- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42821-DB CRL.A No. 67/2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 67/2019 (C) BETWEEN: RANJITH SHETTY S/O LAKSHMI NARAYANA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS HOSAMATHA, MEKKE MANE KORGI VILLAGE KUNDAPUR TALUK – 576 231 …APPELLANT (BY SRI.SATEESH CHANDRA K. V., ADVOCATE ) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KUNDAPUR CIRCLE P.S. UDUPI DISTRICT REP. BY SPP., HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU – 560 001 …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. SOWMYA R., HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 19/24.04.2018, PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, UDUPI SITTING AT KUNDAPUR, IN S.C.NO.16/2016, CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 450, 506, 324, 326, 307, 342 AND 397 OF IPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T Digitally signed by K S RENUKAMBA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42821-DB CRL.A No. 67/2019 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL) Challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against him, the accused in S.C.No.16/2016 on the file of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Udupi (sitting at Kundapura) has preferred this appeal. 2. The appellant was the sole accused and the respondent-State was the complainant before the trial Court. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to henceforth according to their ranks before the trial Court. 3. Accused was tried and convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 450, 506, 324, 326, 307, 342 and 397 IPC on the charges that on 05.01.2016 at about 1.30 a.m., the accused armed with M.O.33-chopper, trespassed into the house of his cousin/P.W.1 situated in Hosmat, Korgi village and demanded jewellery of his mother/PW.9 and other jewellery and valuables kept in the house of PW.2. When she declined, he assaulted her with the chopper and caused her injuries. When her father/PW.4 and maternal grandfather of both accused and PW.2 came to the rescue of PW.2, he assaulted them also with the same weapon and caused them injuries. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42821-DB CRL.A No. 67/2019 Then threatening to the point of chopper, he robbed the jewellery, cash of Rs.1,000/- and mobile phones of the victims. Thereafter he locked them into the house and went away. 4. The trial Court on hearing both sides, framed the charges against accused for the offences punishable under Sections 450, 506, 324, 326, 307, 342 and 397 IPC. As the accused denied the charges, trial was conducted. In support of the case of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 20 were examined, Exs.P1 to P29 and M.Os.1 to 43 were marked. The trial Court examined the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He did not lead any evidence. 5. On hearing the parties, trial Court by the impugned judgment and order convicted accused for the aforesaid offences and sentenced him as follows: Sl. No Offence under Section Sentence Fine amount in Rs. Default sentence 1 450 IPC RI for 5 years 5,000/- One month SI 2 506 IPC RI for 1 year 1,000/- SI of 10 days 3 324 IPC RI for 2 years 3,000/- SI of 20 days 4 326 IPC RI for 5 years 5,000/- One month SI 5 307 IPC Imprisonment for life 5,000/- One month SI 6 342 IPC RI for 1 year 1,000/- SI of 10 days 7 397 IPC RI for 7 years 5,000/- One month SI - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42821-DB CRL.A No. 67/2019 6. The Trial Court held that the charges against the accused were proved by the evidence of injured eye witnesses, eye witnesses, medical evidence and by the circumstantial evidence of recovery of the weapons and jewellery at the instance of the accused. Accused has preferred the above appeal questioning the said order of conviction and sentence. 7. Heard both side. Submissions of Mr. Sateesh Chandra K.V., learned counsel for the appellant: 8. Though the case is based on the evidence of injured eye witnesses, the evidence on record shows that they have not suffered grievous injuries. They were treated in the hospital for a period of less than five days. According to prosecution, the accused was addicted to alcohol and gambling. Under such influence, he had committed the aforesaid offences that goes to show that he had no intention to attempt to commit murder. He has already served detention of more than nine years. At the most, the alleged offence against the accused is covered under Section 326 of IPC and awarding imprisonment for life under the facts and circumstances of the case is disproportionate. Even if the occurrence of incident is held proved, the accused at - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42821-DB CRL.A No. 67/2019 the most be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 326 IPC and restricting the period of sentence to the period of detention already undergone, he be released. Submissions of Smt. Sowmya, learned HCGP for respondent – State: 9. The evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 shows that the accused had come to their house armed with the chopper- M.O.33 that shows his premeditation. Further, he threatened the victim that if they fail to hand over the jewellery, they will be killed. Exerting such threat, he robbed the jewellery from her. The appellant's own mother - P.W.9 spoke against him. She spoke about the accused extorting her and being scared of the same, she depositing her jewellery with P.W.2. Considering the nature of injuries and the weapon used, it cannot be said that, the accused did not attempt to commit murder. The evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 was corroborated by the evidence of other witnesses and the medical evidence. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order does not warrant interference of this Court. 10. On considering the submissions of both side and on examination of the materials on record, the point that arises for - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42821-DB CRL.A No. 67/2019 consideration of this Court is “Whether the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence is sustainable? ANALYSIS 11. Some of the admitted facts of the case are as follows: PW.1 is the son of PW.2. PW.9 is the mother of the accused. PW.2 is daughter of elder sister of PW.9. CW.4 is the maternal grandmother of PW.2 and the accused. PW.4 is the father of P.W.2. PW.3 is cousin sister of PW.2. PW.5 is the brother of PW.9. PW.6 is son of PW.4 and brother of PW.2. PW.7 is the nephew of PW.2. PWs.1, 2, 4 and CW.4 were living together. The husband of P.W.2 was working in the Hattiangadi Bar (Nisarga bar) Hosmata, Korgi Village within the jurisdiction of Kundarpura Police Station. He used to come once in a fifteen days. 12. The case of the prosecution is as follows: (i) That the accused was addicted to alcohol and gambling and had become wayward. He used to trouble his mother/PW.9 demanding money and jewellery for his ill vices. Due to that once she had given her mangalya chain to the accused, pledging that he had borrowed loan. She got released - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42821-DB CRL.A No. 67/2019 by her own earnings. Fearing that, again he would snatch her gold jewellery, she had kept the same with P.W.2. There was a marriage in their family during the period of incident. Therefore, P.Ws.3 and 6 had also kept their jewellery in the house of P.W.2. (ii) The house of the accused and PWs.1 to 4 situated nearby. The accused with an intention to rob the jewellery of victims, on 05.01.2016 at about 1.30 a.m., armed with M.O.33 went to their house and knocked the door of the house. When P.W.2 opened the door, the accused threatened her showing M.O.33-chopper and demanded her to hand over the jewellery of his mother. Despite she handing over the ear studs of P.W.9, the accused demanded that she should give all their jewellery to him. When she declined, he assaulted her with M.O.33 and caused injuries on her right hand. By that time, P.W.4 and C.W.4 listening the commotion, woke up and came to her rescue. The accused assaulted them also with the same weapon and robbed the bangles and chain of P.W.2. (iii) P.W.2 attempted to resist the attack and tried to hit the accused with M.O.4-peg. The accused pulled that from her hand and assaulted again. Therefore, she suffered injuries and - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42821-DB CRL.A No. 67/2019 fell down. Then he dragged her by her leg till the almirah on the floor and demanded her to hand over the jewellery. P.W.2 through P.W.1, secured the almirah key and handed over the jewellery to the accused. The accused further robbed cash of Rs.1,000/- and mobile phone. He took out sim cards from the mobile phones of victims and broke them. (iv) Then, accused forced P.W.1 to write in the note book- M.O.7 that the accused is not responsible for the incident and somebody have done that. Then, he confining them in the house locked the same and fled away from the spot. To evade the course of law, he went to the house of P.W.8 - driver of autorikshaw. The accused asked P.W.8 to give him a drop misrepresenting him that his father is seriously ill. P.W.8 dropped him at Hariprasad Hotel at Kundapura. (v) PW.5 came from Pune to attend marriage of Akshatha who is his niece. When he came near the house of the victim, he found injured/PW.4 in the veranda of the house. P.W.1 narrated the incident. Then, the door of the house was opened and the victims were taken to the hospital. PW.1 narrated the incident, the complaint was scribed by PW.7 as - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42821-DB CRL.A No. 67/2019 per Ex.P.1. On the basis of the said complaint, FIR was registered. (vi) During the course of investigation, PW.20/Circle Inspector conducted the spot mahazar as per Ex.P.2. As the accused was absconding, he appointed PW.18 and other staffs to apprehend the accused. On the same day at about 6.00 p.m., PW.18 apprehended the accused and produced him before P.W.20 with his report as per Ex.P.24. PW.20 recorded the voluntary statement of accused in the presence of panchas and goldsmiths and seized robbed jewellery and weapons at the instance of the accused. After conducting investigation, P.W.20 filed the charge sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences. 13. The case of the prosecution was based on: (i) The evidence of injured eyewitnesses/PWs.2,4, C.W.4 and eye witness/P.W.1; (ii) Circumstance of motive; (iii) The circumstance of recovery of incriminating materials at the instance of the accused; (iv) Medical evidence; - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42821-DB CRL.A No. 67/2019 (v) Forensic evidence and the evidence of police officials. Reg: Motive 14. (i) The motive for commission of the offence was the demand of the accused for jewellery and cash from his mother/PW.9 and in-turn from the victim PW.2, with whom, PW.9's jewellery were deposited. PW.9/mother of the accused deposed that the accused was addicted to gambling and he used to take away her money. She further deposed that by pledging her jewellery, she had given money to the accused, but he did not repay the loan amount. Therefore out of her earnings she paid the money and got released her jewellery, then, she handed over her Mangalya chain to her niece/PW.2 for the reason that if the said jewellery is in her house, the accused takes away the same. She further deposed that she learnt about the accused going to the house of PW.2 and robbing PW.2 and her relatives and assaulting them with the weapon and admission of PWs.2,4 and CW.4 in the hospital. She also deposed that, subsequently, she got released her jewellery, which was seized by the police and she identified her jewellery depicted in Ex.P6 photograph. In her cross- examination, except suggesting that she is deposing falsely at - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42821-DB CRL.A No. 67/2019 the behest of the police, which she denied, nothing was elicited to discredit her evidence. There was no reason for PW.9 to depose against her own son. (ii) PW.2 also deposed that her aunt PW.9 fearing that the accused snatches her jewellery for money, had given her the jewellery to keep in her house, accordingly, she had kept them in her house. She has deposed about accused coming to her house and threatening them of their lives, assaulting them, robbing the jewellery. PW.4 also spoke about PW.2 keeping jewellery in their house fearing about the conduct of the accused. The evidence of the aforesaid witnesses regarding motive was rightly found credible by the trial Court. Reg. Injured Eye witnesses: 15. As noted above, as per the prosecution, the accused, on the date of the incident, at 01.30 a.m., came to the house of PWs.1,2, 4 and CW.4 armed with M.O.33/chopper, gained entry into the house by tapping the door. Thereafter demanding for the jewellery of his mother and even after handing over the same, demanding the jewellery of PWs.2 and others which were in their house, firstly assaulted PW.2 with chopper, when PW.4 and CW.4 went to her rescue, he - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42821-DB CRL.A No. 67/2019 assaulted them also and at that time, PW.1 was also in the house. PW.2 and PW.4 in detail narrated about the overt-acts of the accused and the injuries suffered by them and CW.4. They also deposed about that PW.5 in the morning at 6.30 a.m. came to their house and shifted them to N.R. Archarya Hospital, Koteshwara and they took treatment in the said hospital as inpatients. PW.2 in her deposition stated that as CW.4 is aged 76 years, she is not in a position to come to the court to give evidence. The same was not disputed in her cross- examination. 16. In the cross-examination of PWs.2 and 4, the fact of they suffering those injuries was not disputed. It was suggested to them that due to some previous ill-will, they have falsely implicated the accused. In the evidence of none of the witnesses, it was elicited what was that previous ill-will. Atleast in the evidence of his mother/PW.9, it was not elicited that there was some ill-will between the accused and PW.2, PW.4 and other witnesses. Further, in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. also, the accused did not whisper anything about such previous ill-will or false implication. The evidence of PW.14/Doctor of N.R. Archarya Hospital, Koteshwara, shows - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42821-DB CRL.A No. 67/2019 that on 05.01.2016 at 8.15 a.m., the victims were brought into the said hospital with history of assault and on examining them, he issued the wound certificates Exs.P13 to 15. He also deposed about one of the injuries suffered by PW.2 being grievous one. In the cross-examination of this witness, the fact of he examining the victims and the injuries found on them was not disputed. It is only suggested that the assailant's name was not mentioned before him. This evidence also corroborates the evidence of injured eyewitnesses PWs.2 and 4. 17. PW.1, son of PW.2 was a child witness. The trial Court, on holding enquiry by putting him questions, found him competent to give evidence and recorded his evidence. He deposed that on the date of the incident, when himself, his mother, grandmother, grandfather and younger sister were sleeping in the house, at 1.30 a.m., the accused taped the door of their house and PW.2 opened the same, accused entered the house with the weapon and threatened his mother/PW.2, saying that she should give all the gold ornaments, otherwise, they all will be killed. He further deposed that accused threatened to give entire gold ornaments and assaulted PW.2, by that time, PW.4 and CW.4 intervened and he assaulted them - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42821-DB CRL.A No. 67/2019 also. Then the accused dragged his mother by her leg to the bedroom and demanded money and on his mother's instructions, he opened almirah with key and handed over the jewellery, cash and mobile phone to the accused. He also deposed about accused getting in writing from him in the notebook that the accused is not responsible for the incident and somebody has done the same, then the accused locking the front door from outside, exited from the back door by closing the bolt of the same. He spoke about others coming and breaking up the lock. He also deposed that on he narrating the incident when his mother and grandparents were being treated in the hospital, PW.7 write the complaint/Ex.P1 and police received the complaint in the hospital. The presence of this witness in the house is natural as he is the resident of the same house. In the cross-examination, he testified that the accused threatened not to raise alarm so as to get the attention of the neighbours. Therefore, they did not raise the alarm. 18. In the cross-examination of PW.1 the fact of PW.2, PW.4 and CW.4 suffering the injuries was not at all disputed. It was only suggested that no galata took place between the accused and his family members and he has given the - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42821-DB CRL.A No. 67/2019 complaint, at the behest of the police, which he denied. The evidence of injured and eyewitness is corroborated by the medical evidence. Further, PW.3 has spoken about she keeping her jewellery in the house of PW.2 for safety, as she was residing in Bangalore in a rented house and there was no safe locker. PW.5, who is the maternal uncle of PW.2 deposed that he works in Pune and on the date of the incident, as there was marriage of his sister's daughter in Kundapura, he came to Kundapura on 5.01.2016 in the morning and came to the house of the victim at 06.30 a.m. and he found PW.4 in the sit out of the house and the main door of the house being locked and on enquiry, he coming to know about the incident and he shifting the injured to the hospital and PW.1 giving the complaint to the police. Though, he is not an eye witness, his evidence corroborates the evidence of PW.1, PW.2 and PW.4. 19. PW.6/younger brother of PW.2, deposed about he working in Pune and PW.5 informing him about the incident and he immediately coming down to Koteshwara and visiting the victims in N.R Acharya hospital and he also keeping his jewellery in the house of PW.2 and police seizing the same and showing them to him, he identifying them. He also deposed - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42821-DB CRL.A No. 67/2019 about he getting those jewellery released to his interim custody. In the cross-examination, the jewellery being released to him was not disputed. He is also again close relative of the accused only. Except saying that at the behest of the police, he is deposing falsely, nothing was elicited imputing animosity against the accused. 20. PW.7, the scribe of Ex.P1 complaint has also spoken about he visiting the N.R. Hospital, Koteshwara on learning about the incident and seeing the injured and writing the complaint/Ex.P1 to the narration of PW.1. He was not cross examined at all. Thereby, his evidence stood un-controverted. 21. The evidence of injured eyewitnesses stands on a higher pedestal. They are not interested witnesses. Absolutely no motive was demonstrated to falsely implicate the accused. Therefore, the trial Court was justified in accepting their evidence implicating the accused. Reg: recovery:- 22. According to the prosecution, PW-18 PSI of Kundapura police station visited N.R. Archarya Hospital, Kundapura, received the complaint from PW.1. Based on the same, he registered FIR Ex-P23 and handed over the - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42821-DB CRL.A No. 67/2019 investigation to PW.20/CPI. PW.20 deputed PW.18 and PW.15/Head constable and PSI respectively to trace the accused. They traced the accused near Koteshwara bus stand and produced him with the report Ex-P24 before PW.20. PW.20 on interrogating the accused, recorded his voluntary statement as per Ex-P26 and accused produced a plastic cover, which was in his possession. On opening the same, they found to contain one passbook and a note book MO.7. He also produced one plastic cover, which contained 22 jewellery, which are depicted in the photographs Ex.P6. PW.20 got apprised those jewellery through PW.12/Gold smith and seized the same under mahazar Ex-P9 in the presence of panchas. 23. According to the prosecution, the accused after committing the offence, when he was travelling in the autorikshaw of PW.8, on the way had disposed of M.O.33 by keeping the same in a bag. The accused during interrogation volunteered to show the place where he had disposed the same and led the police and panchas near the railway bridge, Koteshwara, took out a bag containing the weapon from the bushes and the same was seized under mahazar Ex-P10 in the presence of panchas/PWs.11 and 12. Both of them supported - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42821-DB CRL.A No. 67/2019 the proceeding under Ex-P9. The fact of mother of the accused, PW.2, PW.3 and PW.5 getting those jewellery released, was not disputed. Thus, the seizure of the jewellery at the instance of the accused was rightly held proved. Accused had not explained how he came in the possession of those jewellery. On this count also, the trial Court was justified in accepting the prosecution's evidence that the victims suffered injuries on account of overt-acts of the accused and that was motivated for robbing the jewellery and valuables. Reg: sentence: 24. Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contented that even if the overt-acts of the accused are held proved, at the most, the act of the accused constitutes the offence under Section 326 IPC, as the incident took place in the effort of the accused to collect his mother's jewellery and there was no intention of attempting to commit murder. It is further contended that the victim's hospitalisation was not more than four days, as PW.4 and CW.4 had suffered simple injuries, therefore, section 307 IPC is not attracted. 25. It is settled position of law that the nature of injuries suffered or the period of their hospitalisation are not - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42821-DB CRL.A No. 67/2019 the sole criteria in deciding whether the offence falls under section 307 or under section 324 or 326 IPC. The weapon used, the parts of the body chosen to assault and the other circumstances of the case have to be considered to find out whether the act was an attempt to commit murder or a simple act of inflicting injury. The evidence of PW.14 and wound certificates of the victims Exs.P13 to 15 are material to consider whether the overt-act falls under section 307 IPC or under any other lesser offence. 26. (i) As per Ex.P13, PW.2 had suffering the following injuries:- i. Cut lacerated wound over right distal forearm, wrist, open injury and fracture right radius (oblique). ii. Right gluteal region abrasion, incised wound 2cm x 1cm. iii. Stab injury upper back 2cm x 1cm in length. iv. Cut lacerated wound over scalp. v. Right shoulder contusion. Out of the aforesaid injuries, injury No.1 was the fracture and that was classified as grievous injury. There is no any dispute about that. - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42821-DB CRL.A No. 67/2019 (ii) As per Ex.P14, PW.4 had suffered the following injuries: i. Cut lacerated wound and multiple facial injuries. ii. Cut lacerated wound over right arm: 5 cm x ½ cm, 5 cm x ½ cm, 4 cm x ½ cm in length. iii. Cut lacerated wound over right ear pinna, 2 cm x 1 cm in length. iv. 5 cm x 1 cm stab injury over right scapula, 2 cm x 1 cm over mid back. v. 2 cm x ½ cm cut lacerated wound over left temporal scalp. vi. 4 cm x ½ cm cut lacerated wound over left eyebrow. vii. 2 cm x ½ cm cut lacerated wound over left side of face. viii. 3 cm x 1 cm cut lacerated wound over upper back. ix. 3 cm x 1 cm cut lacerated wound over left mastoid region. x. 6 cm x 1 cm, 4 cm x ½ cm, 5 cm x 1 cm, cut lacerated wound over occipital scalp. xi. 7 cm x ½ cm, 7 cm x ½ cm, 6 cm x ½ cm, 8 cm x ½ cm cut lacerated wound over frontal scalp. (iii) As per Ex.P15, CW4 had suffered the following injuries. - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42821-DB CRL.A No. 67/2019 i. 5 cm x 1 cm cut lacerated wound over vertex of scalp ii. Cerebral concussion. 27. The evidence on record shows that the accused had come with weapon concealing the same behind his back. First he demanded the jewellery of his mother. After handing over the same also, he did not stop. He demanded the jewellery in possession of PW.2 and threatened that if she does not give, he will kill all of them. When his own grandparents i.e. CW.4 and PW.4 tried to intervene, he has ruthlessly assaulted PW.4 leading to 11 injuries. 28. It is material to note that PW.4 and CW.4 both were aged 70 and 75 years respectively. Accused has assaulted on the face, scapula, temporal skull and occipital area with weapon. Even as per the prosecution evidence, it was PW.2 who tried to retaliate. PW.4 and CW.4 had not even raised any defensive attack. Evidence on record shows that after victim/PW.2 falling down on the ground due to the injuries, accused dragged her by her legs up to the bedroom and only after the jewellery were handed over to him, he left them. Then also he waited in the house upto 04:00 a.m., got a note written as per MO.7 seeking his exoneration and then left the place. - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42821-DB CRL.A No. 67/2019 29. The above circumstances show that had the victims failed to oblige his demand for parting with valuables, he would have further assaulted them. Therefore it is hard to accept that he had no intention to attempt on their lives. Therefore, the Court is not inclined to accept the contention that offence does not fall under Section 307 IPC. 30. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the accused was hardly aged 24 years at the time of the offence and unfortunately he had come in the grip of ill-vices and that led him to committing the crime. He is the only son of his mother, considering same, sentence of imprisonment for life imposed by the trial Court is disproportionate. He also kept PW.9/mother of the accused present before the Court. At his request, the report about the conduct of the appellant/accused was called from the jail authorities. As per the said report, the accused has shown good moral character and his conduct with co-prisoners and jail officials was good. However, the offence under Section 307 IPC carries minimum sentence of 10 years. Therefore there is no scope to reduce more than that. - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42821-DB CRL.A No. 67/2019 31. At this stage, the Court is forced to make some observations. The Court is observing that in large number of cases, crimes are being committed due to the addiction of youngsters to alcohol. The object of the State should be the welfare of its citizens. In large number of cases, we see children attacking their parents and addicts committing murders of their spouses and parents which ruins families. Despite that, liquor licences are being issued indiscriminately, which gives easy access to the youngsters, including children, leading to the deterioration of the fabric of family and ultimately the society. De-addiction centers established at the district hospital in each district are rarely utilized and there is no awareness created about the same. Whereas the supply sources of liquor are easily reachable which is leading to the degradation of human resource and societal peace. Whatever may be the income from such source, but human resource is the highest resource than any other resources. The State should endeavour to protect and promote the same, thereby the welfare of the society. No other creature including fauna or flora is disintegrating its own species, except for the human beings by promoting such industries and generating income from that. These observations are being made only to bring it - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42821-DB CRL.A No. 67/2019 to the notice of the concerned who should have introspection in this direction. 32. In this case also at the time of the offence the accused was aged 24 years. The evidence on record shows that he had become wayward because of his vices. He has already undergone incarceration for more than 9 years. He is the only son of PW.9. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the report of the jail authorities, we are of the considered opinion that sentencing accused to imprisonment for 10 years which is minimum one and fine would serve the interest of justice. 33. When the offence under Section 307 is invoked, convicting again for Sections 324 and 326 IPC amounts to double jeopardy. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed only to that extent and the impugned judgment and order requires to be modified accordingly. Hence, the following: ORDER The appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence is modified as follows: The appellant/accused is convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 450, 506, 307, 397, 342 IPC. - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42821-DB CRL.A No. 67/2019 For the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC, appellant/accused is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of 10 years and fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default to pay fine amount, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months. The order of sentence with regard to the offences under Sections 450, 506, 342 and 397 IPC is maintained. All the sentences shall run concurrently. There shall be a set off for the period of detention already undergone by the accused. The order of the trial Court with regard to disposal of the properties is maintained. The matter is referred to District Legal Services Authority, Udupi District for determination and payment of the compensation payable to the victims under Victims’ Compensation Scheme under Section 357A Cr.PC/396 BNSS. The trial Court shall issue modified conviction warrant accordingly. Sd/- (K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE JS,MN,PKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17