Karnataka High Court
Suryakanth And Ors vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 February, 2025
Author: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1360-DB
CRL.A No. 200115 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 200115 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. SURYAKANTH S/O GUNDAPPA TALAWAR,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
2. GUNDAPPA S/O SURYAKANTH TALAWAR
Digitally signed AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
by RAMESH
MATHAPATI
Location: HIGH 3. SMT.TARABAI W/O SURYAKANTH TALAWAR
COURT OF AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
KARNATAKA
ALL ARE R/O IVANI VILLAGE,
TQ. CHITTAPUR, DIST. KALABURAGI.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI SYED MASTAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH MADABOOL POLICE STATION,
TQ. CHITTAPUR, DIST. KALABURAGI.
(REPRESENTED BY LEARNED
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENCH AT KALABURAGI)
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SIDDALING P. PATIL, ADDL., SPP)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1360-DB
CRL.A No. 200115 of 2017
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
374(2) OF CR.P.C, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED: 10/11-05-2017 PASSED
IN SESSIONS CASE NO.3/2015 BY III ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
KALABURAGI AND ACQUIT THE APPELLANTS.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV
AND
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K.,)
This appeal by the convicted accused Nos.1 to 3 is
directed against the judgment of conviction dated 10.05.2017
and order of sentence dated 11.05.2017 passed by the III Addl.
Sessions Judge at Kalaburagi (hereinafter referred to as the
'learned Sessions Judge') in S.C.No.03/2015, whereby the
learned Sessions Judge convicted accused Nos.1 to 3 for the
offences punishable under Sections 302, 504, 506 and 323 r/w
Section 34 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo
imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each, in
default of payment of fine, sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1360-DB
punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Further it is stated that,
since the accused are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for
life, no separate sentence is imposed on them for the offences
punishable under Sections 504, 506 and 323 r/w Section 34 of
IPC. It is directed that, all substantive sentences shall run
concurrently.
2. The abridged facts of the prosecution case are as
follows:
On 14.06.2014 at about 05.30 p.m. P.W.1-Shashikala,
wife of Devendrappa was at home, her husband Devendrappa
was sitting on the dike at the façade of his house and was
contemplating on his keenness to sell 10 guntas of his land.
Just then, accused No.1-Suryakant, accused No.2-Gundappa,
accused No.3-Tarabai and accused No.4 Devappa (juvenile
offender) collectively appeared armed with axe and sticks. They
verbally abused Devendrappa and questioned his stand on
disposing the land in which they hold share. As such, an
altercation took place between them. Hence, besides
threatening him, the accused No.2-Gundappa all of a sudden
assaulted him with an axe on the rear of his head, which
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1360-DB
caused grievous bleeding injury. Owing to the impact,
Devendrappa fell unconscious on the ground. P.W.1 intervened
to placate the row, however, the accused No.1 assaulted her
with a stick on both hands causing injuries. Meanwhile, the
accused No.3-Tarabai and accused No.4 Juvenile offender
Devappa verbally abused her and assaulted her with their
hands and kicked her. Upon hearing her squeal, P.Ws.10 and
11-the bystanders made haste to placate scuffle. Thereafter,
P.W.11 called 108 Ambulance to admit the injured
Devendrappa at the United Hospital. Based on the MLC from
the Government Hospital, Kalaburagi, P.W.20-The PSI of
Madabool Police Station visited the Hospital and recorded the
complaint of P.W.1-injured Shashikala as per Ex.P1.
3. On the strength of Ex.P1, P.W.20-the then PSI of
the respondent-Police registered an FIR in crime No.70/2014
dated 14.06.2014 against the accused Nos.1 to 3 appellants
herein and accused No.4 the child in conflict for the offences
punishable under Sections 323, 307, 326, 504, 506 r/w Section
34 of IPC as per Ex.P21. However, the injured Devendrappa
succumbed to the injuries on 15.06.2014 and subsequently,
P.W.19-Veeresh, CPI took up the further investigation of this
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1360-DB
case from P.W.20 and visited the Hospital and invoked Section
302 of IPC and conducted the investigation by drawing an
inquest panchanama-Ex.P3 and spot mahazar-Ex.P2. On
obtaining the necessary documents from the concerned
authorities and on recording the statements of the witnesses,
PW.21 laid the chargesheet against the appellants/accused for
the offences punishable under Sections 323, 302, 326, 504, 506
r/w Section 34 of IPC before the committal Court.
4. After committal of the case before the Sessions
Court, the learned Sessions Judge framed the charges against
the appellants/accused for the aforementioned offences and the
same was read over verbatim to them. However, the accused
denied the charges leveled against them and claimed to be
tried.
5. In order to prove the charges levelled against the
accused, the prosecution collectively examined 22 witnesses as
PW.1 to PW.22, marked 22 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P22 and
identified 10 material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.10.
6. On completion of the prosecution evidence, the
learned Sessions Judge read over the incriminating evidence of
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1360-DB
material witnesses to the accused as stipulated in Section 313 of
Cr.P.C. However, the accused denied the same. The defense of
the accused is of absolute denial and that of false implication.
7. On assessment of the oral and documentary
evidence placed before the Sessions Court, the learned Sessions
Judge convicted them for the offences punishable under
Sections 302, 323, 504 and 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC and
sentenced as stated supra. The said judgment of conviction and
order of sentence is challenged in this appeal by the
appellants/accused Nos.1 to 3.
8. We have heard the learned counsel Sri. Syed
Mastan for the appellants/accused Nos.1 to 3 and learned Addl.
State Public Prosecutor Sri. Siddaling P. Patil for the respondent-
State; we have also perused the records made available before
us.
9. The primary contention of the learned counsel for
the appellants is that the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence passed by the Sessions Court suffers from perversity
and illegality. The learned Sessions Judge has grossly erred
while convicting the appellants without duly appreciating the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1360-DB
evidence and documents placed before him. He contended that
the learned Sessions Judge failed to appreciate the evidence of
eyewitnesses i.e., PWs.1, 8, 10 and 11 in right perspective.
Their evidence suffers from severe infirmities. By elucidating his
submission, he pointed out that as admitted by P.W.1 there was
a pending civil dispute between the deceased and the accused
family. Further, she admitted in her evidence that she has not
lodged complaint against the accused as per Ex.P1 and that the
Police did not visit the United Hospital where she was admitted.
She also deposed that she was unaware of the contents of
complaint-Ex.P1 since she was an illiterate who knew neither to
write nor read. As such, according to the learned counsel, the
genesis of the crime seems doubtful. He would further
contended that the eyewitnesses to the incident PWs.8, 10 and
11 have categorically admitted in their cross-examination that
the Police did not record their statement under Section 161 of
Cr.P.C. In such circumstance, much credence cannot be
attached to their evidence. He also contended that there are
material contradictions in the evidence of eyewitnesses to the
incident. Further, as per the evidence of the complainant and
other eyewitnesses, the accused Nos.1 and 3 have neither
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1360-DB
assaulted the deceased nor instigated the accused No.2 to
assault the deceased. The overt act attributed against them is
that they assaulted P.W.1 by hand and kicked her. Admittedly,
P.W.1 sustained simple injuries. Hence, the act of accused Nos.1
and 3 at the most may attract Sections 323, 504 and 506 of IPC
and not under Section 302 of IPC since they did not share any
common intention to do away the life of deceased. Hence, the
learned Sessions Judge erred while convicting the accused for
the charges leveled against them.
10. Further, learned counsel for the appellants
alternatively contended that, even according to the prosecution
case, the act of the accused No.2 squarely falls within the ambit
of Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC which is punishable under
Section 304 Part I or II of IPC since the alleged incident caused
owing a civil dispute in a sudden row between the deceased and
accused No.2 in a spur of moment, without any premeditation
by the accused. Accordingly, he prays to modify the conviction
and order of sentence imposed by the Sessions Court by
convicting accused No.2 for the offence punishable under
Section 304 Part I or II of IPC and convicting the accused Nos.1
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1360-DB
and 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504 and
506 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
11. Refuting the above submissions, the learned Addl.
SPP for the respondent-State vehemently contended that the
judgment challenged under this appeal neither suffers from
perversity nor illegality since the learned Sessions Judge
convicted the appellants/accused relying on the evidence of
material witnesses i.e., PWs.1, 8, 10 and 11-eyewitnesses to the
incident. All these witnesses have categorically deposed that, on
the date of incident the accused had a row with the deceased
and that the accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 assaulted him with an axe-
M.O.4 and P.W.1 with a Stick-M.O.5. The evidence of these
three witnesses categorically corroborates with the medical
evidence i.e., testimony of Doctor-P.W.15 who conducted the
autopsy on the corpse of the deceased as per Ex.P7 and the
wound certificate of P.W.1 as per Ex.P11. In such
circumstances, the prosecution has proved the guilt of the
accused beyond all reasonable doubt and the learned Sessions
Judge has rightly convicted the accused for the charges leveled
against them. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal by
confirming the impugned judgment.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1360-DB
12. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and also upon comprehensive perusal of the evidence on record,
the points that surface for our consideration are:
(i) "Whether the judgment under this appeal
suffers from perversity or illegality?
(ii) Whether the learned Sessions Judge is
justified in convicting the accused for the
offences punishable under Sections 302, 323,
504 and 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC?"
13. In the instant case, albeit the prosecution examined
22 witnesses to prove the charges leveled against the accused,
it is redundant to delve into the nitty gritty of individual
evidence of all witnesses, it is sufficient to appreciate the
evidence of material witnesses to dispose this appeal.
14. In order to prove the homicidal death of the
deceased, the prosecution predominantly relied on the evidence
of P.W.15-Doctor who conducted the autopsy on the corpse of
the deceased as per Ex.P7. On perusal of Ex.P7, the Doctor
has opined that the cause of death is due to 'intracranial
hemorrhage due to head injury'. The Doctor further opined that
the injuries caused to the deceased are anti-mortem in nature.
Nevertheless, the prosecution also placed the inquest
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1360-DB
panchanama conducted on the corpse of the deceased as per
Ex.P3 by P.W.19-Investigating Officer. P.Ws.4 and 5 are the
witnesses for the said panchanama. Both of them identified the
injuries on the corpse of the deceased. As such, a conjoint
reading of the evidence of P.Ws.15, 19, 4, 5 i.e., the Doctor,
Investigating Officer and panch witnesses respectively, we are
of the view that the prosecution has proved the homicidal death
of the deceased beyond all reasonable doubt.
15. To connect the accused with the homicidal death of
the deceased, the prosecution has significantly relied on the
evidence of eyewitnesses-PW.1 the wife of deceased and
injured eyewitness who is also the complainant, PWs.8, 10 and
11 the independent eyewitnesses to the incident. On careful
examination of the evidence of these witnesses, among them
P.W.1 the wife of deceased set the criminal law into motion by
lodging Ex.P1, alleging that on the date of incident i.e.,
14.06.2014 at about 05:30 p.m., when the deceased
Devendrappa was seated on the dike of the façade at their
house contemplating on disposing off the 10 guntas of land
belonging to him, the accused Nos.1 to 3 barged into the
premises following which they had a row questioning him his
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1360-DB
intention of disposing the land in which they held a lawful
share. The accused No.2 assaulted her husband with an axe on
the rear of his head; he collapsed on the floor unconscious
forthwith owing to sever injury. Immediately, she attempted to
rescue her husband by placating the scuffle. However, the
accused No.3 and juvenile offender Devappa verbally abused
her and assaulted her with sticks and kicked her. On hearing
her squeal, PWs.10 and 11 appeared in the spot to pacify the
row. Thereafter, P.W.11 admitted her and her husband to the
United Hospital, Kalaburagi via an Ambulance. Later, at about
9:30 p.m. she lodged a complaint before P.W.20 as per Ex.P1.
However, later her husband Devendrappa succumbed to the
injuries. P.W.1 reiterated the contents of Ex.P1 in her evidence
by deposing the specific overt act of accused Nos.1 to 3. She
also identified M.Os.4 and 5. Further, her version clearly
corroborates with the evidence of P.Ws.8, 10 and 11. P.W.8-
Santosh, a neighbour of P.W.1 and the deceased also reiterated
the version of PW.1 and stated that on the date of incident the
deceased was sitting on the dike in front of his house and
discussing about selling his 10 guntas of property, at that time
accused No.2 assaulted him with M.O.4 and accused No.1
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1360-DB
assaulted P.W.1 with stick thereafter they both shifted to
Hospital. The one more eyewitness to the incident P.W.11 who
shifted the injured and the deceased to the Hospital soon after
the incident in ambulance also reiterated the evidence of PWs.1
and 8. The prosecution also examined P.Ws.10, 12 and 13 who
are also the eyewitnesses to the incident. All these witnesses
have supported the prosecution case and reiterated the
evidence of P.W.1. Though the defense cross examined all
these witnesses at length, nothing worth was elicited from
them to discard their testimony. The evidence of all these
eyewitnesses clearly corroborates with the medical evidence
i.e., the evidence of Dcotor-P.W.15 who noticed head injury on
the corpse of the deceased-Devendrappa and also he stated
that the said injury could be possible owing to an assault by
M.O.4-axe. Further, P.W.18-Doctor who treated the injured
P.W.1 issued the wound certificate-Ex.P12, where he noticed
swelling, tenderness and movement restriction on P.W.1's right
hand.
16. The prosecution also proved the circumstance of
recovery of M.Os.4 and 5 i.e., axe and stick used in the crime
at the behest of the accused Nos.1 and 2 under mahazar-
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1360-DB
Ex.P4. P.W.19-Investigating Officer recovered M.Os.4 and 5 at
the behest of the accused Nos.1 and 2 based on their voluntary
statement-ExsP13 and P14, near Karikala Devi Temple. P.Ws.6
and 7 the recovery mahazar witnesses supported the case of
prosecution and identified their signature on Ex.P4. The M.O.4-
axe and the clothes of the deceased worn at the time of
incident i.e., M.Os.6, 7, 9 and 10, were sent to scientific
examination by the Investigating Officer and the serology
report was marked in the evidence of P.W.22-the FSL Officer
who opined that the blood stains found on the M.Os.4, 6, 7, 9
and 10 are of human. In such circumstance, the prosecution
has established that accused No.2 assaulted the deceased with
M.O.4 on his head. The prosecution has proved this by placing
the evidence of eyewitnesses and by proving the recovery of
M.O.4 at the behest of accused Nos.1 and 2 under Ex.P4. As
discussed supra, the motive for the crime was a pending civil
dispute between both the families.
17. On meticulous examination of the above evidence,
P.W.1 the injured and all the other eyewitnesses i.e., PWs.8,
10, 11, 12 and 13 have categorically stated in their evidence
that the incident was caused while the deceased having
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1360-DB
conversation in respect of sale of his 10 guntas landed
property, the accused all of a sudden visited the said spot and
had a altercation with accused and accused No.2 all of a sudden
alone given a single blow on the head of the deceased with axe.
However, accused Nos.1 and 3 though present in the scene of
occurrence have neither assaulted the deceased nor instigated
accused No.2 to assault the deceased. On the other hand,
accused No.3 and child in conflict were abused P.W.1 and
assaulted on her palm with stick and kicked her. According to
P.W.18-Doctor, who examined PW.1 had noticed only a swelling
and tenderness. Nevertheless, Ex.P12 the wound certificate of
P.W.1 also discloses the similar injuries. Hence, their act shall
not fall within the ambit of Section 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC,
on the other hand, at the most it may attract Sections 323, 504
and 506 of IPC. In that view of the matter, we are of the
considered view that the learned Sessions Judge erred while
drawing an inference that the accused Nos.1 and 3 shared
common intention to murder the deceased-Devendrappa. In
such circumstance, in our considered view the conviction and
sentence imposed by learned Sessions Judge against accused
Nos.1 and 3 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1360-DB
IPC is liable to be set-aside, besides affirming the conviction
imposed by the learned Sessions Judge for the offences
punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 506 of IPC.
18. Concerning the conviction and sentence imposed
against the accused No.2 for the offence punishable under
Section 302 of IPC, it is the specific evidence of P.W.1 and
other eyewitnesses-PWs.8, 10, 11, 12 and 13 that on the date
of incident the deceased-Devendrappa was seated on the dike
of the façade at their house contemplating on disposing off the
10 guntas of land belonging to him, the accused Nos.1 to 3
barged into the premises following which they had a row
questioning him his intention of disposing the land in which
they held a lawful share. In such circumstance, a row erupted
between them and accused No.2 suddenly gave a single blow to
the deceased with an axe on the rear of his head; he collapsed
on the floor unconscious, forthwith owing to sever injury.
Albeit, he was admitted to the hospital, he succumbed to the
injury. The doctor who conducted the autopsy has opined that
the death was due to intracranial hemorrhage. It is pertinent to
note that the accused No.2 neither repeated the blows nor
assaulted P.W.1. In such circumstance, it could be gathered
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1360-DB
that there was no premeditation on the part of accused No.2 to
inflict death on the deceased. The entire incident occurred at
the spur of moment owing to a sudden fight. Further the
offender neither took undue advantage nor acted in a cruel or
unusual manner.
19. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rambir
Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in 2019 (6) SCC
122 held that, in a sudden fight, in absence of premeditative
motive, when an act is committed in a heat of passion, should
the offender not take undue advantage or act in a
cruel/unusual manner, the conviction can be converted from
Section 302 to Section 304 Part I or Part II of IPC. In
paragraph No.18 of the above judgment, the Hon'ble Apex
Court held as under:
"18. Having regard to the evidence on
record, we are of the view that the case of
the appellant falls within Exception 4 to
Section 300 IPC. Further, the judgment in
Surinder Kumar v. State (UT of Chandigarh)
also supports the case of the appellant. In
the aforesaid case, the knifeblows were
inflicted in the heat of the moment, one of
which caused death of the deceased; this
Court has held that the accused is entitled to
the benefit of Exception 4. In the aforesaid
judgment, this Court further held that in a
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1360-DB
sudden quarrel, if a person, in the heat of the
moment, picks up a weapon which is handy
and causes injuries one of which proves fatal,
the accused would be entitled to the benefit
of Exception 4. We are of the view that the
said judgment supports the case of the
appellant and further having regard to the
evidence on record we are of the view that
all the four ingredients which are required to
extend the benefit of Exception 4 to Section
300 IPC, apply to the facts of the case on
hand. Since the occurrence was in sudden
quarrel and there was no premeditation, the
act of the appellant-accused would fall under
Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. As such, the
conviction recorded against the appellant
under Section 302 IPC is liable to be set
aside and is accordingly set aside and the
conviction of the appellant-accused under
Section 302 IPC is modified, as the one
under Section 304 Part II IPC and we impose
a sentence of 10 years' simple imprisonment
on the accused."
20. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Surinder Kumar vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh
reported in 1989 (2) SCC 217 held that, merely because three
injuries were inflicted on the deceased by the accused is
insufficient to establish that the accused acted in a cruel
manner. Where, upon a sudden quarrel, a person in the heat of
moment, picks up a handy weapon thereby causing injuries,
one of which proves fatal, he would be entitled to the benefit as
stipulated in Exception 4 under Section 300 of IPC. The number
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1360-DB
of wounds inflicted during the altercation is not a decisive
factor.
21. In the case on hand, the evidence of the material
witnesses discloses that, on the date of incident, out of the
blue, the accused No.2 appeared on the spot and picked a row
with deceased involving a pending civil dispute. The single blow
by the accused No.2 on the head of the deceased proved fatal.
Hence, considering the comprehensive evidence, facts and
circumstances of the case, the incident occurred without
premeditative motive. Besides, the appellants neither took
undue advantage nor acted in a cruel/unusual manner. In our
considered opinion, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the above judgments, the act of accused No.2
falls within the ambit of Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC. In
that view, the appeal partially succeeds. The accused No.2 is
liable to convicted for the offence punishable under Exception
IV to Section 300 of IPC and he is sentenced for the offence
punishable under Section 304 Part I of IPC instead of Section
302 of IPC.
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1360-DB
22. Concerning the sentence for the offence punishable
under Section 304 Part I of IPC, it is submitted by the learned
counsel for the appellant No.2 that, he is currently under
incarceration for 10 years and above. Hence, in our considered
view, the said sentence would suffice for the offence punishable
under Section 304 Part I of IPC additionally, by imposing a
reasonable fine. However, the conviction imposed by the
Sessions Court for the offences punishable under sections 323,
504 and 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC deserves to be kept intact.
23. In view of the forgoing reasons, we answer points
No.1 and 2 partly affirmative and proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
i. The Criminal Appeal is allowed in part.
ii. The judgment of conviction dated 10.05.2017
and order of sentence dated 11.05.2017
passed in S.C.No.03/2015 by the III Addl.
Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi is modified in
respect of accused No.2. Accused No.2 is
convicted for the offence punishable under
Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC instead of
Section 302 of IPC. Accordingly, he is
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1360-DB
sentenced for the offence punishable under
Section 304 Part I of IPC.
iii. The accused No.2 is sentenced for a period
which he has already undergone i.e., 10 years
and above and he shall pay a fine of
Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only),
before the Sessions Court for the offence
punishable under Section 304 Part I of IPC and
in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of four
months.
iv. The sentence imposed by the Sessions Court
for the offences punishable under Sections
323, 504 and 506 of IPC against accused No.2
is confirmed. However, the learned Sessions
Judge has not imposed separate sentence for
these offences, the same is kept intact.
v. The accused No.2 has already undergone
sentence and the default sentence, hence, he
shall be released forthwith, if he is not
required in any other case.
vi. The concerned Jail Authority is directed to
release the appellant/accused No.2-Gundappa
forthwith, if he is not required in any other
cases.
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1360-DB
vii. Registry is directed to communicate this order
to the Jail Authority concerned.
viii. The judgment of conviction dated 10.05.2017
and order of sentence dated 11.05.2017
passed in S.C.No.03/2015 by the III Addl.
Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi is set-aside for the
offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC in
respect of appellants No.1 and 3/accused
Nos.1 and 3.
ix. The accused Nos.1 and 3/appellants No.1 and
3 are acquitted for the offence punishable
under Section 302 of IPC.
x. The conviction imposed by the learned
Sessions Judge against accused Nos.1 and 3 is
confirmed for the offences punishable under
Sections 323, 504 and 506 r/w Section 34 of
IPC.
xi. The accused Nos.1 and 3 are sentenced to pay
a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default of
payment of fine, they shall undergo
imprisonment for a period of 10 days' for the
offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC.
xii. The accused Nos.1 and 3 are sentenced to pay
a fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default of
payment of fine, they shall undergo
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1360-DB
imprisonment for a period of 10 months for
the offence punishable under Section 504 of
IPC.
xiii. The accused Nos.1 and 3 are sentenced to pay
a fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default of
payment of fine, they shall undergo
imprisonment for a period of 10 months for
the offence punishable under Section 506 of
IPC.
xiv. All the default sentence shall run concurrently.
xv. The accused Nos.1 and 3 shall deposit the fine
amount before the learned Sessions Judge
within four weeks.
xvi. If accused Nos.1 and 3 failed to deposit the
fine amount within four weeks' from the date
of receipt of certified copy of this order, the
learned Sessions Judge is requested secure
the presence of accused Nos.1 and 3 and to
commit them prison to undergo the default
sentence.
xvii. If the accused Nos.1 and 3 have paid the fine
amount, the learned Sessions Judge is
requested to intimate the same to PW.1-
Shashikala and disburse a sum of Rs.40,000/-
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1360-DB
to her on proper identification as
compensation under Section 357(1) of Cr.P.C.
The balance amount shall be submitted to the
State Treasury.
xviii. Registry is directed to send back the trial
Court records along with copy of this judgment
to the trial Court, forthwith.
Sd/-
(S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
HKV,SWK
CT: PS
