Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Smt.Shanthamma W/O Yamanappa Mulgund on 28 May, 2024
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7088-DB
CRL.A No. 100259 of 2019
C/W CRL.A No. 100057 of 2019,
CRL.A No. 100260 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MAY 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T. G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100259 OF 2019
C/W CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.100057 OF 2019
AND 100260 OF 2019
IN CRL.A.NO.100259 OF 2019:
BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH CPI RANEBENNUR RURAL CIRCLE,
HALAGERI POLICE STATION
REP. BY ADDITIONAL S.P.P.,
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD-580011.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT.GIRIJA S.HIREMATH, HCGP)
AND:
Digitally signed by
BHARATHI H M
Location: HIGH
SRI. GANGAPPA
COURT OF
KARNATAKA S/O. SANNABASAPPA BETTAL,
DHARWAD
BENCH AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
Date: 2024.06.03
14:40:16 +0530 R/O: GUDDADHOSALLI, TQ: RANEBENNUR,
DIST: HAVERI.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.A.M.GUNDWADE, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 378(1) AND (3) OF
CR.PC., SEEKING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 30.01.2019 PASSED
BY THE II ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT HAVERI
(SITTING AT RANEBENNUR) IN SC NO.78/2014 SO FAR IT RELATES
TO ACQUITTAL OF RESPONDENT/ACCUSED NO. 1 FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE U/SECTION 302 OF IPC (NOT CONVICTING U/SEC 302
OF IPC) AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7088-DB
CRL.A No. 100259 of 2019
C/W CRL.A No. 100057 of 2019,
CRL.A No. 100260 of 2019
30.01.2019 PASSED BY THE II ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE AT HAVERI (SITTING AT RANEBENNUR) IN SC NO.78/2014
AND TO CONVICT AND SENTENCE THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED NO.1
FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC 143, 147, 323, 504 AND
302 R/W SECTION 149 OF IPC.
IN CRL.A.NO.100057 OF 2019:
BETWEEN:
GANGAPPA SANNABASAPPA BETTAL
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: GUDDADHOSALLI, TQ: RANEBENNUR,
DIST: HAVERI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. A.M.GUNDAWADE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY STATE OF PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, AT: DHARWAD,
THROUGH HALAGERI POLICE STATION.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S.HIREMATH, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC.374(2) OF CR.P.C.,
PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE CASE
BEARING S.C.NO.78/2014, FROM THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT HAVERI (SITTING AT
RANEBENNUR) FOR THE PERUSAL OF THE HON'BLE COURT AND TO
PASS JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
OF CONVICTION DATED 30.01.2019 AND ORDER OF SENTENCE
DATED 31.01.2019, PASSED AGAINST THE APPELLANT IN
S.C.NO.78/2014 BY HON'BLE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AT HAVERI (SITTING AT RANEBENNUR) FOR THE
OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 304-II AND 504 OF IPC.
IN CRL.A.NO.100260 OF 2019:
BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7088-DB
CRL.A No. 100259 of 2019
C/W CRL.A No. 100057 of 2019,
CRL.A No. 100260 of 2019
REP. BY THE POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR,
HALAGERI POLICE STATION,
THROUGH THE ADDL. SPP,
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S.HIREMATH, HCGP)
AND:
1. SMT. SHANTHAMMA W/O. YAMANAPPA MULGUND,
AGED: 66 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE.
2. BASAVARAJ S/O. MAHESHAPPA MULGUND,
AGED: 28 YEARS, OCC: FARMER.
3. HANMGOUDA HALAPPA MULGUND
OCC: FARMER.
4. MAHESH YAMANAPPA MULGUND
OCC: FARMER.
ALL ARE R/O: GUDDADHOSALLI,
TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581208.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A.M.GUNDAWADE, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 378 (1) AND (3) OF
CR.P.C. SEEKING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 30/01/2019 PASSED
BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT HAVERI
(SITTING AT RANEBENNUR) IN SC NO.78/2014 AND TO SET ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 30/01/2019 PASSED BY THE II
ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT HAVERI (SITTING AT
RANEBENNUR) IN S.C.NO.78/2014 AND TO CONVICT AND SENTENCE
THE RESPONDENTS / ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTION 143, 147, 323, 504 AND 302 R/W SEC.149 OF IPC.
THESE CRIMINAL APPEALS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING,
THIS DAY, MOHAMMAD NAWAZ J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7088-DB
CRL.A No. 100259 of 2019
C/W CRL.A No. 100057 of 2019,
CRL.A No. 100260 of 2019
JUDGMENT
These 3 appeals are preferred against the judgment
of conviction and order on sentence dated 30.01.2019
passed by the Court of II Additional District and Sessions
Judge at Haveri (sitting at Ranebennur) in S.C.
No.78/2014.
2. Vide impugned judgment, the trial court has
convicted accused No.1 for offences punishable under
Sections 304 Part II and 504 of the Indian Penal
Code(hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC', for brevity) and
acquitted him of the offences punishable under Sections
143, 147 and 323 read with Section 149 of IPC and
acquitted accused Nos.3 to 6 of the offences punishable
under Sections 143, 147, 323, 504 and 302 read with
Section 149 of IPC.
3. So far as accused No.2 is concerned, as she
died during the pendency of the trial, the case against her
stood abated.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7088-DB
C/W CRL.A No. 100057 of 2019,
4. As against acquitting accused No.1 of the
principal offence under Section 302 of IPC, which was
charged against him, along with other offences, the State
has preferred Criminal Appeal No.100259/2019 and as
against the acquittal of accused Nos.3 to 6 of the charged
offences, the State has preferred Criminal Appeal
No.100260/2019.
5. Accused No.1, insofar as the judgment of
conviction and sentence passed against him for the
offence punishable under Section 304 Part II and Section
504 of IPC, has preferred Criminal Appeal
No.100057/2019.
6. We have heard the learned counsel Sri. A.M.
Gundawade appearing for accused Nos.1 and 3 to 6 and
Smt. Girija S. Hiremath, the learned High Court
Government Pleader, appearing for the State in all the
three appeals.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7088-DB
C/W CRL.A No. 100057 of 2019,
7. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that, the
complainant/CW-1(PW-3) and accused No.2 are husband
and wife. Rest of the accused are the relatives of accused
No.2. The complainant married accused No.2 about 13
years prior to the incident. After the birth of a child, there
was dis-cordial relationship between the couple and hence,
accused No.2 went to her parental home situated at
Guddadahosalli village. She filed a maintenance petition
against her husband i.e. the complainant and also filed a
suit for partition of the property. The Court granted
maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month.
Further, 1/3rd share each was allotted to the complainant,
accused No.2 and her only daughter in the land bearing
Sy.No.25 measuring an extent of 2-05 guntas. Against
this, an appeal was preferred by the complainant before
the High Court. Further, the complainant had given land
bearing Sy.No.3 measuring an extent of 01.16 guntas
situated at Timmenalli-Pattepur road adjacent to the
garden land of one Hemappa Mudabagil, to his sister by
name Mahadevakka Malager, after the death of her
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7088-DB
C/W CRL.A No. 100057 of 2019,
husband. Accused No.2 filed a suit seeking share even in
the said land given to Mahadevakka Malager. In this
connection, an appeal was preferred by Mahadevakka
Malager and an order of stay was granted. Hence,
accused No.2 and her family members were having
animosity against the family of the complainant. In this
background, on 23.06.2014, at about 4:00 pm, all the
accused having formed an unlawful assembly, went to land
bearing Sy.No.3 measuring an extent of 01-16 guntas. On
seeing the complainant and his mother, accused persons
started abusing them in filthy language and threatened
them with dire consequences. Accused No.1 assaulted
complainant's mother, by name Iramma, with a club on
her head, over left ear forcibly and caused bleeding
injuries. He chased and slapped the complainant on his
cheek. Further, all the accused abused the complainant
and others in filthy language etc.
8. The trial Court framed charges against accused
Nos.1 and 3 to 6 for the offences punishable under
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7088-DB
C/W CRL.A No. 100057 of 2019,
Sections 143, 147, 323, 302 and 504 of IPC read with
Section 149 of IPC.
9. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused,
the prosecution in all examined 12 witnesses and got
marked 24 documents and M.Os.1 to 5. The defence got
marked Exs.D-1 to 3.
10. The learned Sessions Judge has found accused
No.1 guilty of assaulting deceased Iramma on her head
with a club and causing multiple injuries, however found
insufficient evidence insofar as other accused are
concerned. Insofar as charges leveled against accused
No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC
is concerned, the learned Sessions Judge was of the view
that the ingredients of the said offence was not made out
and observed that if, real intention or common object of
the accused was to assault the complainant, definitely,
they would have carried the weapons and accused No.1
would have assaulted the complainant also i.e. the son of
deceased Iramma with the very same club i.e. M.O.1. It is
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7088-DB
C/W CRL.A No. 100057 of 2019,
further observed that the incident occurred in a spur of
moment without any intention, motive or preparation and
accused No.1 picked up the club that was lying on the spot
to assault the deceased. Hence, the learned Sessions
Judge convicted accused No.1 for the offence punishable
under Section 304 Part II as against the charged offence
under Section 302 of IPC.
11. Assailing the impugned judgment, insofar as
acquitting accused No.1 of the offence punishable under
Section 302 read with Section 149 of IPC and acquitting
other accused persons of all the charges leveled against
them, the learned High Court Government Pleader has
contended that all the accused have gone to the disputed
land forming an unlawful assembly with the sole intention
of causing harm to the complainant and his mother and
they had a common object of committing the offence.
Hence, it is contended that the learned Sessions Judge
was not justified in acquitting rest of the accused of the
charges leveled against them. It is vehemently contended
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7088-DB
C/W CRL.A No. 100057 of 2019,
that even accused Nos.3 to 6 are also liable to be
convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 by
virtue of Section 149 of IPC, in view of the evidence of the
complainant, who is examined as PW-3 and the evidence
of PWs.5 and 6. The learned Government Pleader has also
contended that accused No.1 has assaulted deceased
Iramma on her head which is a vital part of the body,
forcibly, on multiple occasions and caused multiple
fractures, which clearly shows his intention to cause her
death and therefore, the ingredients of Section 300 of IPC
are clearly made out. She has contended that the learned
Sessions Judge was not proper in holding that the incident
has occurred in a spur of moment without any intention,
motive or preparation. She, therefore, has sought to allow
the appeals preferred by the State.
12. Learned counsel appearing for the accused, on
the other hand has contended that there is no sufficient
evidence adduced by the prosecution to establish that it
was accused No.1 and he alone caused the injury to
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7088-DB
C/W CRL.A No. 100057 of 2019,
deceased Iramma by assaulting on her head. He would
contend that complainant-PW.3 is none other than the son
of the deceased and he is an interested witness and
certain admission in his cross-examination would clearly
show that he was not present at the scene of occurrence
when the incident took place. It is also contended that
PWs.5 and 6 are not eyewitnesses as projected by the
prosecution, but they are planted witnesses, who were not
at all present at the scene of occurrence.
13. The learned counsel has further contended that
PW.3 has admitted in his evidence that the disputed land
does not belong to him, as such, the prosecution has failed
to prove the motive for the accused persons to commit the
offence. Insofar as acquittal of other accused persons is
concerned, it is contended by the learned counsel that the
learned Sessions Judge, after giving his anxious
consideration to the evidence of the prosecution
witnesses, has rightly come to the conclusion that the said
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7088-DB
C/W CRL.A No. 100057 of 2019,
accused are innocent of the offences alleged against them
and rightly acquitted them.
14. The incident took place on 23.06.2014 at
around 4:00 pm in Timennahalli village in land bearing
Sy.No.3 measuring an extent of 1-16 guntas. It is the
case of prosecution that on account of the matrimonial
dispute between the complainant and his wife i.e. accused
No.2 and the dispute with regard to the property, all the
accused formed an unlawful assembly and went to the
land wherein the complainant and his mother were present
and abused them in filthy language and accused No.1
assaulted complainant's mother with a club on the back
portion of the head and near left ear, forcibly, on account
of which, she sustained grievous bleeding injuries and
subsequently succumbed to the said injury while
undergoing treatment in the hospital. Further, accused
No.1 chased the complainant and slapped on his cheek
and all the accused threatened them with dire
consequences etc.
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7088-DB
C/W CRL.A No. 100057 of 2019,
15. PW-11 is the ASI of Halageri Police Station, who
on receiving the MLC intimation from Bapuji Hospital,
Davangere, regarding admission of the injured, went to
the hospital and as the injured was not in a position to
give her statement, recorded the statement of PW-3 as
per Ex.P-11 between 11:30-00:30 hours on the
intervening night of 23.06.2014 and 24.06.2014.
Thereafter, he returned to the Police Station and
registered a case and issued the FIR marked as Ex.P-16,
to the jurisdictional Court. Investigation was taken over
from him by the CPI-PW-12, who conducted the inquest
mahazer, spot mahazer etc. In the meanwhile, the
deceased who was taking treatment in the hospital, died
at about 4.30 am on 24.06.2014 and therefore requisition
was sent to the jurisdictional court to incorporate Section
302 of the IPC. PW-12 recorded the statements of
witnesses and on completion of investigation, filed the
charge sheet.
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7088-DB
C/W CRL.A No. 100057 of 2019,
16. The prosecution has got examined the Medical
Officer-PW9, who conducted the post-mortem examination
over the dead body of the deceased. The post-mortem
report is marked as Ex.P13.
17. As per the evidence of PW9 and post-mortem
report, death is due to craniocerebral injury as a result of
blunt force impact over the head. PW9 has noticed
fractures on the left temporal and occipital bone on the
head and linear fracture in the skull. PW9 has given
opinion as per Ex.P14 stating that the injuries shown in
the post-mortem report can be caused by M.O.1 - club,
sent for examination.
18. From the above evidence on record, the
prosecution has established that deceased Iramma died a
homicidal death. Even otherwise, the defence has not
disputed the cause of death of the deceased.
19. It is the contention of the learned counsel
appearing for the accused that, on account of the admitted
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7088-DB
C/W CRL.A No. 100057 of 2019,
civil dispute between the complainant and accused No.2,
all the accused are falsely implicated in this case. It is his
contention that, neither PW3 nor PWs. 5 and 6 were
present at the spot at the time of incident and the said
witnesses are planted and PW3 being an interested
witness and relative of the deceased, has falsely
implicated accused No.1 and others.
20. Among the witnesses examined by the
prosecution, PWs. 3, 5 and 6 are the material witnesses,
who speak about the incident in question.
21. PW3 is the son of the deceased and he is the
complainant. It is relevant to mention that, immediately
after the incident, the deceased was shifted to District
Hospital, Davangere and when PW11 received the MLC
intimation and went to the hospital, PW3 was very much
present in the said hospital and he narrated the incident to
PW11 as per Ex.P11, which was reduced into writing. A
perusal of Ex.P11 reveal that there was a matrimonial
dispute between the complainant and his wife, i.e.,
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7088-DB
C/W CRL.A No. 100057 of 2019,
accused No.2. A maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month
was awarded to her by the court. She was also given
1/3rd share in the disputed property. It is also stated in
the complaint that, an extent of 01 acre 16 guntas was
sold by the complainant to his sister Mahadevakka, but
even in the said property, accused No.2 was claiming a
share. Insofar as 1/3rd share given to accused No.2 by the
Civil Court is concerned, an appeal was preferred by the
complainant's sister and there was an order of stay
granted. Hence it is very evident that there was a civil
dispute between the complainant and his family members
on the one side and accused No.2 i.e., the wife of
complainant on the other side. Accused No.1 is none
other than the brother of accused No.2. Other accused
are also her relatives.
22. PW3 in his evidence has reiterated the
complaint averments. He has stated that, in view of the
above dispute, when he along with his mother were
present in the land, all the accused came to the land and
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7088-DB
C/W CRL.A No. 100057 of 2019,
started ploughing the land, which was questioned by his
mother and at that time, accused persons scolded them
and accused No.1 assaulted his mother on the head with a
club. Merely because PW3 is the son of the deceased, it
cannot be said that he is an interested witness. There is
nothing elicited in the cross-examination to discard his
evidence and to hold that he was not at all present at the
scene of occurrence when the incident took place. He has
deposed that he shifted his injured mother to the
Government Hospital, Tumminakatti and then for higher
treatment shifted her to CJ Hospital, wherein he was
advised to take her to Bapuji Hospital, Davangere. The
victim was admitted in the said hospital. He has also
deposed about the police visiting the said hospital and
recording his statement/complaint as per Ex.P11.
23. The learned counsel for the appellant by
drawing the attention of the court to the cross-
examination of PW3, wherein he has admitted that, earlier
in the year 2008, there was an incident of assault and a
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7088-DB
C/W CRL.A No. 100057 of 2019,
case was registered against accused No.1 and others by
him, would contend that PW3 was nurturing ill-will against
accused No.1 and therefore, he has filed a false case
against him. He contended that, in the said case, police
filed 'B' report, which was not challenged by PW3 and
therefore, in similar fashion, he has filed the present false
complaint against accused No.1.
24. The above contention raised by the learned
counsel cannot be accepted to hold that PW3 has foisted a
false case against accused No.1. In the present case,
deceased sustained grievous injuries on her head, which
has resulted in her death. PW3 has categorically stated
that, on account of the civil dispute etc., accused No.1
assaulted his mother with a club on the head. He has
stated that, after assaulting his mother, accused No.1
threw the club on the spot and all the accused went away.
The said club was seized under a mahazar-Ex.P6. The
doctor has opined that the injuries sustained by the
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7088-DB
C/W CRL.A No. 100057 of 2019,
deceased on her head could be caused by the said M.O.1 -
club.
25. It is also contended by the learned counsel that,
according to the prosecution, accused persons have come
to the spot in a tractor, but in the complaint, the
registration number of the tractor is not mentioned and in
the cross-examination, PW3 has stated that he is not
aware of the registration number of the tractor.
26. Merely because the registration number of the
tractor in which the accused came to the spot is not
mentioned by PW3 either in Ex.P11 or in his evidence, is
not a ground to discard his evidence. In the cross-
examination, PW3 has stated that the accused came in a
blue colour tractor and he has shown the tractor to the
police in the police station on 24.06.2014 itself.
27. PWs. 5 and 6 are the other eyewitnesses
examined by the prosecution. Both the said witnesses are
independent witnesses.
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7088-DB
C/W CRL.A No. 100057 of 2019,
28. PW5 has deposed in his evidence that, on
23.06.2014, in the afternoon, he was grazing the cattle in
the arecanut garden of one Hemanagouda Mudabagil and
at that time, all the accused came to the land for
ploughing. He has spoken about the incident and the
assault made by accused No.1 on the head of deceased
Iramma, on account of which she collapsed to the ground.
A perusal of his evidence shows that the complainant -
PW3 was very much present at the spot. PW5 has stated
that, after assaulting Iramma, accused No.1 threw the
club at the spot and fled away. He has identified M.O. 1-
club as the one used by accused No.1. He has denied the
suggestion put by the defence that he has not at all
witnessed the incident.
29. PW6, another independent eyewitness has
deposed about the incident stating that accused No.1 has
assaulted the deceased Iramma on the back of her head
with the club. He has identified M.O.1 - club as the
weapon from which accused No.1 assaulted the deceased.
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7088-DB
C/W CRL.A No. 100057 of 2019,
The evidence of PWs. 5 and 6 corroborates the evidence of
PW3.
30. From the above evidence on record, we have no
hesitation to hold that the prosecution has established that
the deceased Iramma died a homicidal death on account
of the assault made by accused No.1 with club - M.O.1. It
is contended by the learned HCGP that accused No.1 had
the motive and intention to commit the murder of Iramma
and with that intention, assaulted the deceased on her
head multiple times and therefore, the offence committed
by accused No.1 would attract Section 302 of the IPC.
31. A perusal of the entire evidence on record
would clearly indicate that, when the accused went to the
disputed land, they were not aware of the presence of
either PW3 or the deceased in the said land. They went to
the land for the purpose of ploughing the land. The
prosecution has not placed any evidence to show that,
when they went to the land, they were carrying any
weapon.
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7088-DB
C/W CRL.A No. 100057 of 2019,
32. The evidence of PW3 shows that, on seeing the
accused persons present in the disputed land, the
deceased not only questioned them but also abused them
in a filthy language and at that time accused No.1
assaulted her with a club on the back of her head and near
the right ear. The incident has therefore taken in a quarrel
on account of a land dispute and in the heat of passion,
without premeditation. Though, more than one blow was
given by accused No.1 which resulted in multiple fractures,
it cannot be said that accused No.1 has acted in a cruel or
in an unusual manner. Findings recorded by the learned
Sessions Judge to bring down the offence from Section
302 of IPC to Section 304 Part-II IPC against accused No.1
cannot be said to be either illegal or perverse.
33. The learned Sessions Judge has appreciated the
evidence adduced by the prosecution elaborately to come
to conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish
the charges leveled against other accused persons.
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7088-DB
C/W CRL.A No. 100057 of 2019,
34. Having re-appreciated the evidence on record,
we are of the considered view that there is no sufficient
evidence to hold that other accused are guilty of the
offences charged against them. Even accepting their
presence at the spot, it cannot be said that they were the
members of unlawful assembly or that they shared
common intention along with accused No.1 to commit the
offence. The evidence against other accused persons is
insufficient to convict them with the aid of Section 149 of
IPC. Further, the prosecution has failed to prove that they
were aware of the offence likely to be committed by
accused No.1.
35. The trial court has sentenced accused No.1 to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and
to pay fine of Rs.25,000/-. In default of payment of fine,
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the
offence under Section 304 Part-II of IPC.
36. Further, accused has been sentenced to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months and
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7088-DB
C/W CRL.A No. 100057 of 2019,
to pay fine of Rs.3,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 month for
the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC.
37. Accused No.1 was in custody during trial from
24.06.20214 to 12.02.2015 and after the judgment of
conviction and sentence passed against him on
30.01.2019 till his sentence was suspended on
21.02.2019, he was in custody. Pursuant to the order of
suspending the sentence, he was released on 27.02.2019.
38. The incident took place in the year 2014. Ten
years have lapsed. The incident is on account of a civil
dispute as well as the matrimonial dispute between the
complainant and his wife i.e. accused No.2 who is no
more. Accused No.1 being the brother of the accused No.2
probably wanted to support his sister. The parties are
related to each other. When the incident took place
accused No.1 was aged 45 years. It is submitted that he
has his family to look after and he is a farmer.
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7088-DB
C/W CRL.A No. 100057 of 2019,
39. Considering the entire facts and circumstances,
we are of the view that sentence imposed against accused
No.1 can be reduced by enhancing the fine amount.
Hence, the following:
ORDER
i) Crl.A.No.100057/2019 is allowed in part.
ii) The judgment dated 30.01.2019 passed in SC
No.78/2014 by the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge,
Haveri (Sitting at Ranebennur) convicting accused No.1 for
the offence punishable under Sections 304 Part-II and 504
of IPC is hereby confirmed.
iii) The sentence imposed against accused No.1 for
the offence under Section 304-II of IPC is hereby
modified.
iv) Accused No.1 is sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of 2 years for the offence under
Section 304 Part-II of IPC and sentenced to pay fine of
Rs.50,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months.
v) The sentence imposed against accused No.1 for
the offence under Section 504 of IPC is hereby confirmed.
- 26 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7088-DB
C/W CRL.A No. 100057 of 2019,
vi) Crl.A.No.100259/2019 and Crl.A.No.100260/2019
are dismissed.
vii) Both the sentence imposed against accused No.1
shall run concurrently and he is entitled for set off under
Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
viii) If fine amount is deposited, a sum of
Rs.40,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to
PW.3-Iranagouda Moodabagilu. Balance shall be adjusted
towards cost of State expenses.
ix) The order shall be communicated to the trial
Court for implementation of the sentence.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
Kmv-upto para 15
GAB - para 16 to 31
HMB -32 to end
