Harisha vs State By Honnavalli Police
2024 Latest Caselaw 9532 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Harisha vs State By Honnavalli Police on 2 April, 2024

Author: Mohammad Nawaz

Bench: Mohammad Nawaz

                                               -1-
                                                             NC: 2024:KHC:13544
                                                         CRL.A No. 224 of 2013




               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                       DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2024

                                             BEFORE
                     THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
                           CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 224 OF 2013
             BETWEEN:

             HARISHA,
             S/O SHANKARAPPA,
             AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
             HALKURIKE VILLAGE,
             HONNAVALLI HOBLI,
             TIPTUR TALUK,
             TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
                                                                     ...APPELLANT
             (BY SRI. M. PARTHA, ADVOCATE)
             AND:

             STATE BY HONNAVALLI POLICE,
             TIPTUR TALUK,
             TUMAKURU DISTRICT,
             REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
             HIGH COURT,
Digitally    BANGALORE.
signed by                                                           ...RESPONDENT
             (BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K., HCGP)
LAKSHMI T
Location:
High Court           THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET
of
Karnataka    ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22.02.2013 PASSED BY THE
             P.O.,   F.T.C.,   TIPTUR   IN   S.C.NO.2/2012   -   CONVICTING   THE
             APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 324,307 R/W 34 OF
             IPC.

                     THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
             THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                            -2-
                                       NC: 2024:KHC:13544
                                    CRL.A No. 224 of 2013




                       JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred by accused No.2 against the

judgment and order dated 22.02.2013 passed by the FTC,

Tiptur in S.C.No.2/2012.

2. Vide impugned Judgment, the Trial Court has

convicted accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable

under Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC and

accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Section

307 of IPC. They were acquitted of the other charged

offences punishable under Section 504 and 506 read with

Section 34 of IPC.

3. Heard the learned counsel for appellant, learned

High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State

and perused the evidence and material on record.

4. Both accused Nos.1 and 2 were sentenced to

undergo SI for 1 year and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each,

in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for further

period of 1 month for the offence punishable under Section

324 of IPC.

NC: 2024:KHC:13544

5. Accused No.2 was further sentenced to undergo

Rigorous Imprisonment for 4 years and to pay fine of

Rs.10,000/- in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI

for a period of 6 months for the offence punishable under

Section 307 of IPC.

6. Accused No.1 preferred a separate appeal

before this Court in Crl.A.No223/2013. The said appeal

has been dismissed as abated as he was reported to be

dead.

7. The case of the prosecution is that on

24.07.2011 at about 10:30 a.m., when PW.1 and PW.2

had been to their land, accused Nos.1 and 2 picked up a

quarrel with them on account of an ill-will regarding

partition of the property, and assaulted them with wooden

stick and a sickle with an intention to commit murder and

caused injuries to them and thereby committed the

offences charged against them.

8. According to prosecution, accused No.1

assaulted on the back of PW.2 with a Bamboo club and

accused No.2 assaulted him with the butt end of the sickle

NC: 2024:KHC:13544

on his back and caused simple injuries to him. Further,

when PW.1 tried to rescue PW.2, accused No.2 voluntarily

assaulted him with the sickle on his head and between his

thumb and index finger of his left hand with an intention

to commit his murder.

9. The complaint is lodged by PW.1, which is

marked as Ex.P1. The statement of PW.1 was recorded by

PW.6-working as ASI at Honnavalli Police Station, who

visited the Tiptur Government Hospital on receiving an

intimation from the hospital. Thereafter, he has registered

a case against accused Nos.1 and 2 and issued FIR-Ex.P7

to the Jurisdictional Court.

10. The doctor who treated PWs.1 and 2 is

examined as PW.5. Wound certificate in-respect of PW.1 is

marked as Ex.P15 and PW.2 is marked as Ex.P16.

11. As per Ex.P15, PW.1 has sustained following

injuries.

i) A lacerated wound about 3.5X1 cms.

on left side fore head.

NC: 2024:KHC:13544

ii) A abrasion wound 1X1 cm on the left side of head.

iii) A linear cut about 2X1 cm on left hand.

12. As per Ex.P16, PW.2 has sustained the following

injuries.

            i)     A abrasion wound 1X1 over left
        shoulder.
            ii)    A abrasion wound over right side of
        upper lip measuring 1X1 cm.

13. PWs.1 and 2 are the injured in this case. PW.3

is a panch witness to the spot Mahazar-EX.P2. PWs.4 and

7 are the Scientific Officers who issued the report as per

Ex.P13 and Ex.P.21 respectively. PW.5 is the doctor who

treated the injured and issued the wound certificates.

PW.6 is the ASI who recorded the statement of PW.1 and

registered the case. PWs.8 and 9 are the eye witnesses to

the incident. PW.10 is the Investigation Officer who laid

the charge sheet.

NC: 2024:KHC:13544

14. A perusal of Ex.P1-complaint, given by PW.1,

reveal that there was a land dispute between the parties.

On the date of alleged incident, PWs.1 and 2 were in the

land. Both the accused picked up quarrel with PW.2.

Initially Accused No.1 assaulted PW.2 on his back and

accused No.2 assaulted with the butt end of a sickle on his

back. When PW.1 tried to rescue him, accused No.2

assaulted on the left side of his head with sickle and

caused bleeding injuries and when again PW.1 tried to

snatch the sickle, caused injuries between his fore finger

and thumb. It is further alleged that accused No.1 tried to

throw chilly powder on him and the villagers namely

Mahesh(PW.9) and Kumaraswamy(PW.8) came and

pacified the quarrel.

15. PWs.8 and 9 have been treated hostile by the

prosecution. They have not stated regarding specific overt

acts of the accused. However, their evidence would reveal

that there was a quarrel and an incident of assault in

which both PWs.1 and 2 sustained injuries. PW.8 is also a

witness to the spot Mahazar-Ex.P2.

NC: 2024:KHC:13544

16. PW.1 has re-iterated the complaint averments.

His evidence is corroborated by the evidence of PW.2. The

prosecution has produced and marked Material objects,

MOs.3 and 6, the weapons used by the accused persons.

MO.3 is the supporting stick, MO.4 is a piece of supporting

stick and MO.5 is the sickle.

17. The trial Court has observed that, accused No.2

was in a possession of sickle and he used backside of the

said weapon to assault PW.2 and used it's front side to

assault PW.1 and caused injuries to his vital part and

therefore, convicted accused No.2 for the offence

punishable under Section 307 of IPC and 324 of IPC

holding that the evidence clearly establishes the intention

of accused No.2 to commit the murder of PW.1 and in his

attempt to commit murder, he assaulted him with a sickle.

18. A perusal of the evidence of P.W.1 clearly

reveal that the accused were quarrelling with PW.2

namely, father of PW.1, in connection with a land dispute.

PW.1 who was at a little distance, ran towards his father

and saw accused No.1 assaulting his father with a

NC: 2024:KHC:13544

supporting stick on his back and accused No.2 assaulting

on the back of his father with the butt end of the sickle.

Hence, in so far as the assault on PW.1 is concerned, both

PWs.1 and 2 have stated that, accused No.2 has assaulted

from the butt end of the sickle on the back of PW.1.

Further, when PW.1 tried to rescue his father, accused

No.2 assaulted him with the sickle on his head. PW.1 has

sustained injuries on his fingers, while trying to avoid the

assault by blocking his hand.

19. A perusal of the evidence of PW.1, would clearly

reveal that accused No.2 assaulted only once on his head

with a sickle. The question is as to whether there was any

intention on the part of accused No.2 to commit the

murder of PW.1. It is relevant to refer to the cross

examination of PW.1 wherein, he has stated that after

seeing the assault on his father, he went to the spot and

assaulted both the accused with the supporting stick which

he was holding and at that time, accused held him and

assaulted. Even though both PWs.1 and 2 have stated that

accused No.2 has assaulted PW.2 with the sickle, in view

NC: 2024:KHC:13544

of the evidence of PW.1, wherein, he has stated in the

cross examination that he assaulted both accused Nos.1

and 2 with a supporting stick, it is clear that only after he

assaulted the accused persons, accused No.2 assaulted

him with a sickle and caused one injury on his head. There

is no evidence to show that accused No.2 has repeatedly

tried to assault on the head of PW.2. Initially, the quarrel

was between accused Nos.1 and 2 and PW.2. Both the

accused are said to have caused simple injuries to PW.2 by

assaulting him on his non vital part of the body. It is only

when PW.2 intervened and assaulted accused Nos.1 and 2,

it appears that accused No.2 re-iterated and gave one

blow with the sickle on the head of PW.2. Hence, it cannot

be said that there was any intention on the part of accused

No.2 to commit the murder of PW.2 or that he made an

attempt to commit his murder. Therefore, the conviction

and sentence passed against accused No.2 for the offence

punishable under Section 307 of IPC can not be

sustained.

- 10 -

NC: 2024:KHC:13544

20. In view of the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and the

medical evidence, the conviction of accused No.2 for the

offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC is just and

proper.

21. PW.2 and accused No.1 are brothers. PW.1 is

the son of PW.2. Accused No.2 is the son of accused No.1.

Hence, the parties are closely related to each other. The

incident is on account of a land dispute. It is submitted

that in view of the settlement between the parties, a

compromise decree has been passed in respect of the

disputed land. The incident is of the year 2011. More than

12 years have been lapsed. Appellant/accused No.2 was in

custody for more than 1 month. The sentence imposed

against him by the Trial Court for the offence punishable

under Section 324 of IPC is to undergo SI for a period of 1

year and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- in default of payment of

fine, to undergo SI for a period of 1 month. Considering

the above facts and circumstances, sending him to

prison at this stage may not serve any purpose,

- 11 -

NC: 2024:KHC:13544

instead of that the fine amount can be enhanced. Hence,

the following:

ORDER

i) Appeal is allowed in part.

ii) The Judgment and order dated 22.02.2013

passed by the FTC at Tiptur in S.C.No.2/2012, convicting

and sentencing the appellant/accused No.2 for the offence

punishable under Section 307 of IPC is hereby set aside.

iii) The conviction for the offence punishable under

Section 324 of IPC is confirmed, but the sentence is

modified as under.

a) appellant/accused No.2 is sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by him. He shall pay a fine of Rs.15,000/-

(Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) in default of payment of fine, shall undergo SI for a period of 1 month.

b) The fine amount shall be deposited before the Trial Court within 3 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Out of the fine amount, a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten

- 12 -

NC: 2024:KHC:13544

thousand only) shall be paid as compensation to PW.1-Halagappa.

Sd/-

JUDGE

LDC