- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1360-DB CRL.A No. 200115 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 200115 OF 2017 BETWEEN: 1. SURYAKANTH S/O GUNDAPPA TALAWAR, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, 2. GUNDAPPA S/O SURYAKANTH TALAWAR AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, 3. SMT.TARABAI W/O SURYAKANTH TALAWAR AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, ALL ARE R/O IVANI VILLAGE, TQ. CHITTAPUR, DIST. KALABURAGI. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI SYED MASTAN, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH MADABOOL POLICE STATION, TQ. CHITTAPUR, DIST. KALABURAGI. (REPRESENTED BY LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENCH AT KALABURAGI) …RESPONDENT (BY SRI SIDDALING P. PATIL, ADDL., SPP) Digitally signed by RAMESH MATHAPATI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1360-DB CRL.A No. 200115 of 2017 THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF CR.P.C, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED: 10/11-05-2017 PASSED IN SESSIONS CASE NO.3/2015 BY III ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE KALABURAGI AND ACQUIT THE APPELLANTS. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K.,) This appeal by the convicted accused Nos.1 to 3 is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 10.05.2017 and order of sentence dated 11.05.2017 passed by the III Addl. Sessions Judge at Kalaburagi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned Sessions Judge’) in S.C.No.03/2015, whereby the learned Sessions Judge convicted accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 504, 506 and 323 r/w Section 34 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each, in default of payment of fine, sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1360-DB CRL.A No. 200115 of 2017 punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Further it is stated that, since the accused are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, no separate sentence is imposed on them for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506 and 323 r/w Section 34 of IPC. It is directed that, all substantive sentences shall run concurrently. 2. The abridged facts of the prosecution case are as follows: On 14.06.2014 at about 05.30 p.m. P.W.1-Shashikala, wife of Devendrappa was at home, her husband Devendrappa was sitting on the dike at the façade of his house and was contemplating on his keenness to sell 10 guntas of his land. Just then, accused No.1-Suryakant, accused No.2-Gundappa, accused No.3-Tarabai and accused No.4 Devappa (juvenile offender) collectively appeared armed with axe and sticks. They verbally abused Devendrappa and questioned his stand on disposing the land in which they hold share. As such, an altercation took place between them. Hence, besides threatening him, the accused No.2-Gundappa all of a sudden assaulted him with an axe on the rear of his head, which - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1360-DB CRL.A No. 200115 of 2017 caused grievous bleeding injury. Owing to the impact, Devendrappa fell unconscious on the ground. P.W.1 intervened to placate the row, however, the accused No.1 assaulted her with a stick on both hands causing injuries. Meanwhile, the accused No.3-Tarabai and accused No.4 Juvenile offender Devappa verbally abused her and assaulted her with their hands and kicked her. Upon hearing her squeal, P.Ws.10 and 11-the bystanders made haste to placate scuffle. Thereafter, P.W.11 called 108 Ambulance to admit the injured Devendrappa at the United Hospital. Based on the MLC from the Government Hospital, Kalaburagi, P.W.20-The PSI of Madabool Police Station visited the Hospital and recorded the complaint of P.W.1-injured Shashikala as per Ex.P1. 3. On the strength of Ex.P1, P.W.20-the then PSI of the respondent-Police registered an FIR in crime No.70/2014 dated 14.06.2014 against the accused Nos.1 to 3 appellants herein and accused No.4 the child in conflict for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 307, 326, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC as per Ex.P21. However, the injured Devendrappa succumbed to the injuries on 15.06.2014 and subsequently, P.W.19-Veeresh, CPI took up the further investigation of this - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1360-DB CRL.A No. 200115 of 2017 case from P.W.20 and visited the Hospital and invoked Section 302 of IPC and conducted the investigation by drawing an inquest panchanama-Ex.P3 and spot mahazar-Ex.P2. On obtaining the necessary documents from the concerned authorities and on recording the statements of the witnesses, PW.21 laid the chargesheet against the appellants/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 302, 326, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC before the committal Court. 4. After committal of the case before the Sessions Court, the learned Sessions Judge framed the charges against the appellants/accused for the aforementioned offences and the same was read over verbatim to them. However, the accused denied the charges leveled against them and claimed to be tried. 5. In order to prove the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution collectively examined 22 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.22, marked 22 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P22 and identified 10 material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.10. 6. On completion of the prosecution evidence, the learned Sessions Judge read over the incriminating evidence of - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1360-DB CRL.A No. 200115 of 2017 material witnesses to the accused as stipulated in Section 313 of Cr.P.C. However, the accused denied the same. The defense of the accused is of absolute denial and that of false implication. 7. On assessment of the oral and documentary evidence placed before the Sessions Court, the learned Sessions Judge convicted them for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 323, 504 and 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC and sentenced as stated supra. The said judgment of conviction and order of sentence is challenged in this appeal by the appellants/accused Nos.1 to 3. 8. We have heard the learned counsel Sri. Syed Mastan for the appellants/accused Nos.1 to 3 and learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor Sri. Siddaling P. Patil for the respondent- State; we have also perused the records made available before us. 9. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Sessions Court suffers from perversity and illegality. The learned Sessions Judge has grossly erred while convicting the appellants without duly appreciating the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1360-DB CRL.A No. 200115 of 2017 evidence and documents placed before him. He contended that the learned Sessions Judge failed to appreciate the evidence of eyewitnesses i.e., PWs.1, 8, 10 and 11 in right perspective. Their evidence suffers from severe infirmities. By elucidating his submission, he pointed out that as admitted by P.W.1 there was a pending civil dispute between the deceased and the accused family. Further, she admitted in her evidence that she has not lodged complaint against the accused as per Ex.P1 and that the Police did not visit the United Hospital where she was admitted. She also deposed that she was unaware of the contents of complaint-Ex.P1 since she was an illiterate who knew neither to write nor read. As such, according to the learned counsel, the genesis of the crime seems doubtful. He would further contended that the eyewitnesses to the incident PWs.8, 10 and 11 have categorically admitted in their cross-examination that the Police did not record their statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. In such circumstance, much credence cannot be attached to their evidence. He also contended that there are material contradictions in the evidence of eyewitnesses to the incident. Further, as per the evidence of the complainant and other eyewitnesses, the accused Nos.1 and 3 have neither - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1360-DB CRL.A No. 200115 of 2017 assaulted the deceased nor instigated the accused No.2 to assault the deceased. The overt act attributed against them is that they assaulted P.W.1 by hand and kicked her. Admittedly, P.W.1 sustained simple injuries. Hence, the act of accused Nos.1 and 3 at the most may attract Sections 323, 504 and 506 of IPC and not under Section 302 of IPC since they did not share any common intention to do away the life of deceased. Hence, the learned Sessions Judge erred while convicting the accused for the charges leveled against them. 10. Further, learned counsel for the appellants alternatively contended that, even according to the prosecution case, the act of the accused No.2 squarely falls within the ambit of Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC which is punishable under Section 304 Part I or II of IPC since the alleged incident caused owing a civil dispute in a sudden row between the deceased and accused No.2 in a spur of moment, without any premeditation by the accused. Accordingly, he prays to modify the conviction and order of sentence imposed by the Sessions Court by convicting accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part I or II of IPC and convicting the accused Nos.1 - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1360-DB CRL.A No. 200115 of 2017 and 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC. 11. Refuting the above submissions, the learned Addl. SPP for the respondent-State vehemently contended that the judgment challenged under this appeal neither suffers from perversity nor illegality since the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellants/accused relying on the evidence of material witnesses i.e., PWs.1, 8, 10 and 11-eyewitnesses to the incident. All these witnesses have categorically deposed that, on the date of incident the accused had a row with the deceased and that the accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 assaulted him with an axe- M.O.4 and P.W.1 with a Stick-M.O.5. The evidence of these three witnesses categorically corroborates with the medical evidence i.e., testimony of Doctor-P.W.15 who conducted the autopsy on the corpse of the deceased as per Ex.P7 and the wound certificate of P.W.1 as per Ex.P11. In such circumstances, the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and the learned Sessions Judge has rightly convicted the accused for the charges leveled against them. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal by confirming the impugned judgment. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1360-DB CRL.A No. 200115 of 2017 12. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and also upon comprehensive perusal of the evidence on record, the points that surface for our consideration are: (i) “Whether the judgment under this appeal suffers from perversity or illegality? (ii) Whether the learned Sessions Judge is justified in convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 323, 504 and 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC?” 13. In the instant case, albeit the prosecution examined 22 witnesses to prove the charges leveled against the accused, it is redundant to delve into the nitty gritty of individual evidence of all witnesses, it is sufficient to appreciate the evidence of material witnesses to dispose this appeal. 14. In order to prove the homicidal death of the deceased, the prosecution predominantly relied on the evidence of P.W.15-Doctor who conducted the autopsy on the corpse of the deceased as per Ex.P7. On perusal of Ex.P7, the Doctor has opined that the cause of death is due to ‘intracranial hemorrhage due to head injury’. The Doctor further opined that the injuries caused to the deceased are anti-mortem in nature. Nevertheless, the prosecution also placed the inquest - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1360-DB CRL.A No. 200115 of 2017 panchanama conducted on the corpse of the deceased as per Ex.P3 by P.W.19-Investigating Officer. P.Ws.4 and 5 are the witnesses for the said panchanama. Both of them identified the injuries on the corpse of the deceased. As such, a conjoint reading of the evidence of P.Ws.15, 19, 4, 5 i.e., the Doctor, Investigating Officer and panch witnesses respectively, we are of the view that the prosecution has proved the homicidal death of the deceased beyond all reasonable doubt. 15. To connect the accused with the homicidal death of the deceased, the prosecution has significantly relied on the evidence of eyewitnesses-PW.1 the wife of deceased and injured eyewitness who is also the complainant, PWs.8, 10 and 11 the independent eyewitnesses to the incident. On careful examination of the evidence of these witnesses, among them P.W.1 the wife of deceased set the criminal law into motion by lodging Ex.P1, alleging that on the date of incident i.e., 14.06.2014 at about 05:30 p.m., when the deceased Devendrappa was seated on the dike of the façade at their house contemplating on disposing off the 10 guntas of land belonging to him, the accused Nos.1 to 3 barged into the premises following which they had a row questioning him his - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1360-DB CRL.A No. 200115 of 2017 intention of disposing the land in which they held a lawful share. The accused No.2 assaulted her husband with an axe on the rear of his head; he collapsed on the floor unconscious forthwith owing to sever injury. Immediately, she attempted to rescue her husband by placating the scuffle. However, the accused No.3 and juvenile offender Devappa verbally abused her and assaulted her with sticks and kicked her. On hearing her squeal, PWs.10 and 11 appeared in the spot to pacify the row. Thereafter, P.W.11 admitted her and her husband to the United Hospital, Kalaburagi via an Ambulance. Later, at about 9:30 p.m. she lodged a complaint before P.W.20 as per Ex.P1. However, later her husband Devendrappa succumbed to the injuries. P.W.1 reiterated the contents of Ex.P1 in her evidence by deposing the specific overt act of accused Nos.1 to 3. She also identified M.Os.4 and 5. Further, her version clearly corroborates with the evidence of P.Ws.8, 10 and 11. P.W.8- Santosh, a neighbour of P.W.1 and the deceased also reiterated the version of PW.1 and stated that on the date of incident the deceased was sitting on the dike in front of his house and discussing about selling his 10 guntas of property, at that time accused No.2 assaulted him with M.O.4 and accused No.1 - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1360-DB CRL.A No. 200115 of 2017 assaulted P.W.1 with stick thereafter they both shifted to Hospital. The one more eyewitness to the incident P.W.11 who shifted the injured and the deceased to the Hospital soon after the incident in ambulance also reiterated the evidence of PWs.1 and 8. The prosecution also examined P.Ws.10, 12 and 13 who are also the eyewitnesses to the incident. All these witnesses have supported the prosecution case and reiterated the evidence of P.W.1. Though the defense cross examined all these witnesses at length, nothing worth was elicited from them to discard their testimony. The evidence of all these eyewitnesses clearly corroborates with the medical evidence i.e., the evidence of Dcotor-P.W.15 who noticed head injury on the corpse of the deceased-Devendrappa and also he stated that the said injury could be possible owing to an assault by M.O.4-axe. Further, P.W.18-Doctor who treated the injured P.W.1 issued the wound certificate-Ex.P12, where he noticed swelling, tenderness and movement restriction on P.W.1’s right hand. 16. The prosecution also proved the circumstance of recovery of M.Os.4 and 5 i.e., axe and stick used in the crime at the behest of the accused Nos.1 and 2 under mahazar- - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1360-DB CRL.A No. 200115 of 2017 Ex.P4. P.W.19-Investigating Officer recovered M.Os.4 and 5 at the behest of the accused Nos.1 and 2 based on their voluntary statement-ExsP13 and P14, near Karikala Devi Temple. P.Ws.6 and 7 the recovery mahazar witnesses supported the case of prosecution and identified their signature on Ex.P4. The M.O.4- axe and the clothes of the deceased worn at the time of incident i.e., M.Os.6, 7, 9 and 10, were sent to scientific examination by the Investigating Officer and the serology report was marked in the evidence of P.W.22-the FSL Officer who opined that the blood stains found on the M.Os.4, 6, 7, 9 and 10 are of human. In such circumstance, the prosecution has established that accused No.2 assaulted the deceased with M.O.4 on his head. The prosecution has proved this by placing the evidence of eyewitnesses and by proving the recovery of M.O.4 at the behest of accused Nos.1 and 2 under Ex.P4. As discussed supra, the motive for the crime was a pending civil dispute between both the families. 17. On meticulous examination of the above evidence, P.W.1 the injured and all the other eyewitnesses i.e., PWs.8, 10, 11, 12 and 13 have categorically stated in their evidence that the incident was caused while the deceased having - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1360-DB CRL.A No. 200115 of 2017 conversation in respect of sale of his 10 guntas landed property, the accused all of a sudden visited the said spot and had a altercation with accused and accused No.2 all of a sudden alone given a single blow on the head of the deceased with axe. However, accused Nos.1 and 3 though present in the scene of occurrence have neither assaulted the deceased nor instigated accused No.2 to assault the deceased. On the other hand, accused No.3 and child in conflict were abused P.W.1 and assaulted on her palm with stick and kicked her. According to P.W.18-Doctor, who examined PW.1 had noticed only a swelling and tenderness. Nevertheless, Ex.P12 the wound certificate of P.W.1 also discloses the similar injuries. Hence, their act shall not fall within the ambit of Section 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC, on the other hand, at the most it may attract Sections 323, 504 and 506 of IPC. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the learned Sessions Judge erred while drawing an inference that the accused Nos.1 and 3 shared common intention to murder the deceased-Devendrappa. In such circumstance, in our considered view the conviction and sentence imposed by learned Sessions Judge against accused Nos.1 and 3 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1360-DB CRL.A No. 200115 of 2017 IPC is liable to be set-aside, besides affirming the conviction imposed by the learned Sessions Judge for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 506 of IPC. 18. Concerning the conviction and sentence imposed against the accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, it is the specific evidence of P.W.1 and other eyewitnesses-PWs.8, 10, 11, 12 and 13 that on the date of incident the deceased-Devendrappa was seated on the dike of the façade at their house contemplating on disposing off the 10 guntas of land belonging to him, the accused Nos.1 to 3 barged into the premises following which they had a row questioning him his intention of disposing the land in which they held a lawful share. In such circumstance, a row erupted between them and accused No.2 suddenly gave a single blow to the deceased with an axe on the rear of his head; he collapsed on the floor unconscious, forthwith owing to sever injury. Albeit, he was admitted to the hospital, he succumbed to the injury. The doctor who conducted the autopsy has opined that the death was due to intracranial hemorrhage. It is pertinent to note that the accused No.2 neither repeated the blows nor assaulted P.W.1. In such circumstance, it could be gathered - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1360-DB CRL.A No. 200115 of 2017 that there was no premeditation on the part of accused No.2 to inflict death on the deceased. The entire incident occurred at the spur of moment owing to a sudden fight. Further the offender neither took undue advantage nor acted in a cruel or unusual manner. 19. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rambir Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in 2019 (6) SCC 122 held that, in a sudden fight, in absence of premeditative motive, when an act is committed in a heat of passion, should the offender not take undue advantage or act in a cruel/unusual manner, the conviction can be converted from Section 302 to Section 304 Part I or Part II of IPC. In paragraph No.18 of the above judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: “18. Having regard to the evidence on record, we are of the view that the case of the appellant falls within Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. Further, the judgment in Surinder Kumar v. State (UT of Chandigarh) also supports the case of the appellant. In the aforesaid case, the knifeblows were inflicted in the heat of the moment, one of which caused death of the deceased; this Court has held that the accused is entitled to the benefit of Exception 4. In the aforesaid judgment, this Court further held that in a - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1360-DB CRL.A No. 200115 of 2017 sudden quarrel, if a person, in the heat of the moment, picks up a weapon which is handy and causes injuries one of which proves fatal, the accused would be entitled to the benefit of Exception 4. We are of the view that the said judgment supports the case of the appellant and further having regard to the evidence on record we are of the view that all the four ingredients which are required to extend the benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, apply to the facts of the case on hand. Since the occurrence was in sudden quarrel and there was no premeditation, the act of the appellant-accused would fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. As such, the conviction recorded against the appellant under Section 302 IPC is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside and the conviction of the appellant-accused under Section 302 IPC is modified, as the one under Section 304 Part II IPC and we impose a sentence of 10 years' simple imprisonment on the accused.” 20. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Surinder Kumar vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh reported in 1989 (2) SCC 217 held that, merely because three injuries were inflicted on the deceased by the accused is insufficient to establish that the accused acted in a cruel manner. Where, upon a sudden quarrel, a person in the heat of moment, picks up a handy weapon thereby causing injuries, one of which proves fatal, he would be entitled to the benefit as stipulated in Exception 4 under Section 300 of IPC. The number - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1360-DB CRL.A No. 200115 of 2017 of wounds inflicted during the altercation is not a decisive factor. 21. In the case on hand, the evidence of the material witnesses discloses that, on the date of incident, out of the blue, the accused No.2 appeared on the spot and picked a row with deceased involving a pending civil dispute. The single blow by the accused No.2 on the head of the deceased proved fatal. Hence, considering the comprehensive evidence, facts and circumstances of the case, the incident occurred without premeditative motive. Besides, the appellants neither took undue advantage nor acted in a cruel/unusual manner. In our considered opinion, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above judgments, the act of accused No.2 falls within the ambit of Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC. In that view, the appeal partially succeeds. The accused No.2 is liable to convicted for the offence punishable under Exception IV to Section 300 of IPC and he is sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part I of IPC instead of Section 302 of IPC. - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1360-DB CRL.A No. 200115 of 2017 22. Concerning the sentence for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part I of IPC, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant No.2 that, he is currently under incarceration for 10 years and above. Hence, in our considered view, the said sentence would suffice for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part I of IPC additionally, by imposing a reasonable fine. However, the conviction imposed by the Sessions Court for the offences punishable under sections 323, 504 and 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC deserves to be kept intact. 23. In view of the forgoing reasons, we answer points No.1 and 2 partly affirmative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The Criminal Appeal is allowed in part. ii. The judgment of conviction dated 10.05.2017 and order of sentence dated 11.05.2017 passed in S.C.No.03/2015 by the III Addl. Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi is modified in respect of accused No.2. Accused No.2 is convicted for the offence punishable under Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC instead of Section 302 of IPC. Accordingly, he is - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1360-DB CRL.A No. 200115 of 2017 sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part I of IPC. iii. The accused No.2 is sentenced for a period which he has already undergone i.e., 10 years and above and he shall pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only), before the Sessions Court for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part I of IPC and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months. iv. The sentence imposed by the Sessions Court for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 506 of IPC against accused No.2 is confirmed. However, the learned Sessions Judge has not imposed separate sentence for these offences, the same is kept intact. v. The accused No.2 has already undergone sentence and the default sentence, hence, he shall be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. vi. The concerned Jail Authority is directed to release the appellant/accused No.2-Gundappa forthwith, if he is not required in any other cases. - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1360-DB CRL.A No. 200115 of 2017 vii. Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Jail Authority concerned. viii. The judgment of conviction dated 10.05.2017 and order of sentence dated 11.05.2017 passed in S.C.No.03/2015 by the III Addl. Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi is set-aside for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC in respect of appellants No.1 and 3/accused Nos.1 and 3. ix. The accused Nos.1 and 3/appellants No.1 and 3 are acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. x. The conviction imposed by the learned Sessions Judge against accused Nos.1 and 3 is confirmed for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC. xi. The accused Nos.1 and 3 are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo imprisonment for a period of 10 days’ for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC. xii. The accused Nos.1 and 3 are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1360-DB CRL.A No. 200115 of 2017 imprisonment for a period of 10 months for the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC. xiii. The accused Nos.1 and 3 are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo imprisonment for a period of 10 months for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC. xiv. All the default sentence shall run concurrently. xv. The accused Nos.1 and 3 shall deposit the fine amount before the learned Sessions Judge within four weeks. xvi. If accused Nos.1 and 3 failed to deposit the fine amount within four weeks’ from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, the learned Sessions Judge is requested secure the presence of accused Nos.1 and 3 and to commit them prison to undergo the default sentence. xvii. If the accused Nos.1 and 3 have paid the fine amount, the learned Sessions Judge is requested to intimate the same to PW.1- Shashikala and disburse a sum of Rs.40,000/- - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1360-DB CRL.A No. 200115 of 2017 to her on proper identification as compensation under Section 357(1) of Cr.P.C. The balance amount shall be submitted to the State Treasury. xviii. Registry is directed to send back the trial Court records along with copy of this judgment to the trial Court, forthwith. Sd/- (S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE Sd/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE HKV,SWK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50 CT: PS