Karnataka High Court
Sri Thimmaiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 29 November, 2023
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:43152
CRL.A No. 975 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 975 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
1. SRI THIMMAIAH
S/O ELAKAPPA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O KADEKODI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, GUBBI TQ.
TUMKUR DISTRICT
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M B CHANDRACHOODA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY GUBBI POLICE
TUMKUR DISTRICT
REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Digitally HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
signed by BANGALORE.
SUMITHRA R ...RESPONDENT
Location: (BY SMT.SOWMYA R., HCGP)
High Court of
Karnataka
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.374(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE
DATED 18/8/2012 PASSED IN S.C. No.47/2012 BY THE PRL.
DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMKUR - CONVICTING THE
APPELLANT/ ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S.504, 506(1)
OF IPC. APPELANT/ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO S.I.
FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AND TO PAY A FINE OF
RS.1,000/- AND IN DEFAULT TO PAY FINE AMOUNT, TO
UNDERGO S.I. FOR A PERIOD OF ONE MONTH, FOR OFFENCE
P/U/S.504 OF IPC. APPELANT/ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO S.I.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:43152
CRL.A No. 975 of 2012
FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AND TO PAY A FINE OF Rs.1,000/-
AND IN DEFAULT TO PAY FINE AMOUNT, TO UNDERGO S.I. FOR
A PERIOD OF ONE MONTH, FOR OFFENCE P/U/S.506(1) OF IPC.
BOTH SENTENCES SHALL RUN CONCURRENTLY.
THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The appellant has preferred this appeal assailing the
judgment and order dated 18.08.2012 passed by the
Court of the Principal Sessions Judge in Sessions case
No.47/2012, thereby convicting and sentencing him for
the offence punishable under section 504 and 506 (1) of
IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on
13.04.2011 at about 7.00 p.m., in Kadekodi Palya Village,
in front of Shri Anjaneyaswamy Temple near a bridge,
where complainant's father by name Siddaramaiah was
sitting, the accused went and intentionally insulted him by
abusing him using filthy words, in front of the villagers and
criminally intimidated him by giving threat to his life, on
account of which at about 10.00 p.m., the said
NC: 2023:KHC:43152
Siddaramaiah consumed organophosphorus insecticide and
committed suicide.
3. The prosecution has alleged that since the
accused insulted the complainant's father by abusing him
in vulgar language and threatened him, the complainant's
father committed suicide and therefore, the accused
abetted him to commit suicide and committed the charged
offences punishable under section 504, 506 (2) and 306 of
IPC.
4. The trial court by its impugned judgment, was
pleased to acquit the accused of the offences punishable
under section 506 (2) and 306 of IPC. However, convicted
him for the offence punishable under section 504 and 506
(1) of IPC.
5. The accused was sentenced to undergo S.I. for
a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, for
each of the offences under section 504 and 506 (1) of IPC
with default sentence to undergo S.I. for a further period
NC: 2023:KHC:43152
of one month each. Both the sentence imposed against the
accused was ordered to run concurrently.
6. In Ex.P1-complaint lodged by the son of the
deceased, it is alleged that on 13.04.2011 at about 7.00
p.m., he was standing near Anjaneya temple along with
Channabasavaiah, Govinda, Raju and Shivanna and his
father Siddaramaiah was sitting in front of the temple. At
that time accused No.1 came near his father and started
abusing him in vulgar language and tried to assault him
with a chappal. When they went there, the accused
threatened his father, saying that he is very proud
because his children are in politics and threatened him
saying that he will be killed. Further, the accused dragged
his father by holding his shirt. They pacified the quarrel
and thereafter his father went away towards his house. He
has further stated that since his father was missing, he
along with one Nataraju, went in search of his father and
at about 10.00 p.m. they found his father struggling for
life near a pump house situated in the garden land. They
NC: 2023:KHC:43152
noticed that his father had consumed poison and
immediately they shifted him to Government Hospital,
Gubbi, but on the way his father died.
7. The learned Sessions Judge while acquitting the
accused of the offence punishable under section 306 of
IPC has held that none of the witnesses have whispered
anything about the mens rea of the accused or his active
act in the deceased committing suicide and merely
because the deceased has consumed poison because of
the insult to his reputation by the accused, that itself
cannot be treated as sufficient to fulfill the ingredients of
abetment.
8. The trial Court has further held that the criminal
intimidation committed by the accused is not to the extent
of causing death or grievous hurt, but it will fall under
Section 506(1) of IPC. Hence, the trial Court acquitted the
accused of the charged offence under Section 506(2) of
IPC.
NC: 2023:KHC:43152
9. In so far as the incident which took place at
about 7.00 p.m. on 13.04.2011, wherein it is alleged that
the accused has abused the deceased, threatened him
etc., the prosecution is relying on the evidence of PWs.1
and 3.
10. PW.2 has deposed about going in search of the
deceased along with PW.1. He has stated that the
deceased was lying near the pump house in the garden
land and he had consumed some poison. PW.4 is the
panch witness to the inquest mahazar /Ex.P8, PW.5 is the
panch witness to the spot mahazar/Ex.P2 and PW.6 is the
panch witness to the seizure mahazar -Ex.P3 under which
Mos.1 to 3 were seized. PW.7 is the PSI who registered
the case, conducted investigation and filed the charge
sheet.
11. The complainant namely the son of the
deceased who is examined as PW.1, though deposed that
the accused abused his father in filthy language and tried
to assault him with a chappal, he has not stated that the
NC: 2023:KHC:43152
accused gave threat to his life. Even PW.2 has not
deposed about the threat given by the accused. On the
other hand, he has deposed in consonance with PW.1 that
the accused abused the deceased in vulgar language etc.
The defence has tried to elicit in the cross-examination of
PWs.1 and 3 that on account of political enmity, a false
case was registered, but the same was denied by the
witnesses. There is consistency in the evidence of PWs.1
and 3 regarding the accused abusing the deceased using
vulgar language. The reasons assigned by the trial Court
to convict the accused for the offence under Section 504 of
IPC is based on the evidence and material on record.
However, the evidence of PW.1 and 3 is not sufficient to
hold that the accused has committed an act of criminal
intimidation. The ingredients of Section 506 of IPC has
not been made out. Therefore, the trial Court was not
justified in convicting the appellants for the offence
punishable under Section 506(1) of the IPC.
NC: 2023:KHC:43152
12. The incident is of the year 2011. More than 12
years have lapsed. The accused has no bad antecedents.
Further, the trial Court while imposing sentence has
observed that the entire family of the accused is
depending on him.
13. The offence under Section 504 of IPC is
punishable with imprisonment for two years, or with fine,
or both. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case and for the aforementioned reasons, sending the
accused to prison at this stage will not serve any purpose.
On the other hand, higher fine can be imposed for the
offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC. Hence, the
following:
ORDER
Appeal is allowed in part.
The judgment and order dated 18.08.2012 passed by
the Court of Principal Sessions Judge at Tumkur in S.C.
No.47/2012, convicting and sentencing the accused for the
NC: 2023:KHC:43152
offence punishable under Section 506(1) is hereby set
aside.
The conviction under Section 504 of IPC is confirmed
and the sentence of imprisonment is set aside and
sentence of imposition of fine is modified as under.
The accused shall be liable to pay a fine of
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) for the offence
punishable under Section 504 of IPC and in default of
payment of fine amount, he shall undergo S.I. for a period
of four months.
Sd/-
JUDGE
HB
