Karnataka High Court
Raja @ J.C. Krishnaraju vs State By Harohalli Police on 18 February, 2025
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:7197
CRL.A No. 1017 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1017 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
RAJA @ J.C. KRISHNARAJU
S/O CHANNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/A KADUJAKKASANDRA VILLAGE
HAROHALLI HOBLI
KANAKAPURA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 112
(NOW IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY
SERVICE SENTENCE)
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. A.V. RAMAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE BY HAROHALLI POLICE
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA
Digitally HIGH COURT BUILDING
signed by BANGALORE - 560 001
MALATESH ...RESPONDENT
KC (BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP)
Location:
HIGH THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF
COURT OF
KARNATAKA CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:
30.09.13/08.10.13 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
S.J.,/SPECIAL JUDGE, RAMANAGARA, IN SPL.C.C.NO.306/2007 -
CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 341 AND 307 OF IPC AND ETC.,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:7197
CRL.A No. 1017 of 2013
THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard Sri A.V.Ramakrishna, learned counsel for the
appellant and Sri Channappa Erappa, learned HCGP for the
respondent-State.
2. Appellant is the accused, who suffered an order of
conviction in Spl.C.C.No.306/2007 for the offences punishable
under Sections 307 and 341 of IPC and ordered to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay
Rs.1,000/- fine for the offence punishable under Section 307 of
IPC. For the offence punishable under Section 341 of IPC,
he has been sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/-.
3. Facts in the nutshell for disposal of the appeal are
as under:
A complaint came to be lodged with Harohalli Police
Station for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 341,
506 read with section 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
NC: 2025:KHC:7197
Atrocities) Act, 1989, (for short 'SC/ST (PoA) Act').
The complaint averments reveal that on 26.09.2007 at about
8:00 A.M., when the complainant was proceeding on the public
road to reach Harohalli, pursuant to previous enmity,
the accused picked up a quarrel and abused him in filthy
language taking out his caste name with an intention to
degrade him in public view and also gave him a life threat.
4. Based on the said complaint, the Police registered
the case and investigated the matter and filed chargesheet for
the aforesaid offences.
5. Presence of the accused was secured by the learned
Special Judge and cognizance was taken.
On due compliance of Section 207 of Cr.P.C., charges were
framed for the aforesaid offences by the learned Special Judge.
Accused pleaded not guilty. Therefore, trial was held.
6. In order to prove the guilt of the accused,
prosecution proceeded to examine 10 witnesses as P.W.1 to
P.W.10 comprising of complainant, mahazar witnesses,
circumstantial witnesses, Doctor, who issued the wound
certificate and the Investigating Officer.
NC: 2025:KHC:7197
7. The Prosecution proceeded to place on record eight
documentary evidence on record as Exhibits P.1 to P.8
comprising of complaint, spot mahazar, wound certificate,
opinion of the Doctor with regard to the weapon used in the
incident and FIR.
8. During the course of cross-examination of P.Ws.3, 4
and 5, contradictions were elicited with regard to Exhibits D.1
to D.3. The weapon used in the incident is marked as M.O.1 on
behalf of the prosecution.
9. On completion of recording evidence, accused
statement as is contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., was
recorded by the learned Special Judge. Accused has denied all
incriminating materials found against him in the prosecution
case but he did not choose to place his version on record by
furnishing any written submission as is contemplated under
Section 313(4) of Cr.P.C., nor placed any defence evidence on
record.
10. Thereafter, learned Special Judge heard the
arguments of the parties in detail and acquitted the accused for
NC: 2025:KHC:7197
the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act but
convicted the appellant and sentenced as referred to supra.
11. The State or the de-facto complainant did not file
any appeal challenging the acquittal of the accused for the
offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act and
therefore, it has attained finality.
12. Accused has filed the present appeal challenging
the validity of the impugned judgment wherein accused has
been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 307
and 341 of IPC.
13. Sri A.V.Ramakrishna, learned counsel for the
appellant, reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal,
contended that absolutely, there is no material on record,
which would be sufficient enough to maintain the conviction of
the appellant for the offence under Section 307 of the IPC and
the appeal needs to be allowed.
14. He would further contend that at the most, the
material on record may indicate that there was altercation on
the date of incident inasmuch as it is the complainant, who has
come near the house of the appellant and picked up the
NC: 2025:KHC:7197
quarrel. Therefore, the prosecution suppressed the genesis of
the crime, which shows that there was no intention on the part
of the appellant either to pick up the quarrel with the
complainant or to assault the complainant voluntarily.
15. Taking note of the fact that the injuries have been
caused and the weapon has been seized, which contains no
blood stains and the weapon was not sent to the FSL for
examination, this Court may scaled down the offences under
Section 307 to Section 324 and the custody period already
undergone by the appellant may be treated as period of
imprisonment and allow the appeal to that extent.
16. Per contra, Sri Channappa Erappa, learned HCGP
for the respondent-State supports the impugned judgment.
He would further contend that the wound certificate marked as
Ex.P.5 and the weapon that has been seized by the Police,
which is marked as M.O.1 having been sent to the Doctor for
opinion, which has been furnished at Ex.P.6 would conclude
that, it is the appellant, who has voluntarily assaulted the
complainant with M.O.1 resulting in several injuries of which,
injuries found on the body of the complainant would be that of
grievous in nature.
NC: 2025:KHC:7197
17. As per the X-ray report, there is a fracture of nasal
bone and therefore, all ingredients to attract offence under
Section 307 of IPC has been established by the prosecution by
placing cogent and convincing evidence on record and thus,
sought for dismissal of the appeal.
18. He further contended that the submission made
on behalf of the appellant that the offence needs to be scaled
down from Section 307 of IPC to Section 324 of IPC, has no
merit whatsoever, in view of the specific oral and documentary
evidence placed on record and sought for dismissal of the
appeal in toto.
19. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court
perused the material on record meticulously, following points
would arise for consideration:
(i) Whether material on record would be sufficient
enough to maintain the conviction of the
appellant under Sections 307 and 341 of IPC;
(ii) Whether the impugned judgment is suffering from
legal infirmity or perversity or thus, call for
interference?
(iii) Whether the sentence needs modification?
NC: 2025:KHC:7197
(iv) What order?
20. REGARDING POINTS No.1 and 2: in the case on
hand, there was a transaction between the complainant and
the accused earlier and in that regard, there was a complaint
as well. As such ill-will developed between the complainant
and the accused. It is the specific case of the complainant that
pursuant to said ill-will, on 26.09.2007 at about 8:00 A.M.,
when he was proceeding on the public road, the accused has
picked up a quarrel voluntarily with the complainant and
abused him in filthy language by taking out his caste name and
assaulted him with M.O.1. The quarrel was pacified by the
other villagers and thereafter, compliant came to be lodged by
the complainant in the evening.
21. Police, after investigating the matter, filed the
charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 307,
341 read with Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act.
However, learned Trial Judge himself did not notice any
ingredients in the material evidence so as to convict the
accused for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the
SC/ST (PoA) Act. Therefore, the Trial Judge acquitted the
NC: 2025:KHC:7197
appellant for said charge. The State and the victim have not
filed any appeal against the acquittal of the appellant for the
aforesaid charge, it has become final.
22. Admittedly, there are five injuries caused to the
complainant in the incident that has occurred on 26.09.2007.
In fact, after treating the complainant in the General Hospital,
Kanakapura, he was referred to NIMHANS, Bengaluru. X-ray of
the complainant was also taken wherein it is noticed that there
is fracture of the nasal bone.
23. However, neither the Doctor, who issued Ex.P.5
nor the prosecution agency has placed the original X-ray film or
the radiological report to support the injury No.5 as grievous
injury.
24. Following the dictum of the Division Bench of this
Court in the case of State Vs. Sheenapa Gowda and Others
reported in 2010 SCC OnLine Kar 5294, in the absence of
any X-ray or radiological report, injury cannot be classified as a
grievous injury especially when it is a fracture injury.
Therefore, even though as per Ex.P.5, injuries are noted as
grievous injury, the same needs to be re-looked in the light of
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:7197
the legal principles laid down in the case of Sheenapa Gowda
(supra).
25. Having said thus, since M.O.1 was in the hands of
the accused, if he had any intention to take away the life of the
complainant, why would he not utilize the opportunity in
completing the act of killing the complainant on that day is a
question that remains to be unanswered on behalf of the
prosecution. Therefore, since the injuries are caused using
M.O.1, which are bleeding injuries, this Court is of the opinion
that offence punishable under Section 307 could not have been
held to be proved in the absence of necessary ingredients
placed on record on behalf of the prosecution.
26. Therefore, the injuries sustained as is shown in
Ex.P.5, which is corroborated by Ex.P.6, which is the opinion
given by the Doctor, after examining M.O.1, resulting in
bleeding injuries, this Court is of the considered opinion that
the conviction of the appellant for the offences punishable
under Section 307 of IPC needs to be set-aside; instead, the
appellant needs to be convicted for the offences punishable
under Section 324 of IPC. In view of the forgoing discussion,
points No.1 and 2 are answered partly in affirmative.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:7197
27. REGARDING POINT No.3: Since this Court has
acquitted the accused for the offences punishable under Section
307 of IPC as referred to supra and scaled down the for the
offences to Section 324 of IPC, custody period already
undergone by the appellant, if treated as period of
imprisonment for the offences punishable under Section 324
and 341 of IPC, by enhancing the fine amount in the sum of
Rs.75,000/-, ends of justice would be met. Accordingly, point
No.3 is answered partly in affirmative.
28. REGARDING POINT No.4: In view of the findings of
this Court on point Nos.1 to 3 as above, the following:
ORDER
(i) Appeal is allowed in part;
(ii) Accused is acquitted for the offence punishable
under Section 307 of IPC; instead, he has been
convicted for the offence punishable under Section
324 of IPC, by maintaining the conviction of the
accused for the offence under Section 341 of IPC.
(iii) Consequently, sentence ordered by the learned
Trial Judge is modified as under:
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:7197
(a) Custody period already undergone by
the appellant is treated as period of
imprisonment for the offences punishable
under Section 324 and 341 of IPC, by
enhancing the fine amount in the sum of
Rs.75,000/-.
(b) Time is granted till 20.03.2025 to pay
the fine amount. Failing which, appellant
shall undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of six months.
(c) Out of the fine amount, a sum of
Rs.50,000/- is directed to be paid as
compensation to the complainant.
(iv) Office is directed to return the Trial Court Records
with a copy of this order, forthwith.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
AV
