on behalf of the accused. 23. Contents of Ex.P1 is corroborated by the oral evidence of PW-10, wherein majority of injuries that are mentioned would be complementary to each other. 24. PW-2 being the wife of the deceased, deposed before that Court that unusually her husband (Lokesha) came back home at about 9 a.m. on 20.09.2011, and on enquiry, he revealed the quarrel between him and the accused. Therefore, the statement that has been given by Lokesha to PW-2 could be treated as an oral dying - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:7190 CRL.A No. 782 of 2013 declaration of Lokesha to PW-2. She has also sustained the searching cross-examination on behalf of the accused. 25. PW-2 being a total stranger to the accused, why would she depose against the accused, that too, when her husband has already revealed about the quarrel that took place between him and the accused, assumes significance while appreciating the case of the prosecution. 26. No doubt, CW-2 and CW-3 were not examined on behalf of the prosecution, though cited as witnesses. Merely on the ground that non-citing of CW-2 and CW-3 who are said to have pacified the quarrel and rescued the deceased from the clutches of the appellant would not ipso facto result in doubting the case of the prosecution. 27. Admittedly, CW-2 and CW-3 are also labourers who might not have been available for leading the evidence on account of fact that they may not have any permanent address. Fact remains that because of the head injury sustained by Lokesha, he had vomiting sensation with severe pain in the head. Therefore, it was - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:7190 CRL.A No. 782 of 2013 intimated to PW-1 by PW-2 and Lokesha was taken to Malur Government Hospital. The doctors who examined Lokesha, having noticed the symptoms that there is a possibility of head injury, immediately referred Lokesha to NIMHANS hospital. The doctors who examined Lokesha at NIMHANS, noted the severity in the head injury, especially the blood leakage in the head and clots, told PW-1 and PW-2 that chances of recovery of life of Lokesha are very less. 28. Immediately, PW-1 rushed to Hosakote Police Station and lodged the complaint with police. The matter was thoroughly investigated and charge sheet came to be filed. 29. On appreciating the above material evidence on record, learned Trial Judge felt that it is not a case of offence under Section 302 of IPC as the incident has occurred at the spur of the moment. Genesis of the crime would reveal that the quarrel has commenced on account of Lokesha demanding return of hammer to him from the - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:7190 CRL.A No. 782 of 2013 custody of the appellant. Therefore, learned Trial Judge noted that the incident is at the spur of the moment and non usage of any deadly weapon in the incident, has convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 304 Part II of the IPC. 30. In the absence of any previous enmity or animosity, this Court is of the considered opinion that even after re-appreciation of all the material evidence on record, hardly there is any scope to acquit the appellant for the offence under Section 304 Part II of the IPC, but to convict him only for the offence under Section 323 of IPC. No other legal infirmity or perversity is pointed out in the impugned judgment by the counsel for the appellant as well. 31. In view of the foregoing discussion, point No.1 and point No.2 are answered in the affirmative and negative, respectively. 32. REG. POINT NO.3: In the case on hand, as is noticed by the learned Trial Judge himself, a trivial - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:7190 CRL.A No. 782 of 2013 incident has got aggravated and in the process, the accused made Lokesha to fall down and thereafter hit his head to an hard surface about 10 to 12 times and may be at a fit of anger the incident occurred and therefore the offence under Section 304 Part II of IPC is invoked. It is pertinent to note, for the offence under Section 304 Part II of IPC, there is no compulsory imprisonment period prescribed under the statute as the accused on conviction can be either imposed imprisonment or fine, or with both. 33. Taking note of the fact that the appellant was in custody for a period of nine months during the investigation and trial, this Court is of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met by treating the period of custody as period of imprisonment for the offence under Section 304 Part II of IPC by enhancing fine amount in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- which can be paid as additional compensation to the wife of deceased (PW-2 Smt. Mala) would serve the ends of justice. Accordingly, point No.3 is answered in the partly in affirmative. - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:7190 CRL.A No. 782 of 2013 34. REG. POINT NO.4: In view of the findings of this Court on point Nos.1 to 3 as above, following: ORDER i) The appeal is allowed in part. ii) While maintaining the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 304 Part II of IPC, sentence ordered by the learned Trial Judge in the impugned judgment is hereby modified by treating the custody period already undergone by the appellant as period of imprisonment for the offence under Section 304 Part II of IPC, by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- payable on or before 20.03.2025. iii) Failure to pay the enhanced fine amount of Rs.1,00,000/- would result in restoration of imprisonment as ordered by the learned Trial Judge in the impugned judgment. iv) On receipt of enhanced fine amount, the entire enhanced fine amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to PW-2 Smt. Mala, the wife of - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:7190 CRL.A No. 782 of 2013 deceased Lokesha, in addition to Rs.50,000/- ordered by the learned Trial Judge. Office is directed to return the Trial Court records with a copy of this judgment, for passing the modified conviction warrant, forthwith. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE RD