Sujendra vs State Of Karnataka
2025 Latest Caselaw 3862 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Sujendra vs State Of Karnataka on 12 February, 2025

Author: V Srishananda

Bench: V Srishananda

                                       -1-
                                                    NC: 2025:KHC:6215
                                                CRL.A No. 708 of 2013




                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                   DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

                                     BEFORE

                    THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

                      CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 708 OF 2013 (C)

            BETWEEN:

            1.    SUJENDRA
                  AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
                  S/O SOOREGWODA,
                  R/AT SHINDENAHALLI VILLAGE,
                  HUNSUR TALUK,
                  MYSORE DISTRIC-571 105.

            2.    VENKATESH
                  AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
                  S/O ANNEGOWDA,
                  R/AT HONNENAHALLI VILLAGE,
                  HUNSUR TALUK,
                  MYSORE DISTRICT-571 105.

            3.    VENKATARAMANEGOWDA
Digitally         AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
signed by         S/O LATE KRISHNEGOWDA,
MALATESH          R/AT SHINDENAHALLI VILLAGE,
KC                HUNSUR TALUK,
Location:         MYSORE DISTRICT-571 105.
HIGH
COURT OF          PRESENTLY R/AT NEGATHURU
KARNATAKA         HUNSUR TALUK,
                  MYSORE DISTRICT-571 105.
                                                        ...APPELLANTS
            (BY SRI. P NATARAJU, ADVOCATE)

            AND:

            1.    STATE OF KARNATAKA
                  BY HUNSUR RURAL POLICE STATION,
                                  -2-
                                                 NC: 2025:KHC:6215
                                            CRL.A No. 708 of 2013




    MYSORE DISTRICT,
    REPRESENTED BY
    STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
    HIGH COURT BUILDING,
    BANGALORE-560 001.
                                                     ...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP)

     THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 22.06.2013
PASSED BY THE P.O., F.T.C., HUNSUR IN S.C.NO.322/2012 -
CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 341,504,332,333 AND 506 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC.

    THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:     HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

                         ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard Sri P. Nataraju, learned counsel for the appellants

and Sri Channappa Erappa, learned High Court Government

Pleader for the State.

2. Appellants, who are accused Nos.1 to 3, suffered an

order of conviction for the offences punishable under Sections

341, 504, 332, 333 and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian

Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced as under:

"Accused-1 to 3 are sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each for the offence punishable under Section 341 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C. In case of default of

NC: 2025:KHC:6215

payment of fine, they shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of ten days.

Similarly, accused-1 to 3 are sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 504 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C. In case of default of payment of fine, they shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment Accused-1 to 3 are further sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each for the offence punishable is under Section 332 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C., for having assaulted P.W.2-wal Santhoshkumar. In case of default of payment of fine, they shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of two months.

Accused-1 to 3 are also sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 333 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C., for having assaulted P.W.1-Kiran and causing him grievous injury. In case of default of payment of fine, they shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months.

Lastly, accused-1 to 3 are sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-each for the offence punishable under Section 506 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C. In case of default of payment of fine, they shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months Accused Nos.1 to 3 are entitled for benefit of set the office is directed to re-list this petition on for the

NC: 2025:KHC:6215

period which they have undergone as under trial prisoners in the course of trial, as provided under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.

MOs.1 to 8 being worthless, shall be destroyed after the appeal period is over and if appeal is preferred, after disposal of appeal."

3. Facts in brief, which are utmost necessary for

disposal of the present appeal, are as under:

3.1 On 06.07.2012 at about 10.00 a.m., Shankar

(PW.8), as per the instructions of the official superior, went to

General Hospital, Hunsur. As per the information received from

the Hunsur Rural Police, said Shankar being the Head

Constable, contacted Sri Kiran, who was undergoing treatment

in the Hunsur Hospital. On such enquiry, Sri Kiran being the

forest official, revealed that he was working as a forest guard

at Veeranahosalli Wildlife Range for the past two years and in

June 2012 near Negathuru Village, four persons were carrying

deer flesh. Forest officials tried to apprehend them, but they

were successful in escaping from the chase. In that regard, a

case came to be lodged in that regard in FOC No.3/2012-2013

against Sujendra, Venkatesha, Venkataramanegowda and

NC: 2025:KHC:6215

others. Sri Kiran was deputed to find out the whereabouts of

the accused persons in respect of said crime.

3.2 While they were in search of culprits on

05.07.2012, Sri Kiran and other staff received credible

information that the accused in the said crime were proceeding

from Hanagodu. Immediately, Sri Kiran and others proceeded

in the official jeep bearing No.KA-09-G-353 and were waiting

for the absconding accused persons near Kunteri Tank.

3.3 Around 6.00 p.m., accused Nos.1 and 3 (present

appellants) came from a Bar in Hanagodu village. On seeing

them, forest officials including the complainant tried to

apprehend them. At that juncture, present appellants with their

henchman threatened complainant and three more forest

officials to take away their life. There was an oral altercation

initially. Quarrel got aggravated and in the said quarrel,

Venkatesha assaulted Kiran with a club on his left forehead and

a right shoulder causing bleeding injuries. Accused No.1-

Sujendra assaulted Kiran with stone on his chest.

3.4 When PW.2 tired to intervene and pacify the

quarrel, Venkataramanegowda assaulted PW.2 with stone on

NC: 2025:KHC:6215

his forehead. Appellants and their henchman were pelting stone

on the forest officials and they hurled abusive words on them

and also threatened them with dire consequences. Accused

No.2 torn the pant worn by Kiran and snatched mobile phone

from his pocket. Somehow, Kiran and other forest officials

escaped from the clutches of the appellants and their

henchman. Sri Kiran and another forest official by name

Santhoshkumar were injured in the incident and they were

shifted to Hunsur hospital.

3.5 On narration of the above facts, Head constable

reduced the same into writing and based on the said complaint,

Hunsur Rural Police registered a case in Cr.No.228/2012 for the

offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 332,

504, 506 r/w Section 149 of IPC. After thorough investigation,

charge sheet came to be filed against the appellants for the

aforesaid offences.

4. Accused persons were in custody for a period of

three months during the time of investigation and thereafter,

they were enlarged on bail. Learned Magistrate took cognizance

NC: 2025:KHC:6215

of the aforesaid offences and committed the matter to the

Sessions Court for trial.

5. On receipt of the records, learned Sessions Judge

secured the presence of the appellants and after completing

necessary formalities, framed the charges for the aforesaid

offences. Accused persons pleaded not guilty. Therefore, trial

was held.

6. In order to bring home the guilt of the appellants,

prosecution in all examined 10 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.10

comprising of the injured forest officials (PW.1 and PW.2),

mahazar witnesses, Doctor who issued the wound certificate

and investigation officer.

7. Prosecution placed on record 13 documentary

evidence, which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P1 to P13

comprising of spot mahazar, complaint, wound certificate,

opinion of the doctor, MLC extract, attendance register etc.

8. Prosecution also placed on record 8 material

objects, which were marked as MO.1 to MO.8 comprising of

NC: 2025:KHC:6215

torn pant worn by PW.1 as on the date of incident, club, stone,

glass pieces of beer bottle and stone.

9. On conclusion of recording of evidence, accused

statements as is contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.

were recorded by the learned trial Judge. Accused persons

denied all the incriminatory materials that were found in the

investigation of the prosecution and did not place their version

about the incident by filing written submission as is

contemplated under Section 313 Cr.P.C., nor they placed any

defence evidence.

10. Thereafter, learned trial Judge heard the arguments

of the parties in detail and on cumulative consideration of the

oral and documentary evidence placed on record, learned trial

Judge convicted the appellants and sentenced as referred to

supra.

11. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellants are

before this Court, in this appeal.

12. Sri P.Nataraju, learned counsel for the appellants

reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum,

NC: 2025:KHC:6215

contended that material evidence placed on record suffers from

necessary ingredients to maintain the order of conviction and

sentence passed by the learned trial Judge in the impugned

judgment and sought for allowing the appeal.

13. He further contended that identity of the appellants

were not noted when the case came to be registered in FOC

No.3/2012-13 and without conducting the necessary Test

Identification Parade, appellants have been falsely implicated in

the incident and therefore, very genesis of the crime itself is

doubtful, which has been ignored by the learned trial Judge in

the impugned judgment and sought for allowing the appeal.

14. He would further contend that admittedly even

according to the version of PW.1, apart from the appellants,

there were other 15 to 20 henchman, who had gathered near

the place of incident and same is found from the very lodging of

the FIR with the aid of Section 149 of IPC and therefore,

proceeding case against only three of the appellants has

resulted in miscarriage of justice and thus, sought for the

allowing of the appeal.

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:6215

15. Alternatively Sri P.Nataraju, learned counsel

contended that in the event of this Court upholding the order of

conviction, taking note of the advanced age of the appellants

and in the absence of any criminal antecedents, the custody

period already undergone by the appellants may be treated as

imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount reasonably and

sought for allowing the appeal to that extent.

16. Per contra, Sri.Channappa Erappa, learned High

Court Government Pleader for the State/respondent supports

the impugned judgment.

17. He would further contend that materials on record

would be sufficient enough to maintain the conviction of the

appellant for the aforesaid offences. Admittedly, PW.1 and

PW.2, who are the injured in the incident, are the forest

officials. They were in search of the appellants and yet another

person who had absconded in FOC No.3/2012-13. In the said

case, the crime alleged against the appellants are that they

were carrying flesh of the deer and they got escaped from the

Negathuru Village after seeing the forest officials.

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC:6215

18. He further argues that when appellants were found

in Hanagodu, attempt was made to apprehended them by PW.1

and PW.2 with other forest officials. At that juncture, the

incident has occurred. Therefore, there is direct nexus between

the appellants and the incident.

19. He would further contend that merely non-

impleading the other persons as accused persons in the

incident and not apprehending them would not be sufficient

enough to doubt the case of the prosecution inasmuch as the

appellants have been identified by the injured witnesses. Why

would PW.1 and PW.2 falsely implicate the appellants in the

case by allowing the real culprits to escape from the rigors of

law is not explained by the accused and thus, sought for

dismissal of the appeal.

20. He also contended that the alternate submission

advanced on behalf of the appellants cannot be considered

inasmuch as showing them leniency would encourage the

similarly placed perpetrators of the crime and thus, sought for

dismissal of the appeal in toto.

- 12 -

NC: 2025:KHC:6215

21. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court

perused the materials on record meticulously. On such perusal

of the materials on record, following points would arise for

consideration:

1. Whether the material evidence placed on record would be sufficient enough to maintain the conviction of the appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 504, 332, 333 and 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC?

2. Whether the appellants make out a case that the impugned judgment is suffering from legal infirmity and perversity and thus calls for interference?

3. Whether the sentence needs modification?

4. What order?

REGARDING POINT Nos.1 AND 2:

22. In the case on hand, PW.1 and PW.2 being the

injured forest officials, have deposed with graphic details as to

what transpired on 05.07.2012 at about 6.00 p.m. near Kunteri

tank of Hanagodu village. It is the testimony of PW.1 and PW.2

that present appellants along with another absconding accused

were the culprits in FOC No.3/2012-13, who were carrying deer

- 13 -

NC: 2025:KHC:6215

flesh during the month of June, 2012 near Negathuru Village.

Appellants escaped from the clutches of the forest officials on

said date and forest officials were in search of the appellants

and the absconding accused.

23. They further deposed that on credible information

that appellants are in Hanagodu village, PW.1 and PW.2 with

other forest officials came in a jeep and they were waiting near

Kunteri tank. After spotting the appellants coming out from a

Bar in Hanagodu Village, PW.1 and PW.2 with other forest

officials, tried to nab the appellants. At that juncture, there was

an altercation and in the quarrel, it is the appellants who have

assaulted PW.1 and PW.2. In the said process, pant worn by

PW.1 also torn by the appellants. Since there were many others

who are pelting stones on PW.1 and PW.2, the forest officials

somehow escaped from the clutches of the appellants and their

henchman. PW.1 and PW.2, who were injured, were shifted to

Hunsur hospital.

24. It is noticed that Head constable of Hunsur rural

police on receipt of the MLC information, proceed to the

hospital and enquired PW.1. On enquiry, he came to know

- 14 -

NC: 2025:KHC:6215

about the incident and thereafter, he reduced the contents into

writing and based on such complaint, case came to be

registered in Cr.No.228/2012 for the aforesaid offences and

also for the offence of unlawful assembly. However,

investigation agency could not get the details of other persons,

who were gathered there, who also pelted stones on PW.1 and

PW.2 and other forest officials. Ultimately, charge sheet came

to be filed against the appellants for the aforesaid offences with

the aid of Section 34 of IPC.

25. During the course of investigation, the appellants

were arrested and they were sent to judicial custody and

thereafter, they were enlarged on bail. PW.1 and PW.2 being

the forest officials, who are totally strangers to the appellants,

did not nurture any previous enmity so as to falsely implicate

the appellants in the present incident.

26. It is the specific case of PW.1 and PW.2 that on

credible information received by them on 05.07.2012 that the

appellants are in Hanagodu village, PW.1 and PW.2 and other

two forest officials came in a Government jeep bearing No.KA-

09-G-353 and they were waiting near Kunteri tank. When

- 15 -

NC: 2025:KHC:6215

appellants came out from a Bar in Hanagodu village, the forest

officials spotted them and they wanted to apprehend the

appellants. At that juncture, the altercation has taken place at

about 6.00 p.m.

27. In the incident, the injuries sustained by PW.1 and

PW.2 are clearly mentioned in the wound certificate issued by

the doctor marked at Exs.P4 and P5. MLC report is also marked

on behalf of the prosecution so also the complaint and FIR.

There is no loss of time in lodging the complaint nor there was

a scope for falsely implicate the present appellants in the

incident.

28. Therefore, the prosecution is successful in

establishing the incident that occurred in Hanagodu village at

about 6.00 p.m. on 05.07.2012, whereunder PW.1 and PW.2

have been injured by the action attributed by the appellants

and others. Merely non-impleading the other assailants as

accused persons would not ipso facto result in doubting the

case of the prosecution in toto inasmuch as injuries noted by

the doctor in Exs.P4 and P5 could not be treated as self inflicted

injuries. Therefore, material evidence on record would be

- 16 -

NC: 2025:KHC:6215

sufficient enough to maintain the conviction of the appellants

for the aforesaid offences.

29. Grounds of appeal would not make out any grounds

whatsoever muchless good grounds. Thus, even after

re-appreciation of the appeal grounds, they are not sufficient to

term the impugned judgment as suffering from legal infirmities

or perversity.

30. In view of the foregoing discussion, point Nos.1 and

2 are answered in the affirmative and negative, respectively.

REGARDING POINT No.3

31. Admittedly what is the result of the case in FOC

No.3/2012-13 is forthcoming on record. Neither the prosecution

placed any material in that regard nor proceedings which is

being continued in respect of the said crime.

32. Therefore, the present incident is to be treated as

an isolated incident. In the absence of any criminal antecedents

attributable to the appellants, this Court is of the considered

opinion that the custody period of three months already

undergone by the appellants during the course of investigation

- 17 -

NC: 2025:KHC:6215

is treated as period of imprisonment for the aforesaid offences

by enhancing fine amount in a sum of Rs.75,000/- payable by

each of the appellants within a time frame and ordering sum of

Rs.50,000/- to PW.1 and a sum of Rs.25,000/- to PW.2 as

compensation would meet the ends of justice in the facts and

circumstances of the case. Moreso, having regard to the

advanced age of the appellants. Accordingly, point No.2 is

answered partly in the affirmative.

REGARDING POINT No.4:

33. In view of the findings of this Court on point Nos.1

to 3 as above, following:

ORDER

i. Criminal Appeal is allowed-in-part.

ii. While maintaining the conviction of the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 504, 332, 333 and 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC, the custody period already undergone by them is treated as period of imprisonment for the aforesaid offences and each of the appellants are directed to pay enhanced fine at Rs.75,000/- on or before

- 18 -

NC: 2025:KHC:6215

15.03.2025, failing which they shall undergo imprisonment as ordered by the trial Judge.

iii. Out of the fine amount recovered, a sum of Rs.50,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to PW.1 and a sum of Rs.25,000/- to PW.2 under due identification.

Office is directed to return the Trial Court Records with

copy of this judgment forthwith to issue modified conviction

order.

Sd/-

(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

SA,VM