Karnataka High Court
Chandrappa vs State Of Karnataka on 1 February, 2025
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:4624
CRL.A No. 249 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 249 OF 2021 (C)
BETWEEN:
CHANDRAPPA
S/O LATE NANJAIAH
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT MALLIGERE VILLAGE
DUBBA HOLI, MANDYA TALUK
PIN CODE-571 402
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. DESHPANDE AMIT ANAND, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SHIVALLI POLICE STATION
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
Digitally HIGH COURT UNIT
signed by BANGALORE 560 001
MALATESH ...RESPONDENT
KC
Location: (BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K, HCGP)
HIGH
COURT OF THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET
KARNATAKA ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 28.06.2018
AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 04.07.2018 PASSED BY THE
IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA IN
S.C.NO.89/2017 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED
FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 307, 326 OF IPC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:4624
CRL.A No. 249 of 2021
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.Amit Anand Deshpande, learned counsel
for the appellant and Sri.Rahul Rai.K, learned HCGP for
State.
2. The present appeal is filed challenging the
validity of the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence passed in S.C.No.89/2017 on the file of the IV
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya dated
28.06.2018.
3. At the outset, on the last date of hearing,
learned High Court Government Pleader filed certificate of
imprisonment. As per the said certificate, the appellant
has completed substantial sentence of 5 years for the
offence under Sections 326 and 307 of IPC on 15.10.2021
and fine amount came to be filed on 16.10.2021 and
thereafter he is released from the prison on 16.10.2021.
NC: 2025:KHC:4624
4. Therefore, what remains to be considered in the
present appeal is only the validity of the conviction order
that too for the academic purposes.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended
that the learned trial judge failed to consider the fact that
accused was mentally unsound and therefore, entire trial
stood vitiated.
6. In that regard, he contended that incident said
to have taken place at 11.00 p.m. on 15.10.2015 and
there was delay in lodging the complaint as complaint
came to be lodged next day at 11.00 a.m.
7. He also tried to impress upon this Court that
delay is not properly explained.
8. It is further contention of the learned counsel
for the appellant that Pw.1 admitted that Pw.2 is his
brother and Pws.1, 2 and their father were all residing in
the same house. He also contended that accused was
doing the job of coolie and looking after the family by
NC: 2025:KHC:4624
providing necessary food, shelter and education to their
children.
9. He also contended that Pw.1 admitted that
since 4 to 5 years accused was mentally unsound and
whenever he used to discontinued medication, he used to
pick up quarrel. He further brought to the notice of this
Court that Pw.1 admitted that after the death of their
mother, their father i.e., accused went in to depression
and prior to the present incident, accused did not quarrel
neither with Pw.1 nor with Pw.2. Therefore, this must be
treated as isolated incident.
10. He further contended that Pw.2 being the
injured, in his cross examination clearly admitted and so
also Pw.3 admitted the illness of their father and
therefore, the action that was attributed to the accused
should not have been treated as an offence as he was
suffering from mental illness which aspect has not been
considered by the learned trial judge while passing the
impugned judgment.
NC: 2025:KHC:4624
11. Therefore, even though the appellant has
undergone the period of imprisonment, the stigma of
conviction is to be removed by allowing the appeal.
12. Per contra, learned High Court Government
Pleader contended that mental illness was not even taken
as a defence before the trial Court by the advocate who
represented the appellant and if at all the appellant
wanted to take such defence, he should have filed
necessary application under Mental Health Act and having
not done so and contested the matter on merits, the
appellant cannot raise such grounds before this Court for
the first time and sought for dismissal of the appeal.
13. Having heard the parties, this Court perused
the materials on record meticulously.
14. In the case on hand, the accused has been
charge sheeted for the offence punishable under Sections
307 and 326 of IPC. Pw.2 is the injured and Pw.1 is his
own brother and Pw.2 is his cousin brother. It is the
NC: 2025:KHC:4624
specific case of the prosecution that when they were all
sleeping in the house of the accused at about 11.30 p.m.,
the accused with an intention to take away the life of
Pws.1 and 2 suspecting that Pws.1 and 2 are not born to
him, assaulted Pw.2 with machete whereby Pw.2 lost his
left eye.
15. After thorough investigation, charge sheet came
to be filed and accused stood for trial. Accused could not
engage an advocate of his choice therefore, he sought for
legal assistance.
16. Necessary legal assistance was provided by the
District Legal Services Authority to represent the accused.
17. Learned sessions judge while framing the
charge, has conversed with the accused and since no
application was filed pleading the mental illness of the
appellant under the provisions of Mental Healthcare Act,
the trial was conducted as accused did not plead guilty.
NC: 2025:KHC:4624
18. No doubt in the cross examination of Pws.1 and
2 there are few suggestions that accused had mental
illness for which the proper medication was prescribed and
whenever he used to discontinue the medication, he used
to go for depression and he used to behave improperly.
19. But that evidence itself would not be sufficient
to hold that the action attributed to the accused has been
committed when he was suffering from mental illness.
20. When exactly the medication was discontinued
and on the day of incident that the appellant did not have
proper senses as to what he was committing and
therefore, the act attributed to the accused should be
exempted taking note of the alleged mental ill-health of
the appellant cannot be countenanced in law, more so,
when no application is filed to refer the appellant to
medical examination under Mental Health Act.
NC: 2025:KHC:4624
21. No other grounds are urged in the appeal
memorandum so as to hold that the conviction order is
improper.
22. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
a) Appeal grounds sans merit.
Accordingly, dismissed.
b) Since the appellant has already
undergone the imprisonment period and fine
amount is also paid, no further orders are
necessary.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
NS
