Karnataka High Court
Sri Anand vs State Of Karnataka By on 26 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:29532
CRL.A No. 563 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 563 OF 2014 (C)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. ANAND
S/O POTHULAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
2. CHANDRAPPA
S/O GAJALA VENKATARAVANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
3. KUMBAR ESWARAPPA
S/O SHIVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
MUDDAKKAVARIPALLI VILLAGE
GULOORU HOBLI, BAGEPALLI TALUK
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT
PIN:561 207
Digitally signed by ...APPELLANTS
SHAKAMBARI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF (BY SRI NANJUNDA GOWDA M.R, ADVOCATE [PH])
KARNATAKA
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
BAGEPALLI POLICE
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT
PIN:561 207
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:29532
CRL.A No. 563 of 2014
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:27.6.2014 PASSED BY THE
PRL.DIST. AND S.J., CHICKBALLAPUR IN SPL.C.C.NO.2/2009 -
CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 323 AND 325 R/W 34 OF IPC.
[
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF THIS DAY,
RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR J., DELIVERED/PRONOUNCED
THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)
Appellants-accused Nos.1 to 3 have filed this appeal
being aggrieved by the judgment passed in Special
Sessions Case No.2/2009 dated 27.06.2014, convicting
and sentencing them for the offences punishable under
Sections 323 and 325 r/w Section 34 of IPC, by the
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura.
2. Parties to this appeal are referred to as per
their rank before the trial Court.
3. That, one Lakshmi Narayanamma w/o the
Chikkanarayanappa, resident of Mattaka Varappalli Village,
NC: 2024:KHC:29532
Guluru Hobli, Bagepalli Taluk, lodged a complaint on
25.11.2008 at 3:30 p.m. by appearing before the
Bagepalli police station, alleging that she is the resident of
the address so stated in the complaint and belongs to the
ST community. There is a land dispute between her
husband and one Marappa M.P. resident of her village. To
that effect, evidence was given before the Court.
Therefore, accused nos.1 to 3 herein together, whenever
they find the complainant, used to abuse her in filthy
language.
4. It is alleged that on 20.11.2008 at 8:00 a.m.,
the accused persons abused the complainant in filthy
language and gave a life threat to them and even they
abused the complainant's family by taking their caste.
They tried to assault the complainant by using the wooden
clubs and macchu. In the said incident, the complainant
lost her golden wedlock worth Rs. 10,000/-, so she also
lost 30 chain pieces.
NC: 2024:KHC:29532
5. In that incident, the accused assaulted her by
using the club. When her husband came to rescue her, he
was assaulted with stone and he lost his two teeth. Her
husband has taken treatment at Bagepalli Government
Hospital as an inpatient. Therefore, it was prayed by the
complainant to take necessary legal action against the
accused.
6. With these allegations, a complaint as per Ex.P7
came to be registered against the accused for the offences
under Sections 324 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC
initially and later Section 334 IPC r/w Section 3(10) and
(11) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act and criminal law was set in motion. The
Investigation Officer, after completion of the investigation,
filed the charge sheet against the accused for the
aforesaid offences.
7. Before the trial Court, to substantiate the case
of the prosecution, in all, it examined 13 witnesses from
PWs.1 to 13 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.15 and closed
NC: 2024:KHC:29532
prosecution evidence. MO.No.1, the stone came to be
marked on behalf of the prosecution.
8. The learned trial Court, on hearing the
arguments and on evaluation of the evidence, found the
accused not guilty of committing the offences under
Section 324, 326, 307 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Section
3(1)(10)(11) and Section 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Caste
and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and
acquitted them, whereas accused Nos. 1 to 3 were found
guilty of committing the offence under Sections 323, 325
r/w Section 34 of IPC and sentenced them as under:
"zÀAqÀ ¥ÀæQæAiÀiÁ ¸ÀA»vÉ «¢ü 235(2)gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ 1 jAzÀ 3£ÉÃ
DgÉÆæUÀ½UÉ ¨sÁ.zÀA.¸ÀA. «¢ü 323gÀ C¥ÀgÁzsÀPÁÌV vÀ%Á 3 wAUÀ¼À
PÀpt ¸ÉgɪÀÄ£É ªÁ¸ÀzÀ ²PÉë «¢ü¸À%ÁVzÉ ºÁUÀÆ 1000/- gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä
zÀAqÀ «¢ü¹zÉ. zÀAqÀ PÀlÖ®Ä vÀ¦àzÀgÉ 15 ¢£ÀUÀ¼À PÀpt ¸ÉgɪÀÄ£É ªÁ¸ÀzÀ
²PÉë C£ÀĨsÀ«¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.
3£Éà DgÉÆæUÉ ¨sÁ.zÀA.¸ÀA. «¢ü 325 gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ C¥ÀgÁzsÀPÁÌV 2
ªÀµÀð PÀpt ¸ÉgɪÀÄ£É ªÁ¸À ºÁUÀÆ 2,000/- gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä zÀAqÀ «¢ü¹zÉ.
zÀAqÀ PÀlÖ®Ä vÀ¦àzÀgÉ £Á®ÄÌ wAUÀ¼À PÀpt ¸ÉgɪÀÄ£É ªÁ¸ÀzÀ ²PÉë
C£ÀĨsÀ«¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ".
NC: 2024:KHC:29532
9. This is how now accused nos.1 to 3/appellants
are before this Court.
10. The learned counsel for the Appellants-accused
with all vehemence submits that, first of all, there is a
delay in filing the complaint that is not properly explained.
In all, there is a 5-day delay. PW.1 being an eyewitness
has been turned hostile. There is no incriminating evidence
appearing in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.
The doctor has not informed the police station about the
admission of an injured with a history of assault. This
delay is fatal to the case of the prosecution.
11. The complaint was drafted on 20.11.2008. The
police have not chosen to register the same immediately.
It is his submission that the evidence so placed on record
by the prosecution suffers from material particulars.
Overall evidence of the complainant is quite contradictory
to the evidence of the doctor. The other important
witnesses are not examined by the prosecution. Witnesses
NC: 2024:KHC:29532
so examined in this case are not trustworthy. On 20th
itself, the statement of PWs was recorded.
12. Further, it is submitted that evidence of all the
witnesses, if put together, would not inspire confidence in
the Court. There are material contradictions and omissions
in the evidence of the witnesses. PWs.8, 9 and 13 are
branded as eyewitnesses. There is a civil dispute between
the accused family as well as the complainant. Therefore,
the false case has been foisted against them. When there
is a delay in filing the complaint, it leads to the concoction
of the facts against the accused. Therefore, if all these
factual features brought on record in the cross-
examination are read together, the accused are entitled to
acquittal by giving benefit of doubt.
13. It is submitted that the trial Court has not
considered all these aspects and hence, it is prayed to set
aside the impugned judgment by allowing this appeal.
14. As against this submission, learned High Court
Government Pleader submitted that the complainant has
NC: 2024:KHC:29532
explained the delay in filing the complaint. The stone that
was used by the accused was seized by the police during
the course of the investigation. The evidence of the
eyewitnesses as well as the injured witness is sufficient to
convict the accused. The trial Court has rightly convicted
the accused. Though there are some minor contradictions
and discrepancies, they will not go to the root of the case.
Therefore, according to him, the trial Court has given
cogent reasons to convict the accused for the aforesaid
offences. Hence, it is prayed by the Learned HCGP to
dismiss the appeal in limine.
15. I have considered the rival submissions of both
sides and perused the records.
16. In view of the rival submissions of both parties,
the following points arise for my consideration:
(i) Whether the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence
passed by the trial Court suffers from
infirmity, illegality and without
NC: 2024:KHC:29532
properly appreciating the evidence in
the manner stated in the appeal
memo.
(ii) If so, whether judgment of
conviction and order of sentence
passed by the trial Court require
interference by this court?
17. Point Nos.1 and 2 require common discussion.
Therefore, they are discussed together.
18. Evidently, in this case, the accused were
acquitted of the charges under Sections 324, 326 and 307
r/w Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(10)(11) and 3(2)(5)
of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Being aggrieved by the same, the
State has not preferred any appeal. Therefore, the
judgment of the trial Court on the aforesaid offences has
attained finality. Whereas, the trial Court has found the
accused guilty of committing the offences under Sections
323 and 325 r/w Section 34 of the IPC and convicted and
sentenced him as above. Now, we are very much
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:29532
concerned about the proof of these offences by the
prosecution.
19. So far as the contents of the complaint Ex.P7
filed by the complainant is concerned, the alleged incident
took place on 20.11.2008 at 8:00 a.m., and she lodged a
complaint on 25.11.2008. As rightly submitted by the
counsel for the accused, there is a delay of five days in
filing the complaint. Based upon Ex.P7, the crime is
registered in Crime No.208/2008 by registering the FIR as
per Ex.P8.
20. Ex.P10 is the scene of offence panchanama,
wherein the place of offence has been narrated in para.3
of the said panchanama. Ex.P6 is a letter addressed by the
Government Hospital, Bagepalli, to the Dy.S.P. after
medically examining the husband of the complainant by
name Chikkanarayanappa on 20.11.2008, who was
admitted to the hospital with a history of assault.
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:29532
21. It is noticed by the doctor that the following
were the injuries sustained by Chikkanarayanappa, the
husband of the complainant. They read as under:
"1. Missing 2 (evidence of fresh bleeding from
socket & root stump)
2. Root stump of the same tooth was
examined in the Radiograph and also root
fracture of 1 was noticed.
3. The above injuries was fresh and was due
to the assault.
4. There was destruction of two teeth (upper
left central & lateral incisor) which was in a
condition of extraction (Removal of the
tooth)".
22. Ex.P13 is the wound certificate of complainant
Lakshmi Narayanamma, wherein the injuries sustained by
the complainant are mentioned:
"1. Abrasion in front of nose 1 x 1/4 cm
2. Abrasion in front of neck vertically
5 x 1/4 cm".
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:29532
23. So far as injuries sustained by the husband of
the complainant are concerned, they are grievous in
nature as per the submission of the prosecutor. So far as
the injuries sustained by the complainant are concerned,
they are simple in nature. ExP.15 is another wound
certificate of Chikkanarayanappa wherein similar
observations have been made by the doctor after
medically examining him at 9:30 a.m. on 20.11.2008. He
noticed the following injuries on his person:
"1. Loss of upper lateral teeth and abrasion and
swelling Lateral lower lip. Patient referred to
dental doctor opinion. Dr. Sammena Kowser,
Dentist, GH Bagepalli Examined the patient".
24. These are the important documents relied on by
the prosecution to prove its case.
25. So far as oral evidence is concerned. The
prosecution relied upon the evidence of eyewitness PW.1
by name Prakash Gaurappa and also PW2 Gangireddy,
who are branded as eyewitnesses by the prosecution. But,
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:29532
unfortunately, these two witnesses have been turned
hostile. Nothing worth is elicited from the mouth of these
witnesses so as to disbelieve their version given in the
examination-in-chief. Therefore, evidence of PWs.1 and 2
would not help the case of the prosecution.
26. PW.3 Dr. Rupashree was the Tahsildar of
Bagepalli Taluk at the relevant time and she issued a caste
certificate as per Ex.P.3, stating that this complainant
belongs to the ST community. Contents of this Exs.P.3 and
5 are not denied by the defence. No cross-examination is
directed to this PW.3 to that effect.
27. PW.4 Dr. Samina Kauser Hussain was the
dentist at Bagepalli Government Hospital at the relevant
time. According to her, she examined the husband of the
complainant by name Chikkanarayanappa and noticed
oozing of the blood from his mouth; the front two teeth of
the upper jaw were cut and it was not possible to see with
bare eyes and she has taken an X-ray.
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:29532
28. Accordingly, one tooth of the lateral incisor and
the root stems were found in the upper jaw. Another tooth
concerned was fractured. The tooth was existing, but the
root was fractured. There was no alternative except to
remove both the teeth; she removed the same.
29. He came to the hospital with a history of
assault with stone. The injuries were fresh in nature. She
has been cross-examined at length by the defence, but
she has withstood the test of cross-examination. She
admits that if a man falls on a hard surface, touching with
a mouth, such injuries are possible. The broken tooth
pieces were not given to the patient. That means the
sustaining of the injuries by the husband of the
complainant is stated by PW.4 when she medically
examined him and issued the wound certificate as stated
above. The factum of such sustained injuries is not denied
by the defence.
30. PW.5 K.J.Sathisha is a person who has received
the complaint and registered the same in the Crime
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:29532
No.208/2008. He apprehended the accused and produced
him before the IO. To that effect, there is no effective
cross-examination directed to this PW.5 by the defence.
That means, registering the crime and setting the criminal
law in motion, apprehending the accused is not denied by
the defence. Therefore, evidence of PW.5 can be believed
to the extent of registering the crime and apprehending
the accused and producing them before the IO.
31. Now, the important evidence is that of PW.6
Lakshminarayanamma, the complainant's eyewitness, who
was also injured in the said incident. It has come in the
evidence of PW.6 that the said incident took place between
7.00 and 8.00 a.m. on that day under the tree. Because of
the effect of Katha in respect of land property, the galata
took place.
32. She states that one Eshwarappa assaulted her
husband by using stones identified and marked as MO
No.1. Accused Ananda snatched wedlock from her neck.
Chandrappa gave a life threat to them. Even they abused
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:29532
them in filthy language by taking the name of their caste.
It is stated by her that, because of this galata, they
approached the Panchayath, but the Panchayath did not
conduct the panchayath for five days. Thereafter, a
complaint was filed.
33. By giving such evidence in the examination-in-
chief, she has explained about the delay. That means,
according to the submission of the prosecutor, though the
incident took place about five days back prior to filing the
complaint, the complainant waited for conducting the
Panchayath in the village. As the panchayath was not
conducted, a complaint was filed five days later. This fact
is not denied by the defence in material particulars. It is
stated that there is a delay in filing the complaint. But the
reason for delay is explained by PW1, which is not properly
denied in the cross-examination.
34. She states with regard to the visit of the police
and seizure of MO No. 1 from the scene of the offence.
This PW6 Complainant-injured has been directed with the
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:29532
severe cross-examination. But nothing worth is elicited
from the mouth of this witness as to disbelieve her
presence when the said incident took place, nor the
injuries being sustained by her husband in the said
incident. No doubt, there are some minor contradictions,
but when lengthy cross-examination is directed, such
minor contradictions are bound to occur. They will not go
to the root of the case.
35. According to her evidence, in the said incident,
her husband was assaulted by using the stone by
Ishwarappa. He lost his two teeth, which is corroborated
by the evidence of the doctor. Though lengthy cross-
examination is directed to PW.6 by the defence, nothing
worth is elicited from her mouth.
36. PW.7 Chikkanarayanappa is none other than
the husband of the complainant. He is consistent that, in
the said incident, because of the land dispute between
himself and accused persons, accused Eshwarappa
assaulted him by using stone MO No.1. He states,
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:29532
Venkatareddy, Shankarappa, Chandrashekhar and
Narasimhappa came there to rescue him. Even his wife
also came forward to rescue him. He states the accused
snatched her wedlock and assaulted her. He lost his
consciousness. He was given water at that time. After
regaining consciousness, he was taken to Bagepalli
Hospital.
37. In his evidence, he identifies that these accused
persons are the assailants on him and his wife. This PW.7
is also directed with severe cross-examination, but he is
consistent throughout his evidence that it was the accused
who assaulted him as well as his wife. When lengthy
cross-examination is directed, contradictions and
omissions are bound to occur in such evidence. When
these PW.6 and 7 are examined before the Court, they
have categorically stated who are all the assailants on
them. To disbelieve the evidence of these witnesses being
injured, no evidence is placed on record by the defence
except denial in the cross-examination.
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:29532
38. It is the evidence of PW7 that one Chandra
Shekar came and rescued him and he provided water to
him. This PW.8 Chandra Shekar has come before the trial
court and deposed that when the said incident took place,
he was very much present there. The accused were
quarrelling with the injured Chikkanarayanappa. At that
time, because of assault on the person of
Chikkanarayanappa, he lost his teeth, lost his
consciousness, etc. He was taken to Bagepalli Government
Hospital, where treatment was given to him. Who
assaulted this Chikkanarayanappa has not been stated by
him. But, in the said incident, Chikkanarayanappa
sustained injuries and lost his two teeth, which is not
disputed by the defence.
39. Chikkanarayanappa stated that it was
Eswarappa who assaulted him. Such evidence is also
spoken to by his wife Lakshminarayamma. Though this
eyewitness has been directed with severe cross-
examination, he has withstood the test of cross-
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC:29532
examination. Such a statement was given to the police by
Lakshminarayamma, the complainant. He being an
eyewitness has stated about his presence.
40. P.W9 Venkat Reddy is another eyewitness who
corroborated the evidence of PWs. 5, 6 and 7 in material
particulars. On reading the evidence of this PW.9, it shows
he was very much present when the alleged incident took
place. He too states about the assault on the person of
Chikkanarayanappa by the accused. He too has been
cross-examined, but nothing worth is elicited. It is elicited
that when the galata took place, he was in his house. His
house, which is situated at a distance of 10 feet from the
place of the incident. There were 20 to 30 persons
gathered there. He has seen who assaulted whom. There
is no further denial of this fact by the defence.
41. On reading the evidence of these witnesses.
PWs.6 and 7 are the injured witnesses. PWs.8 and 9 are
the eyewitnesses. No doubt, PWs.1 and 2 have been
turned hostile. But these eyewitnesses, being the residents
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC:29532
of the locality of the complainant, are consistent about the
galata that took place in between the accused and the
complainant's family and the assault on the person of
Chikkanarayanappa. When there is no denial in the cross-
examination, the version of these witnesses has to be
accepted. Under criminal jurisprudence, injured are the
best witnesses to speak about the assailants on them.
They are the best witnesses. No doubt, there is a land
dispute between them. But PWs.6 and 7 are consistent, so
also their evidence corroborates with the evidence of
PWs.7, 8 and 9 about the said incident. Though there is a
delay, it is explained by the complainant in her evidence
on oath. There is no proper denial of this fact by the
defence. The trial Court considering all these aspects, has
come to a definite conclusion that the prosecution is able
to prove its case with legal evidence. So far as other
offences are concerned, the accused were acquitted. Now,
accused are convicted for the offences under Sections 323
and 325 of IPC.
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC:29532
42. Coupled with that, we have the evidence of
PW.10 Narayanayya K.A. being the charge-sheeting officer
and PW.11 Harish Reddy, Village accountant, who have
issued the RTC extract. PW.12 Dr.K.R.Prakash, who
medically examined the injured. He has issued the wound
certificate. Even the evidence of the victim also supports
the case of prosecution. PW.12- Dr K.R.Prakash speaks
about medically examining the complainant PW.3 on
20.11.2008 at 8 a.m. and having noticed the injuries as
noticed in the wound certificate. Though lengthy cross-
examination is directed to him, he has withstood cross-
examination. Sustaining of injuries in the manner stated in
the complaint is not denied by the defence. PW.13 Erappa
has spoken before the Court about the galata and assault
on the person of husband of the complainant. As per his
evidence, the accused abused the complainant by taking
caste. He too has been cross-examined at length by the
defence, but nothing worth is elicited.
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC:29532
43. From the evidence of all these witnesses, it
does demonstrate that the accused have committed the
offence in the manner stated by the complainant. Her
evidence is corroborated with the evidence of two
eyewitnesses. PWs.6 and 7 are the injured witnesses, who
were very much present when the said incident took place.
It is argued by the Counsel for the appellant-accused that
no such offence has taken place and there is a delay in
filing the complaint.
44. It is argued that there are material
contradictions and omissions in the evidence of the
prosecution; therefore, such evidence cannot be accepted.
These contradictions and omissions, which were brought
on record in the cross-examination, would not shake the
basic evidence of PWs. 6 and 7 injured, as well as the
eyewitnesses PWs. PWs.8, 9 and 13. Therefore, as the
evidence of all these witnesses is corroborative in nature
and the injured have stated about the name of the
assailants who assaulted them, that itself is sufficient to
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC:29532
hold that the trial Court, after evaluation of the evidence
placed on record by the prosecution, has rightly come to
the conclusion that these accused are the assailants and
have committed the offences in the manner stated in the
charge sheet.
45. I do not find any factual or legal error
committed by the trial Court in convicting the said
accused. The trial Court has properly appreciated the
evidence led by the prosecution and has rightly come to
the conclusion that the accused are found guilty for the
offences under Section 323 and 325 r/w 34 of the IPC.
Therefore, the points raised supra are answered against
the appellants-accused and in favour of the prosecution.
46. So far as sentence is concerned, accused are
sentenced to undergo S.I. for three months for the offence
punishable under Section 323 and two years
imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section
325 of IPC and also are held liable to pay the fine imposed
by the trial Court. As per the submission of the counsel for
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC:29532
the accused-appellants, the accused have already
deposited the fine amount.
47. The alleged incident had taken place in the year
2008 and now we are in the year 2024. Almost 16 years
have lapsed since the happening of the said incident. The
accused must have suffered mentally and financially
because of the pendency of this case for the last 16 years.
So, in view of the facts brought on record, as well as the
submission of the counsel for the appellants-accused, if
the sentence so imposed against the accused is reduced to
some extent, it would meet the ends of justice. More so,
the mitigating circumstance is that the accused were quite
young, aged 35 years, 32 years and 25 years when the
incident took place. Now, they must have crossed the age
of 45 years. It is submitted that they are agriculturists by
profession and they are the only bread earners in the
whole family. If that is so, if the accused are sentenced to
undergo SI for 15 days for the offence under Section 323
and sentenced to undergo SI for three months for the
- 26 -
NC: 2024:KHC:29532
offence under Section 325 of IPC, it would meet the ends
of justice. To that extent, the appeal deserves to be
allowed in part and the sentence so imposed against the
accused-appellants is to be modified.
Resultantly, I pass the following
ORDER
(i) Appeal is allowed in-part.
(ii) So far as conviction of the accused-
appellants for the offence punishable
under Sections 323 and 325 read with
Section 34 of IPC is concerned, it is
confirmed.
(iii) However, there shall be modification of
the sentence imposed by the Trial Court
directing accused nos.1 to 3 to undergo
Simple Imprisonment for 15 days for the
offence punishable under Section 323 read
with Section 34 of IPC and for the offence
punishable under Section 325 read with
Section 34 of IPC, they shall undergo
Simple Imprisonment for three months.
- 27 -
NC: 2024:KHC:29532
(iv) Accused Nos. 1 to 3 shall surrender before
the Trial Court to undergo sentence
forthwith.
(v) Trial Court is directed to secure the
presence of accused Nos. 1 to 3 in
accordance with law.
(vi) So far as imposition of fine amount is
concerned, it remained undisturbed.
(vii) The Trial Court shall issue a modified
conviction warrant to the accused.
(viii) Bail bonds of the accused stand
cancelled.
(viii) Send back the trial Court Records along
with the copy of this judgment forthwith.
(ix) Send the operative portion of this
judgment to the trial Court for
necessary action.
Sd/-
(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)
JUDGE
PSJ
