Karnataka High Court
Ramesha vs The State By Sub Inspector on 10 April, 2024
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:14771
CRL.A No. 2175 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2175 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. RAMESHA S/O LATE GURUVA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
R/AT PELATHADI,
PARIYADKA SCHOOL NEAR KAKKINJE,
CHIBIDRE VILLAGE,
BELTHANGADI TALUK
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. KARUNAKARA P., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE BY SUB INSPECTOR
OF POLICE,
PUTTUR RURAL CIRCLE,
UPPINANGADI,
REPRESENTED BY
Digitally STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
signed by ATTACHED TO THE OFFICE
LAKSHMI T OF ADVOCATE GENERAL,
Location: HIGH COURT, BANGALORE-560 001
High Court ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. HARISH GANAPATHY, HCGP)
of Karnataka
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE
DATED 23.11.2017 S.C.NO.47/2015 PASSED BY THE 3RD
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K.,
MANGALORE.
THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:14771
CRL.A No. 2175 of 2017
JUDGMENT
This appeal is directed against the Judgment and
Order dated 23.11.2017 passed in SC No.47/2015 by the
III Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K.,
Mangalore.
2. The accused was tried for the offence
punishable under Section 302 IPC. Vide impugned
judgment, the trial Court convicted him for the offence
punishable under Section 304-II IPC. He has been
sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of
03 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2 lakhs.
3. The fine imposed against the appellant has
been directed to be paid as compensation to
CW2-Smt.Kalyani (PW5).
4. The learned counsel for the appellant has filed a
memo along with a copy of the Death Certificate of the
appellant and submitted that the appellant has died on
4.10.2020.
NC: 2024:KHC:14771
5. Since the trial Court has sentenced the
appellant to undergo imprisonment as well as to pay fine,
this Court has proceeded to consider the merits of the
case, insofar as imposition of fine is concerned.
6. The case of prosecution is that on 24.11.2014
between 2.30 pm and 3.00 pm, the accused picked up
quarrel with the deceased, none other than his
brother-in-law and assaulted him with a stone, on account
of which he sustained bleeding injuries and died.
7. PW5 is the mother of deceased Balakrishna and
one Sunanda is her daughter. Accused is none other than
the husband of Sunanda and he is the brother-in-law of
deceased Balakrishna. Complaint is lodged by
PW1-Smt.Girija. She has supported the case of
prosecution and reiterated the complaint averments. She
has deposed about lodging the complaint with the police
and identified her signature in Ex.P1 and her signature in
her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.,
which is marked as Ex.P2. Further PW2, another
NC: 2024:KHC:14771
independent witness has also supported the case of
prosecution. The said witness has identified MO1-stone,
used by the accused to assault the deceased.
8. Post Mortem report is marked as Ex.P26. The
cause of death is due to craniocerebral injuries as a result
of blunt force trauma sustained to the head. The post
mortem examination is conducted by CW13-Dr.Pratik Vijay
Tarwadi. Post mortem report is marked through PW20-
Dr.Mahabalashetty, who was working along with CW13.
The said witness has identified the signature of CW13 in
Ex.P26.
9. The prosecution has been able to establish that
the deceased died on account of head injury sustained to
him. Further, from the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, it can be
safely held that the accused caused the said injuries. The
contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that all
the other material witnesses have not supported the case
of prosecution and therefore, the accused is innocent of
the charged offence etc., cannot be accepted. There is
NC: 2024:KHC:14771
nothing elicited in the cross-examination of PWs.1 and 2 to
disbelieve their evidence.
10. Charge was framed under Section 302 IPC.
The learned Sessions Judge, after considering the material
on record and appreciating the oral and documentary
evidence has come to the conclusion that the ingredients
of Section 302 IPC are not made out. Hence, the accused
was convicted for the offence punishable under Section
304-II IPC. Insofar as acquittal of the accused under
Section 302 IPC is concerned, the same has attained
finality.
11. The trial Court has imposed fine of Rs.2 lakhs
and the said fine was ordered to be paid as compensation
to PW5-mother-in-law of the accused and mother of the
deceased. In the facts and circumstances, the fine
imposed against the appellant can be reduced. Hence,
the following:
NC: 2024:KHC:14771
ORDER
i. Appeal is allowed-in-part.
ii. The conviction of the appellant for the offence
punishable under Section 304-II IPC passed by the III
Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangalore, in
SC No.47/2015 dated 23.11.2017 is hereby confirmed.
iii. Sentence of fine amount of Rs.2 lakhs imposed
on the accused, which was ordered to be paid as
compensation to PW5-Smt.Kalyani, mother of the
deceased is hereby modified by reducing the fine amount
to Rs.1 lakh.
iv. The fine amount shall be deposited within a
period of four weeks from today before the trial Court, if
not already deposited, which shall be paid as
compensation to PW5-Smt.Kalyani.
Sd/-
JUDGE
TL
