Karnataka High Court
Sri Rakesh vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:45112
CRL.A No. 2006 of 2016
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2006 OF 2016 (C)
BETWEEN:
SRI RAKESH
S/O SUDHIR C BABU
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/AT NO.3077/1,3RD CROSS
GOKULAM PARK ROAD
V V MOHALLA, MYSURU CITY-570002.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. B S PRASAD ., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
JAYALAKSHMIPURAM POLICE STATION
MYSURU, REP BY S.P.P
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE-560001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. B LAKSHMAN, HCGP)
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYAN N
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED
26.10.2016 AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 2.11.2016
PASSED BY THE II ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU IN
S.C.NO.151/2012 CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED
FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 326 AND 307 OF IPC AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:45112
CRL.A No. 2006 of 2016
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The appellant-accused has preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Mysuru in S.C.No.151/2012 dated 26.10.2016.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their status before the trial Court.
3. The brief facts leading to this appeal is:
3.1. The Jayalakshmipuram Police has submitted the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 326 and 307 IPC. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 29.12.2011 at 12.10 p.m. near the compound of Mahajana P.U. College, Mysuru, on the ground that Smt.Madhuri Heggade (PW12/CW6) refused to marry the accused and had married another person, the accused assaulted her with chopper and caused injuries on her right hand, left leg and cheek and caused grievous -3- NC: 2025:KHC:45112 CRL.A No. 2006 of 2016 HC-KAR injury to the middle finger of her right hand by cutting that finger. Further, it is alleged that the accused attempted to commit murder of Smt.Madhuri Heggade with a chopper.
Thus, the accused has committed the offence punishable under Sections 326 and 307 of IPC. After filing the charge sheet, a case was registered in C.C.No.136/2012 on the file of the JMFC (II Court) Mysore. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and case was registered in S.C.No.151/2012. The accused was enlarged and bail.
3.2. On hearing the parties, the Trial Court has framed the charges against the accused for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 326 and 307 of IPC. The same was read over and explained to the accused. Having understood the same, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
3.3. To prove the guilt of the accused, in all 24 witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW24; 27 documents -4- NC: 2025:KHC:45112 CRL.A No. 2006 of 2016 HC-KAR were marked as Ex.P1 to P27 and 8 material objects were marked as M.O.Nos.1 to 8.
3.4. On closure of prosecution evidence, statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. Accused has denied the incriminating materials. He has filed written statement under Section 313 of CrPC on 08.07.2016.
3.4. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the Trial Court has convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 326 and 307 of IPC and accused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 2 years for each offence and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,05,000/-. Out of the fine amount, Rs.2,00,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to the victim, Smt.Madhuri Heggade (PW12). Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that though the appellant has questioned the order of conviction for the offences -5- NC: 2025:KHC:45112 CRL.A No. 2006 of 2016 HC-KAR punishable under Sections 326 and 307 of Indian Penal Code. Now the accused is not intending to challenge the same and he only seeks for modification of the sentence by reducing the period of sentence from 2 years to 346 days as the accused has already undergone the sentence in judicial custody for a period of 346 days. It is also submitted that the appellant has already remitted the fine amount of Rs.2,05,000/-.
5. The Learned HCGP submitted that considering the nature and gravity of offence, the Trial Court has rightly imposed the sentence of 2 years for each offence, which runs concurrently. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.
6. Having heard the arguments on both sides and perusal of the materials available on record, the points that arise for consideration is:
a) Whether the appellant/accused is entitled for modification of sentence as sought for?
b) What order? -6- NC: 2025:KHC:45112 CRL.A No. 2006 of 2016 HC-KAR
7. My answer to the above points are as under:
Point No.(1) - In the affirmative Point No.(2) - As per final order. Regarding Point No.1:
8. I have examined the materials placed before this Court. The Trial court has convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 307 and 326 of IPC and passed a sentence as under:
ORDER • "The convict is sentenced to undergo S.I for a period of two years for each of offences punishable under the sections 326 and 307 of IPC and pay a fine of Rs.2,05,000/- (Rupees Two lakh five thousand) only.
• Acting under section 357 Cr.P.C. out of the fine amount Rs.2,00,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to the victim PW-12 - Madhuri Heggade. Rs.5,000/- which is the remaining fine amount is ordered to be defrayed towards prosecution expenses.-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:45112 CRL.A No. 2006 of 2016 HC-KAR • In default of payment of fine amount and compensation the convict is further sentenced to under go S.I for a period of six months. • The above substantive sentences are directed to run concurrently.
• The convict is entitled for set off under section 428 of Cr.P.C for the period for which he was in custody during the investigation, enquiry and trial of this case.
• Copy of finding regarding guilt of convict and sentence imposed upon him shall be forwarded to the District Magistrate as required under section 365 of Cr.P.C,.
• Office is directed to furnish free copy of judgment to the accused forthwith."
9. While imposing the sentence, the Trial Court has observed that the accused was in custody for 316 days during investigation. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the accused that after conviction, the accused was in judicial custody for a period of 30 days and in all, the accused was in custody for a period of 346 days. -8-
NC: 2025:KHC:45112 CRL.A No. 2006 of 2016 HC-KAR
10. A perusal of the para No.53 of the judgment, the trial Court has observed as under:
"PW-9 and 10 are the Medical officers who have examined the injured. PW-9 has operated the injured. To know the injuries suffered by PW:12 the discharge summary marked at ExP:9 is sufficient.
1. Auto amputation of Right middle finger at DIP joint.
2. Fracture of middle phalanx of Right Index finger.
3. Stellate laceration over dorsum of Right wrist
4. Oblique inceration over dorsum of Right forearm in lower 1/3 severing most of the extensors and severe wrist drop present.
5. Laceration over Right Malar 2 inches X 2 inches.
6. Laceration over slept knee on inner side 2 inches X 2 inches.
54. Ex.P:6 which is a operation record notes further throws light upon the minute details of the injuries sustained by the PW:12".
11. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the accused that now the age of the accused is 40 years and has aged mother, grand mother and wife who are the dependents upon him. He is the only earning member in the family. Hence, sought for reduction of sentence. -9-
NC: 2025:KHC:45112 CRL.A No. 2006 of 2016 HC-KAR
12. Considering the nature and gravity of offences and also injuries caused to the victim, I am of the opinion that it is just and proper to modify the sentence as sought for. Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 in the affirmative. Regarding Point No.2:
13. For the foregoing reasons and discussions, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) Appeal is partly allowed;
ii) The judgment of conviction passed by the II Addl. Sessions Judge, Mysuru dated 26.10.2016 in S.C No.151/2012 is confirmed;
iii) The order on sentence passed by the II Addl. Sessions Judge, Mysuru dated 02.11.2016 in S.C No.151/2012 is modified as under;
a. Appellant shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 346 days for each offence under Section 326 and 307 of
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:45112
CRL.A No. 2006 of 2016
HC-KAR
Indian Penal Code and pay fine of
Rs.2,05,000/-.
b. The above sentences shall to run
concurrently.
c. It is submitted that the fine amount of
Rs.2,05,000/- is already deposited by the accused.
d. The trial Court is directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to PW12-Smt.Madhuri Heggade as per the judgment passed by the trial Court and remaining Rs.5,000/- shall be remitted to the State.
e. Registry is directed to send the copy of this order along with Trial Court records to the trial Court.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE DM,KBM LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 14