- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9339-DB CRL.A No. 2122 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2122 OF 2018 BETWEEN: 1. GIRISHA, S/O THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, RESIDING AT BASAVESHWARA NAGAR, B.L. KOPPALU DAKLE, ARASIKERE TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573103. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SUYOG HERELE E., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE BY CPI RURAL CIRCLE, ARASIKERE, REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560001. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 10.10.2018 AND SENTENCE DATED Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9339-DB CRL.A No. 2122 of 2018 11.10.2018 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN, IN S.C.NO.134/2007 CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 341 AND 302 OF IPC. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH) Heard Sri Suyog Herele E., the learned counsel for the appellant/accused, Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State, and perused the material available on record. 2. This appeal is filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence against the appellant/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC'), wherein he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.25,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and to pay fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 341 of IPC. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9339-DB CRL.A No. 2122 of 2018 3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution before the Trial Court is that on 30.01.2007 at about 8.00 p.m., near Basaveshwara Nagara, within the limits of Gandasi Police Station, when the deceased Byresha and others were proceeding on their way towards home in tractor and trailer bearing registration No.KA-13-TA-105-106 driven by Lakshmana, the accused who was proceeding in a motorcycle, wrongfully restrained these persons stating that he had a right to proceed and when a quarrel was taken place between them, the accused inflicted injuries to Byresha with his hands and thereafter, he picked up a stone which was at the spot and assaulted on his head and face. As a result, he had sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the next day on 31.01.2007, while shifting him to the higher center for further treatment. Though earlier case was registered for the other offences and on account of death, invoked the offences under Section 302 of IPC. Based on the complaint in terms of Ex.P.1, case was registered at the first instance in Crime No.8/2007 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 324 of IPC and subsequently based on second complaint as per Ex.P.2, invoked the offences under Sections 302 and 341 of IPC. The - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9339-DB CRL.A No. 2122 of 2018 Investigating Officer investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet. Having filed the charge-sheet, cognizance was taken and charges were framed and the accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial and hence, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.26 and also got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 20 and M.O.1 to M.O.5 were marked. On closure of the evidence, 313 statement was also recorded and the accused did not choose to lead any evidence, but document of Ex.D.1 was confronted. 4. The Trial Judge having considered both oral and documentary evidence available on record, comes to the conclusion that eyewitness evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.5 and medical evidence supports the case of the prosecution and M.O.1 was used to inflict injury and as a result of the injury he had sustained, he succumbed to the injuries. Having particularly taken note of oral evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.5 and medical evidence of the doctor P.W.12, comes to the conclusion that it is a case of homicidal and the same is on account of the guilt of the accused and convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 302 of IPC. While - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9339-DB CRL.A No. 2122 of 2018 sentencing the accused, ordered to pay fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 341 of IPC and for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, imposed life imprisonment with Rs.25,000/- fine and ordered to pay Rs.20,000/- to P.W.2, who is the wife of the deceased Byresha. 5. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the present appeal is filed before this Court. 6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/accused is that the Trial Court committed an error in relying upon the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.5, though there is a material contradiction in the evidence of these witnesses with regard to the incident and committed an error in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. The learned counsel contended that the accused has been falsely implicated with malafide intention and it requires interference of this Court. The learned counsel reiterated the grounds which have been urged in the appeal memo, particularly taking into note of the evidence of these eye- witnesses. The learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court the evidence of P.W.1 and he says that stone was seized - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9339-DB CRL.A No. 2122 of 2018 at the spot, particularly to connect P.W.2 to P.W.5. The learned counsel would submit that it is elicited from the mouth of the witnesses that there was a good relationship between the prosecution witnesses, accused and the deceased and there was no any motive for committing the murder and also there was no any previous ill-will or premeditation and hence, the Trial Court ought not to have convicted and sentenced the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. 7. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent/State would submit that the Trial Court having taken note of the eye-witnesses evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.5 and medical evidence of the doctor, who has been examined as P.W.12 and considering the case of homicidal, rightly convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and imposed life sentence and hence, it does not require any interference. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent and also on re-appreciation of evidence, the points that would arise for the consideration of this Court are: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9339-DB CRL.A No. 2122 of 2018 (i) Whether the Trial Court committed an error in convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 341 of IPC and whether it requires interference of this Court? (ii) What order? Point No.(i): 9. Having considered both oral and documentary evidence available on record, it is very clear that the incident was taken place when the deceased and P.W.1 to P.W.5 were proceeding in the tractor. The accused came in his motorcycle and galata was taken place in view of not giving side to the accused. When the accused questioned and quarreled with the driver of the tractor, the victim interfered to pacify the galata and at that time, the accused not only assaulted the victim with his hands, but picked up a stone i.e., M.O.1 and assaulted with the same and as a result, he sustained the injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The prosecution relies upon the direct evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.5. P.W.1 is the first informant and others have witnessed the incident and all of them categorically deposed that the incident was taken place while - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9339-DB CRL.A No. 2122 of 2018 proceeding in the tractor and the evidence of these witnesses is consistent with regard to the incident is concerned and also the assault. Nothing is elicited except eliciting the answer that they were cordial prior to this incident and there was no any prior enmity between the witnesses, deceased and the accused. P.W.1 was not subjected to cross-examination in view of his untimely death. While cross-examining P.W.2, she categorically admitted that there was no any earlier previous enmity and the accused used to come to their house and they were also visiting their house. P.W.2 says that when her husband questioned and tried to pacify the galata, the accused assaulted on the head of the victim and he sustained injury on the ear also and blood was oozing from right ear and also from the nose. 10. The other witness is P.W.3, who is an eye-witness to the incident. In his evidence he says that blood was oozing from right ear of the victim and it was opened. He says that when the accused fisted on the face of the victim, blood was oozing from his nose. The other witness is P.W.4 and he reiterated the case of the prosecution in his evidence. In his - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9339-DB CRL.A No. 2122 of 2018 cross-examination, he says that the accused assaulted with stone once and as a result, the victim lost his consciousness. P.W.5 reiterates the evidence of the other witnesses. He says on account of assault made by the accused only the victim died and he identifies M.O.1 to M.O.4. In the cross-examination, he categorically admits that there was no prior enmity. 11. Having considered the ocular evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.5, they are the eye-witnesses to the incident. Having taken note of the evidence of doctor P.W.12, it is very clear that the victim had sustained extra dural haematoma in the right temporal convexity with mild mass effect, diffuse cerebral edema and linear fracture of the right temporal bone. On examination, he found blood was oozing from his right ear. The said injury was ante mortem in nature. Post mortem report is marked as Ex.P.11 and the witness identifies his signature. Time since death is about 12 to 24 hours. In the cross-examination, it is admitted that if any person falls from the tractor accidentally, temporal region would get the injuries. Except this answer, nothing is elicited from the mouth of P.W.12. Having considered the eye-witnesses evidence, other - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9339-DB CRL.A No. 2122 of 2018 witnesses evidence is immaterial with regard to the procedure followed in registering the case and arresting the accused and when direct evidence is available before the Court, the question of suspecting the evidence of these witnesses does not arise and the Trial Court in detail appreciated the evidence available on record. 12. However, the Trial Court committed an error in taking note of the circumstances under which the incident was taken place and the Trial Court lost sight of it. The galata was taken place between P.W.1 and the accused with regard to overtaking of vehicle and not giving space to overtake the tractor when the accused was coming in the motorcycle and hence, at the first instance, quarrel was taken place between the driver of the tractor and the accused. The deceased interfered when the quarrel was taking place and the accused assaulted him with his hands on his face and nose and also with the stone and the said stone was picked up at the spot and he did not carry the same. When such being the case, it is nothing but a sudden provocation during the scuffle and the accused picked up the stone and assaulted with the same. The - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9339-DB CRL.A No. 2122 of 2018 medical evidence also clearly discloses that the victim had sustained injury to his ear, wherein blood was oozing. The accused used the stone once to assault him and the same is also emerged during the course of evidence of the witnesses that he assaulted with stone only once and not repeatedly assaulted him. When such being the case, the Trial Court ought to have taken note of that the case does not come within the purview of Section 300 of IPC and ought to have invoked Section 304 Part II of IPC, since there was no any intention or premeditation. The incident was taken place suddenly due to provocation and there was no any prior enmity and all of them were cordial and the same is emerged during the course of cross-examination of the witnesses. When such being the evidence available on record, the Trial Judge ought to have taken note of these facts into consideration and hence, it is not a case of Section 302 of IPC and it comes within the purview of Section 304 Part II of IPC. Hence, the conviction for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and imposing the life imprisonment requires interference of this Court. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9339-DB CRL.A No. 2122 of 2018 13. The accused was aged about 26 years and the deceased was aged about 45 years as on the date of the incident. Due to the act of the accused, a person who was aged about 45 years lost his remaining life, that too for a trivial issue. It appears that the age of the accused enraged him in picking up the stone and assaulting the deceased since he is aged about 26 years. The punishment provided under Section 304 of IPC is for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. This Court found that there was no any intention to kill. Under such circumstances, the accused is liable to be convicted under Section 304 Part II of IPC and considering the age of the deceased and also considering the age of the accused, who was aged about 26 years as on the date of the incident, it is appropriate to enhance the fine amount and consider the sentencing policy and it should commensurate with the gravity - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9339-DB CRL.A No. 2122 of 2018 of the offence as there is no intention, previous ill-will and premeditation and suddenly due to provocation picked up the stone and committed the Act. Hence, we answer the point partly in the affirmative in coming to the conclusion that invoking of Section 302 of IPC and imposing life sentence is erroneous. Point No.(ii): 14. In view of the discussions made above, we pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The judgment of conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC is set aside and the same is modified as Section 304 Part II of IPC. (iii) The accused is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.2,00,000/- within six weeks from today. Out of fine amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, an amount of Rs.1,75,000/- is payable to P.W.2, who is the wife of the deceased, on proper identification. The remaining amount of Rs.25,000/- shall vest with the State. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9339-DB CRL.A No. 2122 of 2018 (iv) If the fine amount of Rs.25,000/- imposed by the Trial Court is already deposited, the remaining fine amount of Rs.1,75,000/- shall be deposited before the Trial Court within six weeks from today. (v) If the accused fails to deposit the fine amount within six weeks from today, he shall undergo imprisonment for a period of 3 years in addition to 7 years. (vi) The accused is entitled for set-off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17