Karnataka High Court
State By Circle Inspector Of ... vs Raghunatha on 10 January, 2022
Bench: B.Veerappa, M G Uma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA
AND
THE HON'BLE Mrs. JUSTICE M.G. UMA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.433/2020
BETWEEN:
STATE BY CIRCLE INSPECTOR
OF POLICE, BANGARPET CIRCLE,
BANGARPET, REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI .K., HCGP)
AND:
1. RAGHUNATHA
S/O NARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/AT KAMASAMUDRAM VILLAGE,
BANGARPET TALUK, K.G.F.
2. MANJUNATHA
S/O RAMAKRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
2
R/AT GOLLAHALLI VILLAGE,
BANGARPET TALUK, K.G.F.
... RESPONDENTS
(RESPONDENTS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 377 CR.P.C
BY THE STATE P.P. FOR THE STATE PRAYING TO MODIFY THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 17.06.2019 IN S.C.NO.276/2014
PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
KOLAR (SITTING AT K.G.F). IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO
IMPOSING INADEQUATE SENTENCE FOR DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF
FINE ON THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.
302 R/W SEC. 34 OF IPC.
THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2 ARE SENTENCED
TO UNDERGO IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE AND TO PAY FINE OF
RS.7500/- FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S. 302 R/W SEC. 34 OF IPC.
AFORESAID SENTENCE SHALL RUN CONCURRENTLY.
THE SPP PRAYS THAT THE ABOVE ORDER OF CONVICTION
MAY BE ENHANCED SUITABLY.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, B.VEERAPPA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
JUDGMENT
The State filed the present appeal against the impugned
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.06.2019 in
S.C.No.276/2014 on the file of the III Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Kolar (Sitting at K.G.F.) for convicting the accused
persons but not imposing the fine as default sentence for the
offences punishable under Sections 120-B and 302 read with
Section 34 of IPC against accused persons and in the prayer they
confined the appeal for seeking modification of the impugned
judgment of conviction and order of sentence, in so far as it relates
to imposing inadequate sentence in default of payment of fine on
the respondents/accused for the offence punishable under Section
302 read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. The respondents/accused Nos.1 and 2 filed Criminal
Appeal No.1389/2019 and this Court after hearing both the parties,
by order dated 14.07.2021, allowed the said appeal in part. The
impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence was
modified and accused persons were convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 304 Part-I IPC and sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.75,000/- each
and in default, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period
of three years, giving benefit under the provisions of Section 428 of
Cr.P.C. The said order passed by this Court on the appeal filed by
the accused persons has reached finality.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that deceased-Ramu,
who was father of CW.1-Lokanathan had taken away CW.1 along
with him, after there were misunderstandings in the business run
by CW.1 and accused No.1 on account of the loss sustained and
hence accused No.1 had enmity with him. Therefore, accused Nos.1
and 2 hatched a conspiracy to commit the murder of the deceased-
Ramu. On 06.05.2015, charges were framed against accused Nos.1
and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B and 302 of
IPC and the accused persons have denied the said charges and
claimed to be tried.
4. In order to prove the guilt of the accused persons, the
prosecution examined 23 witnesses as PWs.1 to 23 and got marked
Exs.P1 to P20 and material objects as MOs.1 to 8.
5. The learned Sessions Judge recorded the statements of
accused Nos.1 and 2 under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., and further
proceeded to convict the accused persons and sentenced them to
undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.7,500/- each
for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B and 302 read with
Section 34 of IPC. As already stated above, the accused persons
filed criminal appeal No.1389/2019 before this Court and this Court
by order dated 14.07.2021 allowed the appeal in part and modified
the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence,
convicting the accused persons for the offence punishable under
Section 304 Part-I IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for
ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.75,000/- each and in default, they
shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years,
giving benefit under the provisions of Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
6. The Criminal Appeal No.1389/2019 filed by the accused
persons, in all fairness was brought to the notice of this Court.
Though the present appeal is filed only for enhancement of fine and
to modify the impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence insofar as imposing inadequate sentence for default of
payment of fine on the accused persons for the offence punishable
under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC, this Court, in
Criminal Appeal No.1389/2019 decided the matter on merits and
held that the accused persons have made out a case to modify the
impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and
convicted the accused persons for the offence punishable under
Section 304 Part-I IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for
ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.75,000/- each and in default, they
shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years,
giving benefit under the provisions of Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
Therefore, the present appeal challenging only the inadequate
sentence for default of payment of fine on the accused persons for
the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of
IPC, would not survive for consideration. Accordingly, the appeal
filed by the State is hereby disposed as devoid of merits as this
Court already convicted the accused persons for the offence
punishable under Section 304 Part-I IPC and sentenced them to
undergo imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of
Rs.75,000/- each and in default, they shall undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of three years, giving benefit under the
provisions of Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
7. In view of the above, we pass the following:
ORDER
Criminal appeal is disposed off with the observations stated
supra.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
SMJ
