K Srinivasreddy vs State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 4213 Kant

                               1




 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                          BEFORE:

       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

           CRIMINAL APPEAL No.660 OF 2011


BETWEEN:

K. SRINIVASREDDY,
S/O. LATE KONAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
R/AT APPASANAHALLI VILLAGE,
CHINTAMANI TALUK.                            ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI. B.C. RAI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,
BANGALORE,
BY KENCHARLAHALLI POLICE,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.                  ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. KRISHNA KUMAR K.K., HCGP)

      THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2)
OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
06.06.2011 PASSED BY THE SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPURA
IN S.C.No.68/2007-CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR
THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 324 AND 506(2)
OF IPC AND THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED IN SENTENCED TO
UNDERGO S.I., FOR 2 YEARS AND ALSO LIABLE TO PAY A FINE OF
Rs.2,000/- (RUPEES TWO THOUSAND ONLY) FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 324 OF IPC AND IN CASE OF
DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF FINE TO UNERGO FURTHER S.I., FOR
TWO MONTHS AND ETC.
                                2




     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL DISPOSAL,
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE/PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                           JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred by the accused, feeling

aggrieved by the Judgment and Order of conviction

and sentence passed against him by the Trial Court

for offences punishable under Sections 324 and

506(2) of IPC.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the

appellant and the learned HCGP for respondent -

State and perused the material on record.

3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are

that on 01.05.2007 at about 7.00 p.m. in the

agricultural land of first informant-M.Krishnappa

(PW1) in Appasanahalli village, when he was tying

his bullocks near the bore well, the accused came

and picked up quarrel with him and with an intention

to commit his murder, stabbed him with a knife and

caused injuries on left side of the waist and when his

wife-PW2-Rajamma intervened she was also

assaulted with a wooden club and he threatened

both of them with dire consequences and thereby

committed the charged offences punishable under

Sections 307, 324 and 506 of IPC.

4. Appreciating the oral and documentary

evidence on record, the trial Court found the accused

guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 324

and 506(2) of IPC and convicted him for the said

offence and acquitted the accused of the offence

punishable under Section 307 of IPC.

5. The injured are examined as PWs.1 and 2.

PW1 is the first informant. The complaint is marked

as Ex.P1. PW1 has stated that at about 7.00 p.m. on

01.05.2007 the accused came near him while he

was tying the bullocks near the bore well and

threatened with dire consequences and stabbed him

with a knife causing bleeding injures and when he

screamed, his wife Rajamma-PW2 came to his

rescue, at that time the accused assaulted her with

eucalyptus club which was lying on the ground. He

has stated that hearing his screaming sound, the

villagers namely Marappareddy (PW4) and

Venkateshappa (PW3) and another person came to

the spot and at that time the accused ran away.

Thereafter, his wife and himself were shifted to

Chinthamani Government Hospital by one

Srinivasareddy (PW5) and from there for higher

treatment they were shifted to SNR Hospital, Kolar.

6. The statement of PW1 as per Ex.P1 was

recorded at SNR Hospital, Kolar, at about 1.00 p.m.

on 03.05.2007 by PW.10 and a case was registered

against the accused and FIR-Ex.P7 was forwarded to

the Court.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant has

contended that there is an inordinate delay in

lodging the complaint and on account of the civil

dispute a false case has been foisted against the

accused. He submits that the accused is none other

than the sister's son of PW1 and in the cross-

examination of PW1 it is elicited that the mother of

the accused has filed a case before the Civil Court

claiming share in the property. He, therefore,

contends that a minor incident has been exaggerated

and the accused has been implicated in a false case

alleging that he has attempted on the life of PW1.

8. PW1 has reiterated the complaint

averments with regard to the incident in question.

He has stated in his evidence that the accused

stabbed him with a knife and caused bleeding

injuries and when his wife came to rescue him, the

accused assaulted her with a stick as well as with

hand and when they screamed for help,

Marappareddy (PW4) and Venkateshappa (PW3) and

another person came and rescued them. On seeing

them, accused ran away from the spot.

9. PW2 has also deposed about the accused

stabbing her husband i.e., PW1 with knife and also

assaulting her with wooden stick. There is nothing

elicited in the cross-examination of PWs.1 and 2 so

as to disbelieve their evidence with regard to the

incident in question. Further, their evidence is

corroborated by the evidence of PW4 and PW6.

10. PW.5, in his evidence, has stated that he

was informed about the incident by some one and

therefore he went to the spot and shifted both the

injured in his two wheeler to the hospital.

11. PW8 is the Medical Officer, who has

treated PWs.1 and 2. The wound certificate of

PWs.1 and 2 are marked as Exs.4 and 5 respectively.

As per the wound certificates, PW1 has sustained the

following injuries:

"Contusion over left side of neck measuring 3 cm x 3 cm.

Stab injury over the chest measuring 1 cm x 1 cm, depth of 2.5 cm and bleeding."

12. Insofar as PW2 is concerned, Ex.P5 shows

that she sustained contusion over the back of scalp

measuring 3 cm x 3 cm and tenderness on the back.

PW8 has opined that the injuries sustained by PWs.1 and

2 are simple in nature.

13. The Trial Court having appreciating the oral

and documentary evidence on record was pleased to

acquit the accused of the offence punishable under

Section 307 of IPC and convicted them for the offences

punishable under Sections 324 and 506(2) of IPC. I see

no illegality in the Judgment and order passed by the

Trial Court in coming to the said conclusion.

14. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that

the parties are closely related and now they are living

peacefully and there is no untoward incident taken place

except the incident in question. He submits, the parties

have settled their dispute after the partition of the

property. He, further, submits that the appellant was in

judicial custody for a period of ten days during trial and

therefore, seeks to take a lenient view.

15. The incident has taken place in the year 2007.

Almost 15 years have passed. The accused was in

judicial custody from 05.05.2007 to 15.05.2007. In the

light of the submission made by the learned counsel for

appellant and in the facts and circumstances of the case,

sending the appellant to the prison, at this stage, will not

serve any purpose. Hence, the period of sentence

already undergone by him may be held sufficient,

enhancing the fine amount imposed by the Trial Court.

Hence, the following:

ORDER

i. The appeal is allowed in part.

ii. The Judgment and Order dated 06.06.2011

passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura,

in SC No.68/2007 convicting the accused for the offences

punishable under Sections 324 and 506(2) of IPC is

hereby confirmed.

iii. The sentence imposed against the accused is

hereby modified.

iv. The period of sentence already undergone by

the accused for the offence punishable under Sections

324 and 506(2) of IPC is held sufficient.

v. He is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/-

(Fifteen thousand only) for the offence punishable under

Section 324 of IPC and Rs.5,000/- for the offence

punishable under Section 506(2) of IPC and in default of

payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment

for a period of three months each.

vi. Out of fine amount of Rs.15,000/-, a sum of

Rs.10,000/- shall be paid to PW1 and another sum of

Rs.5,000/- shall be paid to PW2 as compensation.

Sd/-

JUDGE

TL