Karnataka High Court
Venkatesha vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 February, 2025
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA
CRL.A.No.391/2012
C/W CRL.A.No.424/2012
C/W CRL.A.No.538/2012
IN CRL.A.No.391/2012
BETWEEN
VENKATESHA
S/O NARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
R/O PAGADALA PALLY VILLAGE,
GAVANAPALLY POST, ODC MANDALAM,
KADRI TALUK, ANANTHPURAM DISTRICT. A.P.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI LETHIF B, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
BY HSR LAYOUT POLICE STATION
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2)
CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
29.02.2012 PASSED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FTC-IX,
BANGALORE IN S.C.No.960/2010-CONVICTING THE
APPELLANT/ ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTION 395 R/W 397 OF IPC.
2
IN CRL.A.No.424/2012
BETWEEN
S RAMABABU @ BABU
S/O LATE SRINIVASU
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
R/AT NO.73, RAJAPPA BEEDI
CHIKKABEGUR, BANGALORE.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI G.NATARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI RAVI KUMAR.S, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE
BY HSR LAYOUT POLICE
REPTD. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2)
CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF
CONVICTION DATED 29.02.2012 AND SENTENCE DATED
22.03.2012 PASSED IN S.C.No.960/2010 BY THE
PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT -IX,
BANGALORE - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED
NO.3 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION
395 R/W. 397 OF IPC.
IN CRL.A.No.538/2012
BETWEEN
1. NAGARAJA @ NAGA
S/O VENKATESHAPPA,
3
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
R/O NO.17, SIDDARTHA NAGAR,
MADIVALA, BANGALORE
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SHIVARAJ N. ARALI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE
BY H.S.R LAYOUT POLICE
REPTD. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AT BANGALORE
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2)
CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF
CONVICTION DATED 29.02.2012/DATED 21.03.2012,
PASSED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FTC-IX,
BENGALURU IN S.C.No.960/2010 CONVICTING THE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.1 FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 395 R/W 397 OF IPC.
THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR
ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY,
THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:-
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
4
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA)
These appeals have been filed by the accused
persons who have been convicted in S.C No.960/2010 on
the file of the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-IX,
Bengaluru, by the judgment dated 29.02.2012, for the
offence punishable under Section 395 r/w 397 of the
Indian Penal Code and sentenced as under:
"Accused Nos.1 to 5 are sentenced to undergo R.I for
a period of 07 (seven) years and are also liable to
pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rs.five thousand) each, and
I/d to pay the fine amount, they shall further
undergo S.I. for a period of two (02) months for the
offence u/sec.395 R/w 397 IPC.
The accused are entitled for set off for the period in
which they were in judicial custody."
2. For the sake of convenience, name of the accused,
their rank before the Trial Court, Number of Sessions Case,
Criminal Appeal Number before this Court, conviction and
sentence, is tabulated hereunder for easy understanding:
Name of the Rank S.C. No. Criminal Conviction Sentence
accused before Appeal for the passed
Trial No. before offence
Court this Court p/u/s
Venkatesha Accused 960/2010 391/2012 395 r/w R.I. for 07
No.5 397 IPC years and
fine of
Rs.5,000/-
each, in
default, SI
for 2
months.
S.Rambabu Accused -do- 424/2012 -do- -do-
@ Babu No.3
Nagaraja @ Accused -do- 538/2012 -do- -do-
Naga No.1
3. Facts of the case in brief which are utmost necessary
for disposal of the present appeals are as under:
On 26.12.2009 at about 12.45 am, infront of Shahi
Garments, Kudlu Gate Main Road, accused Nos.1 to 5
came in two motor cycles and intercepted a moving lorry
bearing registration No.AP-09/TA-1607, and accused Nos.1
and 2 got into driver cabin of the lorry and assaulted
Venugopal-driver of the lorry (P.W.7) with knife and
hands. They also robbed a sum of Rs.1,100/- from P.W.7
under knife point. Accused No.3 was standing infront of
the lorry and accused Nos.4 and 5 were holding stones in
their hands and caused fear to the cleaner of the lorry. At
that juncture, a passerby viz., Ramesh/P.W.14 who was
moving on his Honda Activa scooter on hearing the hue
and cry made by P.W.7, tried to rescue P.W.7. Accused
No.3 assaulted P.W.14. Accused No.2 also showed the
knife point to said Ramesh-P.W.14 and they robbed a
Nokia mobile hand set and cash of Rs.6,300/- which was
kept in his purse.
4. Honda Activa Scooter belonging to P.W.14 was also
robbed by accused No.2 and he escaped in the said
vehicle. On the very same night, accused Nos.1 and 2
were apprehended and they were brought to the police
station. From their custody, sum of Rs.500/- Honda Activa
scooter a pulsar motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-
01/EH-647 and a knife were recovered. On 22.10.2010,
based on the information given by accused No.3, accused
No.5 was apprehended.
5. The lorry driver-Venugopal (P.W.7) had lodged the
complaint to the police orally which was reduced into
writing and a case came to registered in Crime
No.401/2009 in respect of the aforesaid incident. The
matter was thoroughly investigated and chargesheet came
to be filed.
6. Thereafter, initially, learned Sessions Judge framed
the charge for the offence punishable under Section 395 of
the Indian Penal Code and later on, charge was altered
and charge for the offence punishable under Sections 395
and 397 of the Indian Penal Code were framed against the
accused.
7. All accused persons pleaded not guilty and therefore,
trial was held. In order to prove the guilt of the accused
persons, prosecution proceeded to examine 17 witnesses
as P.Ws.1 to 17. Complainant was one among them who
has been examined as P.W.7 and Ramesh who was also
robbed in the said incident was examined as P.W.14.
8. The prosecution, in all, placed on record 16
documents which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P.1 to
16 comprising of report of P.W.1, statements of P.Ws.2, 3
and 4, complaint, mahazar, statements of P.W.7, FIR,
report of ASI, reports, statements and rough sketch of the
incident.
9. The prosecution placed on record the photographs of
the Pulsar motor cycle and Honda Activa scooter which
were given to interim custody, Rs.500/- currency note and
the knife as M.Os.1 to 4.
10. On conclusion of recording of evidence of prosecution
witnesses, accused statement as is contemplated under
Section 313 of the Code of Criminal procedure was
recorded wherein, accused have denied all the
incriminatory circumstances, but did not chose to place on
record any defence evidence.
11. Thereafter, learned Trial Judge heard the parties in
detail and by the impugned judgment, convicted the
accused persons and sentenced as referred to supra.
12. Being aggrieved by the same, above appeals are
filed by the accused.
13. Sri B. Lethif, Sri Shivaraj N. Arali, Sri G.Nataraj for
Sri Ravi Kumar S, learned counsel for the appellants
vehemently contended that the entire case of the
prosecution appears to be based on surmises and
conjectures, inasmuch as, according to the report of the
police, accused Nos.1 and 2 were apprehended by the
general public and later on, an oral complaint is lodged by
P.W.7 in respect of the incident and P.W.14 is a chance
witness according to the prosecution which is highly
unbelievable. Rs.6,300/- is not recovered by the police
and only Rs.500/- has been recovered. The recovery of
alleged knife admittedly did not contain any specific mark
and therefore, it is implanted by the prosecution only to
establish the offence punishable under Section 397 of the
Indian Penal Code.
14. They also pointed out that the Honda Activa Scooter
said to have been robbed by the accused No.2 from
P.W.14 is not recovered from accused No.2 and only Pulsar
motor cycle has been forcibly implanted in the case.
15. It is also contended that accused Nos.3 and 5
admittedly did not have any nexus whatsoever to the case
on hand and alleged stones held by accused Nos.4 and 5
are not recovered. It is also contended that there was no
FIR lodged in respect of credible information nor there was
any entry made in the general diary of the HSR Layout
Police Station, Madivala Sub Division, Bengaluru.
16. The police, admittedly came in Hoysala Jeep to the
place intimated by P.W.7. By then, accused Nos.1 and 2
were already in the custody of general public and
therefore, theory of robbing the lorry driver and absence of
injuries on the person of the driver and the cleaner
exposes the hollowness in the case of the prosecution and
thus sought for allowing the appeals.
17. They also contended that in the event of this Court
upholding the Order of conviction, the custody period
already undergone by the appellants may be treated as
period of sentence by enhancing the fine amount
reasonably and sought for allowing the appeals to that
extent.
18. Per contra, Sri Channappa Erappa, learned High
Court Government Pleader supports the impugned
judgment.
19. He would further contend that admittedly neither
P.W.7- Venugopal who is the driver of the lorry nor
P.W.14-Ramesh did not nurture any previous enmity or
animosity against the accused persons. On bear reading
of the complaint itself, it could be seen that incident was
reported by the lorry driver-P.W.7 orally and same has
been reduced into writing by C.W.16-Mahadevaiah who is
examined as P.W.11.
20. He would further contend that the police also did not
nurture any previous enmity against accused persons to
falsely implicate them. He would further contend that
recovery of Pulsar motor cycle, Honda Activa scooter,
Rs.500/- currency note and a knife is established by
placing necessary evidence on record and for the sake of
foisting a false case, nobody would implant Pulsar motor
cycle and Honda Activa scooter in the incident and thus
sought for dismissal of the appeals.
21. Learned High Court Government Pleader also
opposes the alternative submission made by learned
counsel for appellants contending that people like
appellants if shown leniency, similarly placed perpetrators
of crime would get encouraged and thus sought for
dismissal of the appeals in toto.
22. In view of the rival contentions of the parties, this
Court perused the material on record, meticulously.
23. On such perusal of the material on record, the
following points would arise for consideration:
(i) Whether the material evidence available on
record would be sufficient enough to
maintain the conviction of the appellants for
the offence punishable under Sections 395
r/w 397 of IPC?
(ii) Whether the appellants make out a case that
the impugned judgment of conviction is
suffering from legal infirmity, perversity and
thus calls for interference?
(iii) Whether the sentence needs modification?
(iv) What Order?
24. REGARDING POINT Nos.1 and 2: In the case on
hand, admittedly P.W.7 is the driver of the lorry bearing
registration No.AP-09/TA-1607. In his oral testimony, he
has deposed that he is working as driver with Arunachala
Transports Corporation since three years and one
Mahendra Reddy was the cleaner of the lorry. On
26.12.2009 when they were proceeding from Yelahanka to
godown at Kudlu, near a garment factory at Kudlu gate, he
had to slow down the lorry. At that juncture, five unknown
persons came on two motor cycles and assaulted him and
robbed Rs.1,100/-. One of the accused assaulted him with
knife on the left hand.
25. When he raised alarm seeking help, a scooter rider
came near the spot and tried to rescue him. But the
accused persons started assaulting the scooter rider also.
Immediately, P.W.7 proceeded to the godown and
intimated the police. He further deposed that police came
to the godown and he had taken them to the place of
incidence by proceeding in the police jeep. However, he
failed to identify the knife.
26. He has further deposed that on the very same day,
accused Nos.1 and 2 were apprehended in the police
station and he has identified them in the police station. He
has also further deposed that he had two currency notes of
Rs.500/- and one currency note of Rs.100/-. At that stage,
he was treated as hostile witness by the prosecution and in
his cross-examination, he has identified the photograph of
Pulsar Motor cycle-M.O.1 and Honda Activa scooter-M.O.2.
He has stated that he could identify accused Nos.1 and 2.
It is further elicited that he did not give the details as to
the identification of accused Nos.1 and 2.
27. He has answered that police have reduced his oral
statement to complaint. He has admitted that when the
complaint was reduced into writing, accused Nos.1 and 2
were present in the police station. He denied the
suggestion that none of the accused persons have
participated in the incident and he has deposed falsely. He
has specifically answered that he could not say the
registration number of the motor cycle as it was written in
Kannada language, but he has given the number of
another motor cycle.
28. Ramesh is yet another important witness for
prosecution who has been examined as P.W.14. According
to prosecution he is also victim in the incident. He
deposed that on 25.12.2009, at about 8 or 9 pm, he had
been to his friend's house for dinner and was returning at
12.30 pm to his house. At that time, when he was near
Shahi Garments, he heard the hue and cry and some body
was shouting 'PÁ¥Ár' 'PÁ¥Ár'(help, help).
29. Out of curiosity, he went there and enquired the
persons who were present there and at that juncture,
somebody assaulted him on the head and he lost the
consciousness. When he regained consciousness, he was
near his house. He has stated that he was riding his
Honda Activa scooter, but has not seen the accused
persons. He got released his Honda Activa scooter from
the police station and signed the document.
30. Since he did not support the case of the prosecution
in entirety, he was treated as hostile witness and cross-
examined by prosecution. He admits in his cross-
examination that before the police he has given the
statement that accused persons had snatched his Nokia
mobile handset and Rs.6,300/- cash and took away his
Honda Activa scooter. He has identified accused No.3 and
stated that he is the one who assaulted him on his head
with helmet but he failed to identify the other accused
persons.
31. In the cross-examination on behalf of the accused
persons, he has stated that he has not given any
statement to the police about the identification of his
scooter and the knife. He denied the suggestion that
police had not shown him the knife earlier. Further he
denied the suggestion that he has not given any statement
and only with an intention to help the police, he is giving
false statement.
32. The panch witnesses to the seizure mahazar are also
examined as P.W.15 and P.W.16. They have partly
supported the case of the prosecution.
33. Other important witness on behalf of the prosecution
is P.W.1 who has apprehended accused No.4-Nagaraja @
Naga @ Muga @ Ibbaluru Naga near Hibbaluru junction
and gave the report vide Ex.P.1. In his cross-examination,
he has denied the suggestion that accused No.5 was
apprehended on 14.03.2010 from his work place at
Marathhalli.
34. P.W.3-Shivalingegowda, Assistant Sub Inspector of
Police, HSR Layout Police Station deposed that on
25.12.2009, he was in night duty. He was discharging his
work in Police Patrolling Jeep-'Hoysala-62'. Based on the
information he received from the Control Room, he came
to know that some persons have been apprehended by
general public.
35. Therefore, he proceeded to the said spot in A.E.C.S.
Layout. They took custody of accused Nos.1 and 2 who
were apprehended by general public and also recovered
one Honda Activa scooter and Pulsar Motorcycle. On
further enquiry they told that other persons have escaped
away from the spot. They were produced before the Sub
Inspector of Police on the same day. He has identified his
report that Ex.P.3 and also identified the photographs of
M.O.1 and 2.
36. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion
that he has given false report.
37. P.W.5 is the Head Constable who has deposed in line
with ASI-P.W.3.
38. Police Constable by name Manjunath is examined as
P.W.6 who deposed that he has been deputed to find out
the whereabouts of accused No.4- Nagaraja @ Naga @
Muga @ Ibbaluru Naga and accused No.5-Venkatesha.
39. He has further deposed that they had taken accused
No.3-S. Rambabu @ Babu with them and they all went to
Mayasandra, Anekal Taluk and after accused No.3 showed
Nagaraja @ Muga, they tried to apprehend him, but he
escaped. But they were able to apprehend Venkatesha-
accused No.5. In his cross-examination, suggestion made
to him that Venkatesha-accused No.5 was apprehended on
14.03.2010 from his work place at Marathahalli is denied.
40. One of the panch witness to Ex.P.6 is Pramod-P.W.8
who has supported the case of the prosecution and he
denied the suggestion that he has given false evidence to
help the police.
41. Another police personnel P.W.9-Manjunath also
deposed in line with other police personnel who
apprehended accused No.5.
42. Ashoka is yet another police constable who has been
examined as P.W.10 has deposed in line with P.W.9.
43. Mahadevaiah is the Sub Inspector of Police-P.W.11.
He has been examined as P.W.11. He deposed about
P.W.7 visiting the police station and giving the oral
complaint which was reduced into writing based on which
Crime No.401/2009 was registered on 26.12.2009 for the
offence punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal
Code and took accused No.1 to the custody and arrested
them and produced before the learned Trial magistrate and
deposed about seizure of Pulsar motor cycle and Honda
Activa scooter under Ex.P.6-mahazar. In his cross-
examination, he denied the suggestion that a false case
has been registered against accused persons.
44. One of the Investigation Officers is P.W.13-
Venugopal. He has deposed about seizure of M.Os.1 and 2
and drafting the mahazar.
45. Rajesh, yet another Investigation Officer who further
investigated the matter and concluded the investigation
and filed charge sheet has been examined as P.W.16. He
deposed about different stages in the investigation and
filing of the charge sheet.
46. In his cross-examination he denied the suggestion
that accused Nos.1 and 2 did not give any voluntary
statement and those voluntary statements were
concocted. He denied the suggestion that cleaner of the
lorry-Mahendra Reddy and P.W.14 did not identify the
accused in the police station. He has denied the
suggestion that he has filed false charge sheet.
47. The Tahsildar-Manjunath who conducted the Test
Identification Parade is examined as P.W.17. He deposed
about holding Test Identification Parade in HSR Layout
Police Station and furnished the report vide Ex.P.16. In his
cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that P.W.14
did not participate in the Test Identification Parade and
denied the further suggestion that accused Nos.1 and 2
were not identified by P.W.14.
48. The above evidence on record is sought to be re-
appreciated and sought for allowing the appeals.
49. On careful re-appreciation of the above evidence on
record, it is crystal clear that P.W.7-Venugopal being the
driver of the lorry belonging to Arunachala Transport is not
in dispute. It is his specific say before the Court that when
he moved from Yelahanka to office godown near Kudlu, he
had to slow down the lorry near the garment factory. At
that juncture, five persons came on two motor cycles and
among them, two persons entered the driver cabin of the
lorry and assaulted him and robbed Rs.1,100/- cash from
him and hurt him with knife. When he raised the alarm,
P.W.14 came in Honda Activa scooter. When P.W.14 tried
to rescue him, at that juncture, accused Nos.1 and 2 over
powered him and cash of Rs.6,300/- and a Nokia mobile
hand set were snatched and Honda Active scooter on
which P.W.14 had come to the place of incident was also
taken away by accused No.2.
50. Soon thereafter, P.W.7 went to the go down and
called the police through telephone number of the godown.
P.W.7 specifically deposed that after a while police came in
a Hoysala Jeep and took him to the place of the incident in
police jeep itself. In the mean time, accused Nos.1 and 2
were apprehended by the general public is the say of the
prosecution and thereafter, police went to the spot and
took accused Nos.1 and 2 to their custody and produced
them before the Sub Inspector of Police.
51. It is pertinent to note that even though there is no
specific material evidence to show that who are actually
the general public who apprehended accused Nos.1 and 2,
but the fact remains that it is not the case of accused
Nos.1 and 2 that they were picked up by the police from
their respective houses and taken to the police station.
Moreover, seizure of Honda Activa scooter belonging to
P.W.14 from the custody of accused No.2 would be
sufficient enough to believe the case of the prosecution as
true and correct.
52. Admittedly, accused Nos.1 and 2 are strangers to
both P.Ws.7 and 14. Under such circumstances, case of
the prosecution cannot be doubted in the absence of any
previous enmity or animosity possessed by P.Ws.7 and 14
or for that matter, police personnel towards the accused
persons to falsely implicate them in the case.
53. The case of the prosecution would further reveal that
based on the enquiry made by the police personnel when
accused Nos.1 and 2 were in custody, accused No.3 was
apprehended by the police. With the help of accused No.3,
police were able to reach Mayasandra, Anekal Taluk and
spotted both accused Nos.4 and 5. However, seeing
accused No.3 in the police custody, accused No.4 was
successful in escaping from the scene, but police were able
apprehend accused No.5.
54. No doubt, it has been specifically suggested to
prosecution witnesses that accused No.5 was actually
apprehended from the place where he was discharging the
work as mason in Marathhalli. If it is so, what prevented
the family members of accused No.5 to file necessary
petition before the proper forum about missing of accused
No.5 or illegal detention by the police, is not forthcoming.
55. In the absence of any such material evidence placed
on record, arrest of accused No.5 at the instance of
accused No.3 stands established. Further, why accused
No.3 would show the place where accused Nos.4 and 5
were found is a question that remains unanswered on
behalf of the defence.
56. Mere non seizure of entire amount of Rs.6,300/-
would not ipso facto doubt the case of the prosecution.
Likewise, non identification of accused Nos.3, 4 and 5 is
also of no consequence in doubting the case of the
prosecution.
57. Having said thus, P.W.7 has stated that he has
sustained injury on the hand by virtue of use of knife
marked at M.O.4. But, no wound certificate is forthcoming
nor any blood stains are found on the M.O.4-knife.
Therefore, use of weapon in the incident is doubtful.
M.O.4 is not identified by P.W.7 nor any other material
evidence is forthcoming for recovery of M.O.4.
58. It is also the case of the prosecution that accused
No.3 had stood before the lorry and accused Nos.4 and 5
were holding the stones in their hands to threaten P.W.7
and the cleaner. The cleaner has not been examined to
identify accused Nos.4 and 5.
59. Further, non seizure of stones or helmet raises
sufficient doubt about use of deadly weapons. Therefore,
this Court, on re-appreciation of the material evidence on
record, is of the considered opinion that the ingredients to
attract the offence under Section 397 of the Indian Penal
Code are absent. As such, appellants are entitled for
acquittal for the offence punishable under Section 397 of
the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, point Nos.1 and 2 are
answered partly in the affirmative.
60. REGARDING POINT No.3: In view of the foregoing
discussion and answer to point Nos.1 and 2, since the
appellants are acquitted for the offence punishable under
Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code, this Court is of the
opinion that if the custody period already undergone by
the appellants is treated as period of imprisonment for the
offence punishable under Section 397 of the Indian Penal
Code by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of
Rs.50,000/- payable by each of the appellants, ends of
justice would be met. Out of fine amount recovered,
portion thereof can also be paid as compensation to P.W.7
and P.W.14. Accordingly, point No.3 is answered partly in
the affirmative.
61. REGARDING POINT No.4: In view of the finding of
this Court on point Nos.1 to 3 as above, the following:
ORDER
(i) Criminal Appeals are allowed in part.
(ii) All the appellants are acquitted for the offence
punishable under Section 397 of the Indian
Penal Code.
(iii) Conviction of the appellants for the offence
punishable under Section 395 of the Indian
Penal Code is maintained and the custody
period already undergone by them is treated
as period of imprisonment subject to payment
of enhanced fine in a sum of Rs.50,000/-
payable by each of the appellants on or before
20th March 2025.
(iv) Failure to make payment of the enhanced fine
amount, the appellants shall undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of one year and six
months.
(v) Out of the fine amount recovered, Rs.25,000/-
each is ordered to be paid as to P.W.7 and
P.W.14 as compensation.
(vi) Balance fine amount shall be appropriated
towards defraying expenses of the State.
(vii) Office is directed to return the Trial Court
Records with copy of this judgment for issue
of modified conviction warrant.
Sd/-
(V. SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
kcm
