Mr Narasimhappa vs The State Of Karnataka
2025 Latest Caselaw 4334 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Mr Narasimhappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 February, 2025

Author: V Srishananda

Bench: V Srishananda

                                      -1-
                                                    NC: 2025:KHC:8186
                                              CRL.A No. 1432 of 2024




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

                                    BEFORE

                    THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

                    CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1432 OF 2024 (C-)

             BETWEEN:

                 MR NARASIMHAPPA
                 S/O MANJAPPA,
                 AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
                 R/O BELIMALLURU VILLAGE,
                 HONNALLI TALUK,
                 DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577217
                                                         ...APPELLANT
             (BY SRI. RENSPRE PRITHESH D'SOUZA, ADVOCATE)

             AND:

                 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
                 BY HONNALI POLICE STATION,
                 REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
Digitally        HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
signed by        BANGALORE-560001
MALATESH
KC                                                    ...RESPONDENT
          (BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP)
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF       THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S 374(2) CR.PC PRAYING TO SET
KARNATAKA ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.07.2023 AND ORDER OF
             SENTENCE DATED 02.08.2023 IN S.C.NO.129/2022 PASSED BY
             THE HONBLE I ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
             DAVANAGER FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 323,324,304 PART II OF
             IPC AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL OF THE APPELLANT.

                 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
             JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
                                      -2-
                                                     NC: 2025:KHC:8186
                                             CRL.A No. 1432 of 2024




CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
                           ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard Sri. Renspre Prithesh D'Souza, learned counsel

for the appellant and learned High Court Government

Pleader for the State.

2. Though the matter is listed for admission, the

matter is taken up for final disposal by consent of the

parties.

3. The appellant-accused is questioning the

validity of the judgment passed in S.C.No.129/2022, in

particular about the sentence ordered by the learned

Sessions Judge for the proved offence under Section 304

Part II of IPC. The sentence ordered by the learned

Sessions Judge is culled out herein for the ready

reference:

"Acting U/Sec.235(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused is convicted for the offence punishable U/Sec.304 Part II of IPC.

Consequently, the accused is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 6 years (six years only), and to pay fine amount of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment

NC: 2025:KHC:8186

for three months for the offence punishable U/Sec.304 Part II of IPC.

The payment of fine amount imposed against the accused is mandatory.

The accused is entitled to seek set off of the period in which he is already in judicial custody as under trial prisoners out of total period of conviction.

Acting U/Sec.235(1) Cr.P.C., accused is acquitted for the offence U/s 504 of IPC.

MO.1 to 10 being worthless is ordered to be destroyed, after appeal period is over.

Send copy of this judgment to the District Legal Service Authority, Davanagere to consider compensation to complainant PW.1 who is the wife of deceased, under Karnataka Victim's Compensation Scheme.

Office is directed to supply the copy of this judgment to the accused at free of cost."

4. Essential factual matrix required for the

disposal of the appeal on merits are as under:

4.1. A charge sheet came to be filed by Honnali

Police Station against the appellant herein alleging

commission of the offence punishable under Sections 504,

323, 324 and 302 of IPC. Charge sheet materials would

reveal that deceased Manjappa is the father of the

appellant herein. The complainant is the mother of the

NC: 2025:KHC:8186

appellant. Old couple were drawing old age pension in a

sum of Rs.1,200/- from the Government under 'Sandya

Suraksha Scheme' and the amount was transferred to

their post office Savings Bank Account. Deceased

Manjappa and his wife Maramma were leading their life

apart from receiving old age pension, by doing coolie

work.

4.2. Appellant said to have addicted to liquor and

used to nag money from the old age parents. Whenever

there used to be refusal to part away with the money for

consuming liquor, there used to be quarrel. On the fateful

day, i.e., 07.04.2022, at about 8 p.m., when Manjappa

and Maramma were in their house, appellant visited the

house and demanded money for consuming liquor.

Quarrel ensued at that juncture. In the quarrel, appellant

said to have abused his father in filthy language and gave

him life threat.

4.3. Despite repeated demands, when Manjappa did

not part away the money for consuming liquor, the

NC: 2025:KHC:8186

accused got enraged and with an intention to kill his

father, dragged his father out of the house and assaulted

with hands and legs all over his body and made him to fall

down, stood on his chest, stamped his chest and neck and

thereafter the accused picked the stone lying by the side

of the road and dumped it on his face, head and chest. As

a result, Manjappa sustained grievous injuries. Blood

started oozing from his mouth.

4.4. Hearing the hue and cry, Basavaraj, chandrappa

and Tippesh Kadakara came to the spot and rescued

Manjappa from the clutches of the accused and shifted him

to hospital in a private vehicle. On the way to the

hospital, Manjappa succumbed to the injuries and hospital

authorities declared him dead.

4.5. A complaint came to be lodged by Maramma

with regard to the incident which was registered by

Honnali Police Station and later on the matter was

thoroughly investigated inter alia arresting the appellant.

NC: 2025:KHC:8186

After thorough investigation, charge sheet came to be filed

against the appellant for the aforesaid offences.

4.6. Learned Trial Judge committed the matter to

the Sessions Court and thereafter the matter was made

over to the I Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Davanagere.

5. Learned Sessions Judge took cognizance of the

offences alleged against the appellant herein and secured

the presence and framed charges against the appellant.

The accused pleaded not guilty. Therefore, trial was held.

6. In order to bring home the guilt of the

appellant, prosecution proceeded to examine 19 witnesses

as PW-1 to PW-19.

7. Prosecution also placed on record 34

documentary evidence which were marked as Exs.P1 to

P.34. Prosecution also placed on record 10 material

objects marked as MO-1 to MO-10.

NC: 2025:KHC:8186

8. On conclusion of recording of prosecution

evidence, learned Sessions Judge recorded the accused

statement as is contemplated under Section 313 of

Cr.P.C., wherein the accused has denied all the

incriminating materials, but did not choose to place his

version on record by filing written submission as is

contemplated under Section 313(4) of Cr.P.C. There was

no defence evidence placed on record either.

9. Thereafter, learned Sessions Judge heard the

arguments of the parties in detail and on cumulative

consideration of the oral and documentary evidence placed

on record by the prosecution in a cumulative manner,

convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 304

Part II of IPC and sentenced as referred to supra.

10. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant-

accused is before this Court in this appeal.

11. Sri. Renspre Prithesh D'Souza, learned counsel

representing the appellant, reiterating the grounds urged

in the appeal memorandum, contended that a trivial

NC: 2025:KHC:8186

incident has been blown out of proportion and there is no

material evidence placed on record to establish the nexus

between the alleged incident and the death of Manjappa

and therefore, the appeal is to be allowed.

12. Alternatively, he would contend that in the

event of this Court upholding the order of conviction of the

appellant for the offence under Section 304 Part II of IPC,

the custody period of 2 years 10 months, already

undergone by the appellant during the time of

investigation, may be treated as period of conviction by

enhancing the fine amount reasonably and thus sought for

allowing the appeal to that extent.

13. Per contra, Learned High Court Government

Pleader supports the impugned judgment by contending

that admittedly, the mother being present at the place of

incident, has deposed before the Court with graphic details

as to the conduct of the appellant and what transpired on

the fateful day.

NC: 2025:KHC:8186

14. He would further contend that independent

witnesses have also supported the case of the prosecution,

though a couple of prosecution witnesses have turned

hostile.

15. He would also contend that the findings

recorded in the postmortem report sufficiently

corroborates the oral testimony of the complainant who is

none other than the mother of the appellant and therefore

conviction of the appellant for the aforesaid offence is just

and proper.

16. Insofar as alternate submission of the learned

counsel for the appellant is concerned, learned High Court

Government Pleader contended that if people like

appellant are shown mercy, the same would send a wrong

message to the Society at large.

17. He also tried to impress the Court by

contending that if the appellant is set at free, he may take

away the life of PW-1, who is none other than his own

mother, by repeating such offence and bargain the money

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:8186

to consume liquor and therefore sought for dismissal of

the appeal in toto.

18. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel

for the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on

record meticulously.

19. On such perusal, following points arise for

consideration in this appeal:

(i) Whether the material evidence placed on record would be sufficient enough to maintain the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of the IPC?

(ii) Whether the appellant makes out a case of legal infirmity and perversity in the findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge in convicting the appellant for the aforesaid offence?

(iii) Whether the sentence needs modification?

(iv) What Order?

20. REG. POINT NOS.1 & 2: In the case on hand,

death of Manjappa on account of bodily injuries sustained

by him, is established by placing cogent and convincing

evidence on record. The postmortem report placed on

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC:8186

record on behalf of the prosecution and the opinion of the

autopsy surgeon is crystal clear that death is due to

asphyxia as a result of shock and hemorrhage due to

multiple injuries and also due to head injury.

21. PW-1 has deposed before the Court with

graphic details as to what transpired on the fateful day.

Her deposition would make it clear that as usual, the

appellant came home and demanded money for

consuming liquor on 07.04.2022, in the night hours.

When the same was refused by Manjappa, quarrel took

place and in the quarrel, initially appellant abused the

deceased in filthy language. Thereafter dragged him out

of the house and assaulted him all over the body. The

appellant made Manjappa to fall down on the ground and

thereafter claimed on his body and stamped on his chest

and face. He also took a stone which was lying in the road

and thereafter dumped the same on the face, head and

chest of the deceased.

- 12 -

NC: 2025:KHC:8186

22. She further deposed that because of the

injuries that has been sustained by Manjappa, blood

started oozing out from his mouth. There was lot of hue

and cry raised by Manjappa and herself. Hearing the

same, Basavaraj, Chandrappa and Tippesh Kadakara

arrived at the scene. Among them, Basavaraj and Tippesh

Kadakara have been examined as PW-7 and PW-8,

respectively.

23. They rescued Manjappa and shifted him in a

private vehicle to the hospital. However, because of the

severity of the injuries sustained by Manjappa and also on

account of his old age, he succumbed to the injuries

en route the hospital.

24. Therefore the argument put forth on behalf of

the appellant that there is no nexus between the death of

Manjappa and the acts committed by the appellant, cannot

be countenanced in law.

25. Having said thus, admittedly, the appellant was

not armed with any deadly weapons at the inception of the

- 13 -

NC: 2025:KHC:8186

incident. Genesis of the crime, even according to the

prosecution, is refusal of the deceased to part away with

the money for consuming liquor.

26. Therefore, in the absence of any strong motive

and preparation made by the appellant, the learned

Sessions Judge, rightly convicted the accused for the

offence under Section 304 Part II of the IPC, which

requires no interference by this Court in this appeal.

27. On the contrary, material evidence placed on

record is sufficient enough to maintain the conviction of

the appellant for the offence under Section 304 Part II of

the IPC, inasmuch as MO-1 is a stone which has been

seized by the police containing blood stains.

28. Therefore, the impugned judgment cannot be

termed as suffering from legal infirmity or perversity. In

view of the foregoing discussion, point No.1 and point

No.2 are answered in the affirmative and negative,

respectively.

- 14 -

NC: 2025:KHC:8186

29. REG. POINT NO.3: In the case on hand, the

appellant is none other than the son of the deceased. He

has got old age mother to maintain. As on the date of

incident, he was aged 35 years. Taking note of the same

and taking note of the fact that appellant has already

spent 2 years 10 months in prison, directing the accused

to get released from the prison by treating the custody

period as period of imprisonment for the offence under

Section 304 Part II of IPC, by enhancing fine amount in a

sum of Rs.50,000/- would serve the ends of justice.

Accordingly, point No.3 is answered in the partly in

affirmative.

30. REG. POINT NO.4: In view of the findings of

this Court on point Nos.1 to 3 as above, following:

ORDER

i) The appeal is allowed in part.

ii) While maintaining the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 304 Part II of IPC, sentence ordered by the learned Sessions Judge in the impugned

- 15 -

NC: 2025:KHC:8186

judgment is hereby modified by treating the custody period already undergone by the appellant as period of imprisonment for the offence under Section 304 Part II of IPC, by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.50,000/- payable on or before 25.03.2025, failing which, the appellant shall undergo remaining period of the sentence as ordered by the learned Sessions Judge.

iii) Entire fine amount of Rs.50,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to PW- 1 (mother of the accused-appellant), by keeping the said amount in fixed deposit and PW-1 is permitted to withdraw the monthly interest.

Office is directed to return the Trial Court records

with copy of this judgment, for passing the modified

conviction warrant, forthwith.

Ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE RD