Karnataka High Court
Sri Guruprasad vs State By Kamakshipalya Police on 6 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:5427
CRL.A No. 464 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 464 OF 2013 (C)
BETWEEN:
SRI. GURUPRASAD
S/O SHESHAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 34 YERS,
RESIDING AT 2ND CROSS,
2ND MAIN ROAD,
SALLAPURADAMMA LAYOUT,
SUNKADAKATTE,
BANGALORE-560 091.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RITHIK Y.M, AMECUS CURIAE)
AND:
STATE BY KAMAKSHIPALYA POLICE
Digitally signed by REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
MAYAGAIAH HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
VINUTHA
BANGALORE.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF ...RESPONDENT
KARNATAKA (BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K, HCGP)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S. 374(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:20.3.13 PASSED BY THE
P.O., FTC-XVII, BANGALORE CITY IN S.C.NO.1033/12 -
CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES
P/U/S 324, 504, 427 OF IPC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:5427
CRL.A No. 464 of 2013
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal by the convicted accused is directed against
the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed in
S.C.No.1033/2012 dated 20.03.2013 by the Presiding Officer,
Fast Track (Sessions) Court - XVII, Bengaluru City, whereby
the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused for the
offences punishable under Sections 324, 504 and 427 of IPC
and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,500/-, and in
default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of two months for the offence
punishable under Section 324 of IPC. Further sentenced to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to
pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he shall
undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence
punishable under Section 504 of IPC. Further, sentenced to pay
a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he shall
undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence
punishable under Section 427 of IPC. Further it was directed
that all substantive sentences shall run concurrently.
NC: 2025:KHC:5427
2. The abridged facts of the case are that:
On 06.02.2012, between 4 to 4.30 p.m., at 2nd Cross, 2nd
Main Road of Salapuradamma Layout, Sunkadakatte, the
accused damaged the door of the house belonging to PW.2 and
CW.5 and verbally abused them by picking a row with PW.1 and
assaulted him with a size stone i.e., MO.1 on his head. Owing
to the assault, the accused sustained bleeding injuries and was
admitted to Mallige Hospital, Hegganahalli, Bengaluru for
treatment and thereafter, a compliant was lodged against the
accused on the same day at about 6.00 p.m. as per Ex.P1. On
the strength of Ex.P1, an FIR was registered against the
accused in Cr.No.85/2012 dated 06.02.2012 for the offences
punishable under Sections 427, 504, 307 and 324 of IPC as per
Ex.P6. Subsequently, PW.12-PSI of respondent Police
investigated the matter and laid the charge-sheet against the
accused for the aforesaid offences.
3. In order to prove the charges levelled against the
accused before the Sessions Court, the prosecution collectively
examined 12 witnesses, marked 7 documents as Exs.P1 to P7
and identified two material objects.
NC: 2025:KHC:5427
4. On assessment of the oral and documentary
evidence, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused for
the offence punishable under Sections 324, 504 and 427 of IPC
and sentenced him as stated supra. The said judgment is
challenged in this appeal.
5. I have heard the learned Amicus Curiae
Sri. Rithik.Y.M. for the appellant and the learned HCGP
Sri. Rahuk Rai.K for the respondent and perused the material
on record.
6. The primary contention of the learned counsel for
the appellant is that the learned Sessions Judge has erred while
convicting the accused for the offences punishable under
Sections 324, 504 and 427 of IPC without duly appreciating the
evidence available on record in right perspective. He contended
that the evidence of PW.1-injured suffered from grievous
infirmities. The contents of the compliant-Ex.P1 lodged by PW.1
does not corroborate with his evidence and the wounds he
sustained as per Ex.P7-wound certificate. Further, the
eyewitness-PW.2 is a chance witness to the prosecution and on
perusal of his evidence he has admitted that though he had
witnessed the incident, he failed to lodge a complaint and
NC: 2025:KHC:5427
inform the same to anybody. It appears that this witness
appeared out of the blue and thereafter he disappeared into
thin air. In such circumstances, his version cannot be relied
upon to prove the charges levelled against the accused.
Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal.
7. Per contra, the learned HCGP contended that the
learned Sessions Judge after examining the evidence at length,
convicted the accused for the offences punishable under
Sections 324, 504 and 427 of IPC in a well reasoned judgment,
which does not call for any interference. He contended that the
evidence of PW.1-injured complainant and PW.2-eye witness
corroborates with each other and both of them have
categorically deposed that the assault was perpetrated by the
accused using MO.1 on PW.1. Further, the said evidence also
corroborates with the contents of Ex.P7-wound certificate. In
such circumstances, there is no reason to discard the evidence
of PW.1. As such, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly
convicted the accused for the aforementioned offences.
Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal.
NC: 2025:KHC:5427
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and upon perusal of documents made available before me, the
sole point that surface for consideration is:
"Whether the learned Sessions Judge is
justified in convicting the accused for the offences
punishable under Sections 324, 504 and 427 of IPC
and whether any inference is required in the
impugned judgment?
9. It could be seen from the records that in order to
prove the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution
has predominantly relied on the evidence of PW.1-injured and
PW.2 and PW.3, who are the eye witnesses to the incident. On
perusal of the evidence of PW.1, by reiterating the contents of
Ex.P1, he deposed that on the date of incident i.e., on
06.02.2012 at about 1.00 p.m., he witnessed the accused
pelting stones on the door and also on the vehicles parked in
front of his residence. When confronted the accused assaulted
him with a size stone on his head, saying who he was to
question the said act. Thereafter, he was admitted to Mallige
Hospital and was treated for the injuries sustained. Following
which a complaint was lodged on the same day i.e., Ex.P1.
Further, PW.1 also identified MO.1-stone which was used by the
NC: 2025:KHC:5427
accused in the crime. This evidence of PW.1 clearly
corroborates with the testimony of PW.2-eye witness to the
incident, he also reiterated the version of PW.1 and identified
MO.1. PW.3-wife of PW.1 also deposed similar to that of PW.1
regarding the assault perpetrated by the accused using MO.1
on PW.1. Hence, on careful reading of the evidence of PW.1 to
PW.3, all these witnesses have categorically stated that on the
date of incident, the accused pelted stones on the door of
PW.1's residence and further assaulted him on his head with
Mo.1.
10. Further, on perusal of Ex.P7-wound certificate
marked following the evidence of PW.12-Investigating Officer
establishes that PW.1 sustained lacerated wound on his
forehead and also abrasion on both knee-joints. Hence, the
evidence of PW.1 and other eye-witnesses unambiguously
corroborates with the contents of Ex.P7-wound certificate.
Though the author of Ex.P7 has not been examined,
nevertheless, the genuineness of the said document cannot be
discarded for the said reason. Further, on perusal of the
evidence of PW.6 and PW.8, it can be gathered that they have
categorically deposed about drawing of Ex.P2-spot mahazar
NC: 2025:KHC:5427
and seizure of MO.1 i.e., size stone which was used by the
accused in the crime. In such circumstances, the prosecution
also proved the recovery of MO.1.
11. On perusal of the evidence of the above material
witnesses in this case, none of the witnesses have stated the
reason and motive behind the incident. Per contra, it is the case
of the prosecution that the accused was inebriated during the
incident. In such circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge
has rightly convicted the accused for the offences punishable
under Sections 324, 504 and 427 of IPC.
12. Though the accused was charged for the offence
punishable under Section 307 of IPC, however, the learned
counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Sessions
Judge convicted the accused under Sections 324 and 504 of IPC
by imposing imprisonment and fine. Albeit both these offences
are punishable either by imposing fine or imprisonment, as
such, the sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge for
the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 504 of IPC
may be modified by imposing reasonable fine instead of
imprisonment as imposed by the Trial Court.
NC: 2025:KHC:5427
13. On perusal of the facts and circumstances of this
case, the incident was caused by the accused without intention,
motive and premeditation, however, it occurred owing to the
accused being inebriated. In such circumstances, by
considering the peculiar facts of the case and taking into
consideration that the incident occurred in the year 2012 and
that the accused is on bail for the last 13 years, my
discernment compels that rather than sentencing the accused
to undergo imprisonment, imposing reasonable fine and default
sentence would meet the ends of justice.
14. Accordingly, by confirming the judgment of
conviction passed by the Trial Court, the sentence imposed by
the Trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 324
and 504 of IPC calls for modification. Against this backdrop, I
answer the point raised supra in partly affirmative and proceed
to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed in part.
ii) The judgment of conviction and order of
sentence passed in S.C.No.1033/2012
dated 20.03.2013 by the Presiding Officer,
Fast Track (Sessions) Court - XVII,
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5427
Bengaluru City is hereby modified in respect
of the offences punishable under Sections
324 and 504 of IPC.
iii) The accused is sentenced to pay a fine of
Rs.25,000/-, in default of payment of fine,
he shall undergo simple imprisonment for
six months for the offence punishable under
Section 324 of IPC. Further, the accused is
sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in
default of payment of fine he shall undergo
simple imprisonment for two months for the
offence punishable under Section 504 of
IPC.
iv) The sentence imposed by the Trial Court for
the offence punishable under Section 427 of
IPC is hereby kept intact.
v) The accused shall deposit the fine amount
within four weeks from the date of receiving
the certified copy of this judgment.
vi) If the accused failed to deposit the fine
amount, the learned Sessions Judge is
directed to secure presence of the accused
and consign him to prison to undergo
default sentence.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5427
vii) If the accused deposits the fine amount,
then learned Sessions Judge is requested to
notify the same to PW.1-K.T.Kumar and
disburse Rs.35,000/- to him on due
identification.
viii) The bail bond executed by the accused shall
stand cancelled.
ix) The default sentence shall run concurrently.
The Karnataka State Legal Services Authority is directed
to pay Rs.15,000/- to Sri. Rithik.Y.M., Amicus Curiae for the
appellant, who has rendered his assistance in this matter.
SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
VM
