Karnataka High Court
Sri.Durugappa H. S/O Late Ningappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 February, 2024
-1-
CRL.A No. 100189 of 2020
c/w CRL.A No. 100062 of 2020
c/w CRL.A No. 100323 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 8th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100189 of 2020
C/W
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100062 of 2020
c/w
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100323 of 2020
IN CRL.A NO. 100189/2020
BETWEEN:
SRI. DURUGAPPA H. S/O. LATE NINGAPPA
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O: AMBALI VILLAGE, TAL: H.B. HALLI,
DIST: BALLARI-583212.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SRINAND A. PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed AND:
by
SHIVAKUMAR
HIREMATH
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
Date:
2024.02.08 THROUGH C.P.I., KOTTUR CIRCLE,
15:06:29
+0530 KOTTUR POLICE STATION,
NOW REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD,
BENCH DHARWAD-580011.
2. SRI. NAGAPPA S/O. NANGAPPA,
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: AMBALI VILLAGE, TAL: H.B. HALLI,
DIST: BALLARI-583212.
3. SRI. CHANDRAPPA S/O. NINGAPPA,
AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: AMBALI VILLAGE, TAL: H.B. HALLI,
DIST: BALLARI-583212.
-2-
CRL.A No. 100189 of 2020
c/w CRL.A No. 100062 of 2020
c/w CRL.A No. 100323 of 2020
4. SRI.KOTRESH @ KOTRAPPA S/O. CHANDRAPPA
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: AMBALI VILLAGE, TQ: H.B. HALLI,
DIST: BALLARI-583212.
5. SRI.KENCHAPPA S/O. CHANDRAPPA
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: AMBALI VILLAGE, TQ: H.B. HALLI,
DIST: BALLARI-583212.
6. SRI.MAHALINGAPPA S/O. THAMMANNA
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: AMBALI VILLAGE, TQ: H.B. HALLI,
DIST: BALLARI-583212.
7. SMT.LALITHAMMA W/O. NAGAPPA
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O: AMBALI VILLAGE, TQ: H.B. HALLI,
DIST: BALLARI-583212.
8. SMT.RENUKAMMA W/O. CHANDRAPPA
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O: AMBALI VILLAGE, TQ: H.B. HALLI,
DIST: BALLARI-583212.
9. SRI.GOWRIHALL MANJUNATH S/O. GALAPPA
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: SELF EMPLOYED,
R/O: AMBALI VILLAGE, TQ: H.B. HALLI,
DIST: BALLARI-583212.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.B. GUNDAWADE, ADDL. SPP. FOR R1;
SRI. GURUDEV GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R9)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 372 OF CODE
OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT
CONVICTION DATED 18/01/2020 AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED
21/01/2020 PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARI, SITTING AT HOSAPETE IN S.C.
NO.5057/2014 AND CONVICT THE ACCUSED NO. 1 AND 2 FOR THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 307, 302, 201 AND 109 OF
-3-
CRL.A No. 100189 of 2020
c/w CRL.A No. 100062 of 2020
c/w CRL.A No. 100323 of 2020
IPC, ACCUSED NO. 3 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 302 AND 307 OF IPC, ACCUSED NO. 4 TO 7 FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 326, 307, 302, 201 AND
109 OF IPC AND ACCUSED NO.8 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTION 143, 147, 148, 504, 323, 109, 324, 326, 307, 302
AND 201 R/W SECTION 149 OF IPC BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE
APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
IN CRL.A NO.100062/2020
BETWEEN:
KOTRESH @ KOTRAPPA S/O. CHANDRAPPA
AGED: 27 YEARS, FARMER,
R/O: AMBALI VILLAGE, H.B.HALLI TALUK,
BALLARI DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. G.I. CHACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE BY CPI
KOTTUR CIRCLE, KOTTUR POLICE STATION,
BALLARI DISTRICT.
BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. M.B. GUNDAWADE, ADDL. SPP.)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION MADE IN S.C. NO.
5057/2014 PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARI (SITTING AT HOSAPETE) AND SET
ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION
MADE IN S.C. NO.5057/2014 PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARI (SITTING AT HOSAPETE)
FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 143, 147, 148,
-4-
CRL.A No. 100189 of 2020
c/w CRL.A No. 100062 of 2020
c/w CRL.A No. 100323 of 2020
504, 323, 324, 326 PART - II, 201 OF IPC SO FAR IT PERTAINS TO
ACCUSED NO. 3 AND FURTHER ACQUIT THE ACCUSED NO.3.
IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100323/2020
BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY THE
THE CIRCLE POLICE INSPECTOR,
KOTTUR CIRCLE,
KOTTUR POLICE STATION,
BALLARI DISTRICT,
THROUGH THE ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD-580011.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M.B. GUNDAWADE, ADDITIONAL SPP.)
AND:
1. SRI NAGAPPA S/O. NINGAPPA,
AGED : 46 YEARS, OCC: FARMER,
R/O: AMBALI VILLAGE, H.B. HALLI,
TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT, PIN CODE-583212.
2. SRI. CHANDRAPPA S/O. NINGAPPA,
AGED: 61 YEARS, OCC: FARMER,
R/O: AMBALI VILLAGE, H.B. HALLI,
TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT, PIN CODE-583212.
3. SRI. KOTRESH @ KOTRAPPA S/O. CHANDRAPPA,
AGED: 28 YEARS, OCC: FARMER,
R/O: AMBALI VILLAGE, H.B. HALLI,
TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT, PIN CODE-583212.
4. SRI. KENCHAPPA S/O. CHANDRAPPA,
AGED: 25 YEARS, OCC: FARMER,
R/O: AMBALI VILLAGE, H.B. HALLI,
TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT, PIN CODE-583212.
5. SRI. MAHALINGAPPA S/O. THAMMANNA,
AGED: 26 YEARS, OCC: FARMER,
R/O: AMBALI VILLAGE, H.B. HALLI,
TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT, PIN CODE-583212.
-5-
CRL.A No. 100189 of 2020
c/w CRL.A No. 100062 of 2020
c/w CRL.A No. 100323 of 2020
6. SMT. LALITHAMMA W/O. NAGAPPA,
AGED: 41 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE,
R/O: AMBALI VILLAGE, H.B. HALLI,
TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT, PIN CODE-583212.
7. SMT. RENUKAMMA W/O. CHANDRAPPA,
AGED: 46 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE,
R/O: AMBALI VILLAGE, H.B. HALLI,
TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT, PIN CODE-583212.
8. SRI. GOWRIHALLI MANJUNATH S/O. GALAPPA,
AGED: 48 YEARS,OCC: SELF-EMPLOYED,
R/O: VIDYA NAGAR, KOTTUR,
BALLARI DISTRICT, PIN CODE-583134.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G.I. CHACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1) AND
(3) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE AND GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 18.01.2020, PASSED BY THE III
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARI (SITTING
AT HOSAPETE) IN S.C.NO.5057/2014 AND CONVICT AND SENTENCE
RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED NO. 1 AND 2 FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTION 307,302,201 AND 109 OF IPC AND
RESPONDENT/ACCUSED NO.3 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTION 302 AND 307 OF IPC AND RESPONDENT/ACCUSED
NO. 4 TO 7 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 326,
307, 302, 201 AND 109 OF IPC AND RESPONDENT/ACCUSED NO.8
FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 143, 147, 148,
504, 323, 324, 326, 302 AND 201, 109 R/W 149 OF IPC IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS HAVING BEEN
HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, RAJESH RAI K,
J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-6-
CRL.A No. 100189 of 2020
c/w CRL.A No. 100062 of 2020
c/w CRL.A No. 100323 of 2020
JUDGMENT
These appeals are filed calling-in-question the legality and
validity of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
passed in SC No.5057/2014 dated 18.01.2020 by the III
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ballari (sitting at
Hosapete), wherein, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the
accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections
143, 147, 148, 504, 323, 324, 326 r/w Section 149 of Indian
Penal Code and acquitted them for the offences punishable
under Sections 307, 302, 201 and 109 of Indian Penal Code
2. The learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused
No.3 i.e., the appellant in Crl.A.No.100062/2020 for the
offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 504, 323,
324, 326, 304 Part II and 201 of Indian Penal Code and
acquitted him for the offences punishable 302 and 307 of Indian
Penal Code.
3. Further, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the
accused Nos.4, 5, 6 and 7 for the offences punishable under
Sections 143, 147, 148, 504, 323, 324 r/w Section 149 of
Indian Penal Code and acquitted them for the offences
punishable under Sections 326, 307, 302, 201 and 109 of
Indian Penal Code.
4. The trial Court exonerated the accused No.8 for the
offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 504, 323,
324, 326, 302, 201 and 109 r/w Section 149 of Indian Penal
Code.
5. Having convicted the accused for the aforesaid
offences, the learned Sessions Judge sentenced the accused
No.3 i.e., appellant in Crl.A. No.100062/2020 to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for one month and pay a fine of
Rs.3,000/- for each of the offence punishable under Sections
143, 147, 148, 504 and 323 of Indian Penal Code, in default of
payment of fine in each offence, directed him to undergo
further imprisonment for 15 days.
6. The accused No.3 further sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of
Rs.3,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 324 of
Indian Penal Code, in default of payment of fine, he shall
undergo further imprisonment for one month. He also
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and
to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under
Section 326 of Indian Penal Code, in default of payment of fine,
he shall undergo further imprisonment for three months.
7. The accused No.3 further sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of
Rs.1,00,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part
II of Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, he
shall undergo further imprisonment for six months.
8. The accused No.3 further sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of
Rs.3,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 201 of
Indian Penal Code, in default of payment of fine, he shall
undergo further imprisonment for one month.
9. Leaned Sessions Judge directed that the out of total
fine amount, Rs. 1,14,000/- shall be paid to the parents and
wife of the deceased and Rs. 10,000/- shall be confiscated as
fine amount. Further learned Sessions Judge also directed that
all the sentences shall run concurrently and extended the
benefit under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
10. The learned Sessions Judge though convicted the
accused Nos.1, 2, 4 to 7 as above, but, enlarged them under
Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, with suitable
covenants. However, by invoking Section 5 of the Probation of
Offenders Act, learned Sessions Judge directed the accused
Nos. 1 and 2 to deposit compensation of Rs.25,000/- each and
accused Nos.4 to 7 to deposit the compensation of Rs.5,000/-
each and directed to pay the said compensation to the injured
PWs.4 to 7.
11. For the purpose of reference the parties are referred
to their original status before the Trial Court.
12. The factual matrix of the prosecution case is that-
The accused persons carried enmity with the deceased
and PWs.4 to 7 in respect of sexual assault committed by son of
PW.6-Basappa against the daughter of accused No.1/Nagappa
during August-2014. On that background, on 11.01.2014 at
about 8:00 am at Ambali village in front of the house of PW.4,
accused Nos. 8 and 9 instigated accused Nos.1 to 7, formed an
unlawful assembly and forcibly sent the rape victim to the
house of PW.6, they started quarrelling with PW.4, by abusing
him in filthy language and started assaulting PW.4 by hands
and legs. By that time, PW.6 and his son-Sanna ningappa
- 10 -
(deceased) along with PWs.7 and 8 intervened to pacify the
quarrel. Enraged by the same, accused Nos.1 to 7 threatened
them to do away with their lives and accordingly, accused Nos.6
and 7 held the hands of the deceased Sanna ningappa and
accused No.3 assaulted him with an Axe (MO.5) on his neck.
Thereafter, accused No.1 snatched the said Axe and assaulted
the PWs.6 and 4 and caused injuries on their face and hand,
accused No.2 assaulted PW.7 with a club on his back, accused
No.4 assaulted PW.6 with a club on the waist, accused No.5
assaulted PWs.4, 6 and 8 with a club and caused the injuries.
Due to the assault, Sanna ningappa sustained heavy bleeding
injuries and he was shifted to the Hospital but, he succumbed
to the injuries at 9:15 am.
13. Accordingly, PW.4 lodged the complaint before
PW.20-The Head Constable of respondent-Police as per Ex.P.3
and the same was registered in Crime No.2/2024 dated
11.01.2014 as per Ex.P.13. Subsequently, PW.21 conducted the
further investigation in the case and drawn the Inquest
Panchanama on the dead body of the deceased and also drawn
Exs.P.1, 2 and 10 i.e., the Spot and Seizure mahazars.
Thereafter, PW.27 conducted the further investigation and
- 11 -
recorded the statements of all the witnesses and also after
obtaining the necessary documents from the concerned
authority, PW.27 laid the chargesheet against the accused for
the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 109,
504, 323, 324, 326, 307, 302, 201 r/w Section 149 of Indian
Penal Code i.e., against the accused Nos.1 to 9 before the
committal Court.
14. After committal of the case before the Sessions
Court, the learned Sessions Judge, framed the charges against
the accused for the aforementioned offences and read over the
same to the accused. However, they denied the charges and
claimed to be tried.
15. In order to prove the charges leveled against the
accused, before the trial Court the prosecution in total
examined 28 witnesses as PWs.1 to 28 and produced 24
documents as Exs.P.1 to 24 and identified 15 Material Objects
as MOs.1 to 15.
16. After assessment of the oral and documentary
evidence placed before the Sessions Court, the learned
- 12 -
Sessions Judge framed the following points for consideration as
under:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable
doubt that, on 11.01.2014 at about 8.00 a.m. at Ambali
Village in front of house of C.W.1 accused 1 to 7, being
members of an unlawful assembly, having an intention to
commit crime and thereby committed an offence punishable
under Section 143 R/W Sec. 149 of Indian Penal Code?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable
doubt that, on the above said date, place and time, the
accused 1 to 7 being members of an unlawful assembly
committed rioting and thereby committed the offence
punishable under Section 147 R/W Sec. 149 of Indian Penal
Code?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable
doubt that on the said date place and time accused 1 to 7,
being members of an unlawful assembly committed rioting
by holding deadly weapons like axe, clubs and thereby
committed the offence punishable under Section 148 R/w
Sec. 149 of Indian Penal Code?
4. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable
doubt that, on the said date place and time, the accused
No.1 to 7 being members of an unlawful assembly quarreled
with C.W.1 in filthy language, uttered to rape the female
folks of C.W.13's family, insults, and thereby gives
provocation to him, knowing it will cause him to break the
public peace and thereby committed the offence punishable
under Section 504 R/W Sec. 149 of Indian Penal Code?
5. Whether prosecution proves beyond all reasonable
doubt that on the said date, place and time, the accused 1
to 7 being members of an unlawful assembly, assaulted
C.Ws1, 13 to 15 with hands and legs and voluntarily caused
hurt and thereby committed the offence punishable under
Section 323 R/W Sec.149 of Indian Penal Code?
6. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable
doubt that on the said date place and time the accused 1 to
7 being the members of an unlawful assembly, accused
No.2 assaulted C.W.14 with an axe handle on his back,
accused No.4 assaulted C.W.13 with club on the waist,
accused No.5 assaulted C.W.1, 13 and 15 with club and
voluntarily caused hurt with dangerous weapons and
thereby committed the offence punishable under Section
324 R/W Sec. 149 of Indian Penal Code?
- 13 -
7. Whether prosecution proves beyond all reasonable
doubt that on the said date place and time the accused 1 to
7 being the members of an unlawful assembly, accused
No.1 assaulted C.W.15 with an axe on his face, accused
No.4 assaulted C.W.13 with club on the waist, accused No.1
assaulted C.W.1 on his head and C.W.15 with club and
caused grievous hurt by dangerous weapons and thereby
committed the offence punishable under Section 326 R/W
Sec. 149 of Indian Penal Code?
8. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable
doubt that on the said date place and time, the accused 1 to
7 being the members of an unlawful assembly, accused
No.1 assaulted C.W.15 with an axe on his face, with such
intention or knowledge that such act may caused the death
and he will be guilty of murder and thereby committed the
offence punishable under Section 307 R/W Sec. 149 of
Indian Penal Code?
9. Whether prosecution proves beyond all reasonable
doubt that on the said date place and time the accused 1 to
7 being the members of an unlawful assembly, accused
No.6 and 7 held the hands of Sanna Ningapp, accused No.3
assaulted Sanna Ningappa with an axe on his neck and
committed his murder and thereby committed an offence
punishable under Section 302 R/W Sec. 149 of Indian Penal
Code?
10. Whether prosecution proves beyond all reasonable
doubt that, on the above said date, place and time, the
accused No.3 after assaulting Sanna Ningappa with an axe,
washed it with water in order to destroy the evidence and
thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 201
R/W Sec. 149 of Indian Penal Code?
11. Whether prosecution proves beyond all reasonable
doubt that on the said date, place and time, accused 8 and
9 instigated accused No.1 to 7, to commit the aforesaid
offences and thereby committed an offence punishable
under Section 109 R/W Sec. 149 of Indian Penal Code?
12. What Order?
Learned Sessions Judge answered Point Nos.1 to 7 in the
affirmative, Point No.8 in the negative, Point No.9 in the
negative for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian
- 14 -
Penal Code against the accused Nos.1 to 7 and affirmative
against accused No.3 for the offence punishable under Section
304 Part II of Indian Penal Code, further answered Point No.10
in the affirmative against the accused No.3, Point No.11 in the
negative against the accused No.8 and answered Point No.12 as
per the final order and convicted the accused and imposed the
sentence as stated supra. The said judgment is challenged
under these appeals.
17. The accused No.3 preferred Crl.A.No.100062/2020
to set-aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence passed against him.
18. The victim PW.4 preferred Crl.A.No.100189/2020
under Section 372 of Cr.P.C praying to modify the judgment of
conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge and to convict
the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under
Sections 307, 302, 201 and 109 of Indian Penal Code and also
praying to convict accused No.3 for the offences punishable
under Sections 302 and 307 of Indian Penal Code and to convict
the accused Nos.4 to 7 for the offences punishable under
Sections 326, 307, 302, 201 and 109 of Indian Penal Code and
- 15 -
to convict the accused No.8 for the offences punishable under
Sections 143, 147, 148, 504, 323, 109, 324, 326, 307, 302 and
201 r/w Section 149 of Indian Penal Code.
19. The State has preferred Crl.A.No.100323/2020 to
convict and sentence the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences
punishable under Sections 307, 302, 201 and 109 of Indian
Penal Code and also praying to convict accused No.3 for the
offence punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of Indian Penal
Code and to convict the accused Nos.4 to 7 for the offence
punishable under Sections 326, 307, 302, 201 and 109 of
Indian Penal Code and to convict the accused No.8 for the
offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 504, 323,
109, 324, 326, 307, 302 and 201 r/w Section 149 of Indian
Penal Code.
20. We have heard Sri.G.I.Gachchinmath for the
appellant in Crl.A.No.100062/2020, Sri.Srinand A. Pachhapure
in Crl.A.No.100189/2020, the learned Additional State Public
Prosecutor in Crl.A.No.100323/2020 and Sri.
G.I.Gachchinamath for respondent in Crl.A.No.100189/2020
and Crl.A.No.100323/2020.
- 16 -
21. The learned counsel Sri.G.I.Gachchinamath
vehemently contends that the judgment under these appeal
suffer from perversity and illegality and the learned Sessions
Judge convicted the accused No.3 without properly appreciating
the evidence and materials available on record and only based
on surmises and conjectures. The learned Sessions Judge failed
to appreciate the material contradictions and omissions in the
evidence of the injured eye-witnesses i.e., PWs.4 to 7.
According to the learned counsel, the contents of the complaint-
Ex.P.3 lodged by PW.4 totally differs from the evidence of
PWs.4 to 7 as such, the prosecution failed to prove the charges
leveled against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, he prays to allow the Crl.A.No.100062/2020 and to
dismiss the Crl.A.No.100189/2020 and Crl.A.No.100323/2020.
22. The learned counsel Sri. Srinand A. Pachhapure,
submits that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the
depositions of the prosecution witnesses in the right prospective
and wrongly sentenced accused No.3 for the offence punishable
under Section 304 Part II of Indian Penal Code instead of
Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and also the learned Sessions
- 17 -
Judge wrongly acquitted the accused No.3 for the offence
punishable under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code. Further,
according to the learned counsel, the Sessions Judge has erred
by acquitting the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences
punishable under Sections 307, 302, 201 and 109 of Indian
Penal Code and though, the Court convicted them for other
offences, imposed inadequate sentence to them by wrongly
invoking Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act. He also
contended that the learned Sessions Judge totally erred by
acquitting the accused Nos.4 to 7 for the offences punishable
under Sections 326, 307, 302, 201 and 109 of Indian Penal
Code
23. He would further contend that, all the injured eye-
witnesses categorically deposed about the assault made by the
accused Nos.1 to 7 with an intention to do away the life of
deceased Sanna ningappa and PWs.4 to 7. As per the settled
principal of Law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and by
this Court, the evidence of injured witnesses must be weighed
on a high degree prospective and hence, there is no reason to
disbelieve the evidence of injured witnesses when their
evidence corroborates, the medical evidence of the Doctor-
- 18 -
PW.24 who treated them. He contend that the evidence led by
the prosecution clearly establishes that the accused No.3 had
both guilty knowledge and an intention to commit the murder of
the deceased-Sanna ningappa. Hence, the accused No.3 is
liable to be convicted under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code.
According to the learned counsel, all the accused persons with a
common intention, by holding the weapons, entered the house
yard of PW.4 and PW.6 and assaulted the deceased and PWs.4
to 7 with deadly weapons and caused injuries to PWs.4 to 6 and
committed the murder of deceased-Sanna ningappa. In such
circumstances, he prays to allow the Crl.A.No.100189/2020.
24. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor has
also vehemently contends that the learned Sessions Judge did
not apply its mind to the evidence on record and wrongly
acquitted the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable
under Sections 302, 307, 201 and 109 of Indian Penal Code and
accused No.3 for the offences punishable under Sections 302
and 307 of Indian Penal Code and accused Nos.4 to 7 for the
offences punishable under Sections 307, 302, 201 and 109 of
Indian Penal Code and accused No.8 for all the offences
charged.
- 19 -
25. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would
contend that the evidence of PWs.1 and 4 to 7 i.e., the injured
eye-witnesses to the incident could not be rejected merely on
the ground that they are the interested witnesses as their
evidence is otherwise found to be reliable. The minor
contradictions and inconsistencies are found in the evidence of
eye-witnesses which are ineffective to the core of the
prosecution case and should not be considered as a ground to
reject the evidence in its entirety. According to him, the
learned Sessions Judge without assigning valid reason has
imposed fleabite sentence to the accused by acquitting them for
major offences. Accordingly, the learned Additional State Public
Prosecutor prays to allow the appeal preferred by the State.
26. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants
in respective appeals, the points that would arise for our
consideration are:
1. Whether the judgment under these appeals
suffers from any perversity or illegality?
2. Whether the learned Sessions Judge is
justified in convicting and imposing sentence
to accused Nos.1 to 7 as stated supra?
- 20 -
3. Whether the learned Sessions Judge is
justified in convicting the accused No.3 for
culpable homicide not amounting to murder
and punishing him for the offence punishable
under Section 304 Part II of Indian Penal
Code?
27. These questions are interlinked to each other and
hence are taken up together for consideration. Accordingly,
this Court being the appellate Court, on re-appreciation of the
entire evidence available on record is necessary and hence:-
PW.1-Veerabhadraiah the maternal uncle of the
deceased-Sanna ningappa is a witness for Inquest Panchanama
drawn on the dead body of the deceased as per Ex.P.1 and
identified the clothes of the deceased as per MOs.1 to 3. He
also deposed about the previous enmity of the accused and
deceased family.
PW.2-Somappa the maternal uncle of the deceased-
Sanna ningappa, he deposed about the motive/previous enmity
between the family of accused and deceased. He also claims to
be an eye-witness to the incident and also he shifted the
injured to the hospital and indentified MOs.1 to 11. He is a
- 21 -
Panch witness for Spot Mahazar-Ex.P.2 and identified MOs.12 to
15.
PW.3-H.Goneppa is the brother of the PW.6, who is
injured in this case, he identifies MOs.1 to 4 and he was also
present at the time of Inquest Mahazar.
PW.4-Durgappa is the injured eye-witness and
complainant in this case, he deposed about the motive and the
assault made by the accused against him, the deceased and the
other injured witnesses.
PW.5-Chandrashekar is the injured eye-witness, he
reiterated the version of PW.4 and he suffered grievous injuries.
PW.6-Basappa is the injured eye-witness, he is a father of
the deceased and younger brother of the PW.4-Complainant
and deposed about the previous enmity between the accused
and the family of deceased and also identified MO.1 to 8 and
the assault made by the accused to him and to other injured
eye-witnesses.
- 22 -
PW.7-Ningappa is the injured eye-witness, he is the
cousin brother of the deceased and deposes about the previous
enmity and motive and also about the assault made by the
accused and he sustained simple injuries.
PW.8-Hanumakka is the eye-witness to the incident and
she is the wife of Complainant-PW.4. She speaks about the
motive and previous enmity between the family of accused and
deceased.
PW.9-Somanagoud is an independent eye-witness to the
incident and he has turned hostile to the prosecution case.
PW.10-Prakashaiah is an independent eye-witness to the
incident and he has turned hostile to the prosecution case.
PW.11-Basavaraj is an independent eye-witness to the
incident and he has turned hostile to the prosecution case.
PW.12-Ningaraj is an eye-witness to the incident and he
has supported the prosecution case and he has deposed about
the motive for the incident and also the assault made by the
accused.
- 23 -
PW.13-Basavaraj is an eye-witness to the incident and he
deposed similar to that of PW.12.
PW.14-Parasappa S/o. Charavva is the son-in-law of the
deceased, he is a hear-say witness to the incident and identified
the clothes of the deceased.
PW.15-Parasappa S/o. Kotrappa is a Panch witness for
seizure of clothes of accused Nos.1 to 3 under Ex.P.9 and the
recovery of weapon as per MO.5.
P.W.16-Hanumantappa is a Panch witness for the seizure
of the clothes of the deceased as per Ex.P.12, i.e., MOs.1 to 4.
PW.17-Chandrappa is a Panch witness for Spot Mahazar
as per Ex.P.2 and seizure of MO.3 and he also identified MOs.6
to 8 and 12 to 15.
PW.18-T. Manjappa is the Police Constable who arrested
the accused Nos.1 to 7 and produced before the Investigation
Officer. PW.19-Gururaj is the then PSI who has arrested the
accused Nos.1 to 7 with the help of PW.18. PW.20-Basavaraj is
the then Police Head Constable and recorded the complaint of
- 24 -
PW.4 in the Hospital and registered the FIR in Crime No.2/2014
as per Ex.P.13. PW.21-B.Shekharappa is the then Head
Constable and he recorded all the Panchanamas i.e., Inquest,
Spot and Seizure as per Ex.Ps.1, 2 and 10. PW.22-
Revanaradhya is the then Police Constable escorted the dead
body to the Post-Mortem. PW.23-Noormohammad is the then
Police Head Constable who carried the FIR to the Magistrate.
PW.24-Dr. Pavitra, conducted autopsy on the dead body
and issued the Post-Mortem report as per Ex.P.14.
PW.25-Krishna Naik is the Assistant Executive Engineer
prepared the Sketch of scene of crime as per Ex.P.20.
PW.26-Veerupakahsappa is the then Police Head
Constable who carried the articles to FSL for examination.
PW.27-Layla Naik is the then CPI, conducted the
investigation and laid the chargesheet against accused persons.
PW.28-Lingegouda is the Scientific Officer, examined the
articles sent to him and gave the report at Ex.P.22.
- 25 -
28. On a cursory glance of the above evidence available
on record, in order to prove the homicidal death of the
deceased, the prosecution relied on the evidence of the Doctor-
PW.24 who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and
gave his report as per Ex.P.14. On careful perusal of the same,
it depicts the cause of death is due to "hemorrhage and
neurogenic shock as a result of carotic artery injury". He
further opined that injury can be caused by MO.5 as per
Ex.P.15. He also treated the injured in this case i.e., PWs.4 to
7 and issued Wound Certificate as per Exs.P.16 to 19. The
evidence of the Doctor-PW.24 also corroborates with the
inquest Panchanama drawn by the Investigation Officer on the
dead body as per Ex.P.1 and PW.1 is witness for the same and
he has identified the injuries on the dead body. Hence, on a
conjoint reading of Ex.P.14 and Ex.P.1 coupled with the
evidence of the Doctor-PW.24, PW.2 and the Investigation
Officer-PW.21 in our considered view, the prosecution has
proved the homicidal death of the deceased beyond reasonable
doubt.
- 26 -
29. Even otherwise, the learned counsel for the
appellant in Crl.A.No.100062/2020 has not seriously disputed
the said aspect.
30. In order to connect the accused persons in the
homicidal death of the deceased and to the injuries caused to
PWs.4 to 7, the prosecution mainly relied the evidence of
injured eye-witnesses i.e., PWs.4 to 7 and the independent eye-
witnesses i.e., PWs.8, 12 and 13.
31. Among the above witnesses, PW.4 lodged the
complaint before the Police as per Ex.P.3. On perusal of Ex.P.3,
it depicts that on previous enmity accused Nos.1 to 9 formed an
unlawful assembly in front of the house of PW.4 and started to
quarrel with PWs.4 to 7 and also with the deceased. At that
time, accused No.1 assaulted the PWs.4 and 5 on his left side of
the head by Axe-MO.5 and accused No.2 assaulted the PW.7
with club-MO.7 on the back side of his head, accused No.3
assaulted the deceased on his neck with MO.5 and accused
Nos.4 and 5 assaulted the PWs.7 and 8 and accused Nos.6 and
7 held the hands of the deceased and accused Nos.8 and 9
instigated the other accused persons to commit the offence.
- 27 -
32. On perusal of the evidence of the complainant-
PW.4, he deposed before the Court that accused No.1 assaulted
him with Axe, accused Nos.4 and 5 assaulted PWs.4 and 6,
accused No.2 assaulted PW.7. However, during the course of
the cross-examination he stated that the accused No.3
assaulted deceased-Sanna Ningappa with Axe. Hence, on
perusal of the evidence of PW.4 the same does not corroborates
with the contents of Ex.P.3.
33. Further, PW.2 in his evidence deposed that accused
No.3 assaulted the deceased with Axe on his neck and accused
No.1 assaulted PWs.4 and 5 on their head and face and accused
No.2 assaulted PW.1 with club on his head and accused Nos.6
and 7 held the deceased.
34. PW.5 in his evidence stated that accused No.3
assaulted the deceased with Axe and accused Nos.4 and 5
assaulted PW.5 with club, accused No.1 assaulted the PW.4 and
accused No.2 assaulted PW.7 and accused Nos.6 and 7 held the
deceased.
- 28 -
35. The evidence of PW.6 depicts that accused No.3
assaulted the deceased with Axe and accused No.1 assaulted
PWs.4 and 5 and accused No.2 assaulted PW.7 and accused
Nos.4 and 5 assaulted PW.6 and accused Nos.6 and 7 held the
deceased.
36. Whereas, PW.7 stated that accused No.3 assaulted
the deceased, accused No.1 assaulted the PWs.4 and 5 and
accused No.2 assaulted PW.7 and accused Nos.4 and 5
assaulted the PW.6 and accused Nos.6 and 7 held the
deceased.
37. Whereas, the independent eye-witness-PW.8
deposes that accused No.3 assaulted the deceased with Axe,
accused No.1 assaulted PWs.4 and 5 with Axe, accused No.2
assaulted PW.7 and accused Nos.4 and 5 assaulted PW.6 and
accused Nos.6 and 7 held the deceased. PWs.9 and 13 also
deposed in a similar manner. PWs.10 and 11 the independent
witnesses turned hostile to the prosecution case.
38. On careful perusal of the evidences of injured eye-
witnesses, all of them predominantly deposed about the assault
- 29 -
made by accused No.3 on the neck of the deceased with Axe.
However, the evidence of these eye-witnesses are quite
contradictory with each other, in respect of the assault made by
accused Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5.
39. Though, the complainant-PW.4 deposed in his
evidence that the accused No.1 assaulted the complainant and
PW.5 with an Axe. On perusal of the Wound Certificate of PW.4
issued by the Doctor as per Ex.P.16, the injuries are simple in
nature. Nevertheless, the other injured witnesses, except PW.5,
all are sustained simple injuries as per their Wound Certificate
at Exs.P.16 to 19. The Doctor who treated them i.e., PW.24
also deposed similar version before the trial Court. Hence, the
medical evidence belies the version tendered by the injured
eye-witnesses regarding the injuries caused to them. However,
the evidence of these witnesses establishes that the presence of
the accused at the place of incident. Further, it also establishes
from the evidence of these witnesses that the accused No.3
assaulted the deceased with an Axe-MO.5.
40. Though, the learned counsel for the accused No.3
vehemently contended that the contradictions in the evidence
- 30 -
of eye-witness, creates doubt about the very incident itself, but
the said contention raised by the accused does not hold much
water for the reason that, apart from the injured eye-witness,
the independent eye-witness i.e., PWs.8, 9, 12 and 13 also
categorically deposed before the Court about the assault made
by the accused No.3 with an Axe. Further, the prosecution also
proved the recovery of MO.5-Axe at the instance of accused
No.3 by the evidence of PWs.2 and 15 under Ex.P.10.
Nevertheless, the Doctor who conducted the autopsy on the
dead body of the deceased i.e., PW.24 gave an opinion as per
Ex.P.15 that, the injury found on the dead body could have
been caused by MO.5-Axe. In such circumstances, the ocular
evidence of injured eye-witness corroborates with the medical
evidence. The prosecution also got marked Ex.P.22 i.e., the
report from FSL issued by PW.28. On perusal of Ex.P.22, it
depicts that the blood stains found on the weapon i.e., MO.5 is
human blood with 'B' Group. In such circumstances, in our
considered view, the prosecution established that the accused
No.3 is responsible for the homicidal death of the deceased in
this case.
- 31 -
41. As far as the involvement of the other accused Nos.
1, 2, 4 to 7 are concerned, as discussed supra, their presence
in the scene of occurrence and also their participation in the
incident is proved by the evidence of PWs.4 to 9 and PWs.12 to
13. However, there are discrepancies in the evidence of these
witnesses in respect of the assault made by the accused Nos.1,
2, 4 to 7. Admittedly, as many as 4 witnesses were found
injured and hence, the presence of the accused and their
participation in the incident is proved by the prosecution. As
already discussed above, the medical evidence pertaining to the
injured witnesses belies the version stated by them before the
trial Court. Hence, in our considered view, the learned Sessions
Judge rightly convicted the accused Nos.1, 2, 4 to 7 and
sentenced them as stated supra.
42. The learned counsel Sri. Srinand A. Pachchapure
vehemently contended that the learned Sessions Judge erred in
sentencing the accused No.3 for the offence punishable under
Section 304 Part II of Indian Penal Code instead of convicting
him under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. On careful perusal
of the prosecution case, it is an undisputed fact that the son of
complainant i.e., PW.4 was involved in a rape case of daughter
- 32 -
of accused No.1 and she had delivered a baby. The accused
Nos.1 to 7 were insisting the father of the said Vasanta to
perform the marriage of victim girl with Vasanta. As such, all
the accused persons had been to the house of the complainant-
PW.4 and requested him to perform the marriage of his son
with the daughter of accused No.1. Absolutely, there was no
intention on the part of the accused to commit the murder of
the deceased who is the intervener or to commit the murder of
PWs.4 to 7. Unfortunately, the accused No.3 who is the brother
of rape victim enraged by the intervention of the deceased,
suddenly entered the nearby house and brought the Axe and
assaulted on the neck of the deceased. The entire incident
caused is in a spur of movement and on a sudden fight
emerged between the family of the deceased and all the
accused. Admittedly, accused No.3 gave a single blow on the
neck of the deceased with an Axe, during the course of scuffle
between the family of the deceased and all the accused. He did
not act cruel by assaulting the deceased repeatedly. He being
the brother of the rape victim a young boy aged about 20
years, might have lost the self-control and assaulted the
deceased because of his unwarranted intervention. There
- 33 -
existed no premeditation on the part of accused No.3 to do
away the life of the deceased. Hence in our considered view,
the learned Sessions Judge rightly appreciated the said aspect
of the matter and opined that the act committed by accused
No.3 falls under Exception Clause of Section 300 of Indian Penal
Code which is punishable under Section 304 Part II of Indian
Penal Code. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Deo
Nath Rai Vs. State of Bihar, Home Dept and Others
reported in AIR 2017 SC 5428, held as under:
"9. Looking to the totality of the facts and
circumstances of the case and the evidence on
record, it is clear that it was only the accused-
Parsuram Rai who had assaulted Mohan Rai with
the help of sword, whose assault resulted
grievous injury, and the deceased Mohan Rai
ultimately succumbed to the said injury during the
course of transit to the hospital.
The incident had taken place when the
deceased was returning from the disputed land
and the Accused persons were busy in the
adjacent field transplanting paddy seedlings from
where they saw Mohan Rai crossing their land.
There was no premeditation of any kind on the
part of the Accused to commit the murder of the
deceased. However, the eye witnesses have
deposed that accused-Wakil Rai came and started
quarreling with Mohan Rai when other family
members also joined. The quarrel not only
suddenly erupted but also escalated without any
premeditation. As rightly concluded by the High
Court, the whole incident was spontaneous and
went out of hand that too within short spell of
time."
- 34 -
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jugut Ram Vs. State
of Chhattisgarh in Crl.A No.616/2020 held as under:
7. A lathi is a common item carried by a villager
in this country, linked to his identity. The fact that
it is also capable of being used as a weapon of
assault, does not make it a weapon of assault
simpliciter. In a case like the present, of an
assault on the head with a lathi, it is always a
question fact in each case whether there was
intention to cause death or only knowledge that
death was likely to occur. The circumstances,
manner of assault, nature and number of injuries
will all have to be considered cumulatively to
decipher the intention or knowledge as the case
may be. We do not consider it necessary to dilate
on the first principles laid down in this regard in
Virsa Singh vs. The State of Punjab, 1958 SCR
1495, which stand well established. Suffice it to
notice from precedents that in Joseph vs. State
of Kerala, (1995) SCC (Crl.) 165, the appellant
dealt two blows on the head of the deceased. The
deceased died two days later. The post mortem
report found lacerated injury on the head and
internal examination revealed fracture to the
occipital bone extended up to the temporal bone.
The High Court convicted the appellant under
Section 302 IPC holding that the injury caused by
the lathi was sufficient to cause death of the
deceased. This Court observed as follows:
"3. ....The weapon used is not a deadly
weapon as rightly contended by the learned
counsel. The whole occurrence was a result of a
trivial incident and in those circumstances the
accused dealt two blows on the head with a lathi,
therefore, it cannot be stated that he intended to
cause the injury which is sufficient (sic). At the
most it can be said that by inflicting such injuries
he had knowledge that he was likely to cause the
death. In which case the offence committed by
him would be culpable homicide not amounting to
murder. We accordingly set aside the conviction
of the appellant under Section 302 IPC and the
sentence of imprisonment for life awarded
thereunder. Instead we convict the appellant
under Section 304 Part II IPC and sentence him to
five years' RI."
- 35 -
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pulicherla Nagaraju @
Nagaraja Reddy Vs. State of Andra Pradesh reported in (2006)
11 444, held as under:
"23. In Randhir Singh there was an altercation
between the deceased and father of the accused.
At that time, on the exhortation of his father, the
accused, a young college student, gave a blow on
the head of the deceased with a kassi. The
solitary injury caused by the accused was
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause
death and the deceased died after six days.
Taking note of the circumstances, that the
accused was not carrying the weapon in advance,
there was no premeditation, that he was a young
college boy, that there was some altercation
between the father of the accused and the
deceased, and that the death occurred after six
days, the conviction was altered from Section 302
to 304 Part II.
25. In Bagdi Ram there was an altercation
between two groups and brickbatting from both
sides. When tempers were running high, in the
heat of passion, upon südden quarrel without any
premeditation, the accused assaulted the
unarmed deceased. The accused-appellant was
not carrying any weapon, but he picked up a
pickaxe lying at the place of incident and he
landed only one blow and did not repeat the blow.
In these circumstances, it was held that he did
not intend to cause the death of the deceased and
that the appellant was guilty under Section 304
Part I IPC."
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anbazhagan Vs. State
(represented by the Inspector of Police) reported in (2023) ACR
862, held as under:
"27. Thus, while defining the offence of culpable
homicide and murder, the framers of the IPC laid
down that the requisite intention or knowledge
- 36 -
must be imputed to the accused when he
committed the act which caused the death in
order to hold him guilty for the offence of culpable
homicide or murder as the case may be. The
framers of the IPC designedly used the two words
intention and knowledge, and it must be taken
that the framers intended to draw a distinction
between these two expressions. The knowledge of
the consequences which may result in the doing
of an act is not the same thing as the intention
that such consequences should ensue. Except in
cases where mens rea is not required in order to
prove that a person had certain knowledge, he
"must have been aware that certain specified
harmful consequences would or could follow."
(Russell on Crime, Twelfth Edition, Volume 1 at
page 40).
62. Looking at the overall evidence on record,
we find it difficult to come to the conclusion that
when the appellant struck the deceased with the
weapon of offence, he intended to cause such
bodily injury as was sufficient in the ordinary
course of nature to cause death. The weapon of
offence in the present case is a common
agriculture tool. If a man is hit with a weed axe
on the head with sufficient force, it is bound to
cause, as here, death. It is true that the injuries
shown in the post mortem report are fracture of
the parietal bone as well as the temporal bone.
The deceased died on account of the cerebral
compression i.e. internal head injuries. However,
the moot question is - whether that by itself is
sufficient to draw an inference that the appellant
intended to cause such bodily injury as was
sufficient to cause death. We are of the view that
the appellant could only be attributed with the
knowledge that it was likely to cause an injury
which was likely to cause the death. It is in such
circumstances that we are inclined to take the
view that the case on hand does not fall within
clause thirdly of Section 300 of the IPC."
43. Hence, on careful perusal of the law laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court juxtapose the case on hand, we are of
the considered view that, this case squarely falls under the
- 37 -
Exception I to Section 300 of Indian Penal Code and the learned
Sessions Judge has rightly convicted the accused for Section
304 Part II of Indian Penal Code.
44. However, the sentence imposed by the learned
Sessions Judge on accused No.3 is for a period of 10 years.
Having regard to the submissions made by the counsel
appearing for accused No.3 and findings of the trial Court and
also it is a matter of record that there was an enmity in respect
of the rape committed by the son of PW.4 on the sister of
accused No.3, moreover there are no criminal antecedents of
accused No.3 has been brought on record, in the interest of
justice and in consideration of the above mentioned mitigating
factors, we are of the view that the sentence of accused No.3
can be reduced from 10 years to 8 years, by enhancing the fine
amount imposed by the trial Court for the offence punishable
under Section 304 Part II of Indian Penal Code to Rs.2,00,000/-
instead of Rs.1,00,000/-. As far as the sentence imposed by
the trial Court, against accused No.3 in respect of other
offences are kept in-tact. The sentence in respect of accused
Nos.1, 2, 4 to 7 are concerned, the learned Sessions Judge
after convicting them for the offences stated supra enlarged
- 38 -
them under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act with
conditions. The learned Sessions Judge also directed the
accused Nos.1, 2, 4 to 7 to deposit the compensation amount
under Section 5 of Probation of Offenders Act. In such
circumstances, we find no good grounds to interfere with the
order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Accordingly, we
answer the Point No.1 in the negative and Point Nos.2 and 3
partly in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i.) Crl.A.No.100062/2020 filed by the
accused No.3 is allowed-in-part;
ii.) The sentence imposed to accused
No.3 for the offence punishable
under Section 304 Part II of Indian
Penal Code is reduced to 8 years
from 10 years. However, the accused
No.3 is directed to pay a fine of
Rs.2,00,000/- instead of
Rs.1,00,000/- and in default of
- 39 -
payment of fine, he shall undergo
further imprisonment for one year;
iii.) However, accused No.3 is entitled for
set-off as contemplated under
Section 428 of Cr.P.C;
iv.) The sentence imposed against the
accused No.3 for all other offences
by the trial Court are kept in-tact.
However, all the sentences imposed
shall run concurrently;
v.) The fine amount imposed to accused
No.3 in all the offences shall be paid
to PW.6 and his wife on proper
identification;
vi.) The bail bonds executed by accused
No.3 stands cancelled;
vii.) The accused No.3 is directed to
surrender before the Sessions Court
- 40 -
within 4 weeks from the date of
receipt of copy of this order to
undergo the remaining sentence;
viii.) If the accused No.3 failed to
surrender, the learned Sessions
Judge is directed to secure his
presence and to commit him to
prison to serve the reminder of
sentence;
ix.) Consequently, Crl.A.No.100189/2020
filed by the victim and
Crl.A.No.100323/2020 filed by the
State are dismissed as being devoid
of merits.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
PJ
