Karnataka High Court
Manjunatha S/O Basappa vs The State Of Karnataka By on 20 January, 2025
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:2243
CRL.A No. 368 of 2012
C/W CRL.A No. 454 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 368 OF 2012 (C)
C/W CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 454 OF 2012
IN CRL.A No. 368/2012
BETWEEN:
1. MANJUNATHA
S/O BASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
OCC: TRACTOR DRIVER
R/O HONNUR VILLAGE
DAVANGERE TALUKA AND DISTRICT
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI UMESH.B.N FOR SRI R B DESHPANDE, ADVOCATES)
AND:
Digitally
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
signed by RMC YARD POLICE STATION
MALATESH DAVANGERE CITY
KC
...RESPONDENT
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF (BY SRI CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP)
KARNATAKA
THIS CRL.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374 (2) CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE CONVICTION AND SENTENCE
DT.17.02.2012 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE, DAVANGERE IN S.C.No.110/10 CONVICTING THE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 341, 504, 323,
333, 353, 307 R/W 34 OF IPC.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:2243
CRL.A No. 368 of 2012
C/W CRL.A No. 454 of 2012
IN CRL.A NO. 454/2012
BETWEEN:
1. SRI RAMACHANDRA @ LINGARAJU
S/O BASAVARAJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
TRACTOR DRIVER
R/O HONNUR VILLAGE
DAVANAGERE TALUK
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SHIVAYOGESH SHIVAYOGIMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE BY RMC YARD POLICE STATION,
DAVANAGERE,
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
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 DATED:17.02.2012
PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
DAVANAGERE IN S.C.NO.110/10, CONVICTING THE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.341, 504, 323,
333, 353, 307 R/W 34 OF IPC.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:2243
CRL.A No. 368 of 2012
C/W CRL.A No. 454 of 2012
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard Sri Umesh B.N., appearing on behalf of Sri R.B.
Deshpande, counsel for the appellant in Crl.A.No.368/2012 and
Sri Shivayogesh Shivayogimath, counsel appearing for the
appellant in Crl.A.No.454/2012 and Sri Channappa Erappa,
learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent.
2. These two appeals are filed by accused No.2 and 4
respectively. Both the appeals arise out of judgment of
conviction passed in S.C.No.110/2010, on the file of the II
Additional Sessions Judge, Davangere, dated 17.02.2012.
3. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for
disposal of the present appeals are as under:
3.1. A complaint came to be lodged with RMC Yard
police station, Davanagere, alleging that on 30.11.2008 at
about 7.30 p.m., when complainant Purandara Naika, police
constable of District Reserve Police, Davanagere, proceeding on
his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-17-Q-5772, towards
house to take his food and when he reached near Bada cross,
these two appellants along with two more accused persons
(appellants in Crl.A.No.415/2012, against whom non bailable
warrant was issued as they were remained absent continuously
NC: 2025:KHC:2243
before the Court and so also there was no representation on
their behalf.) restrained said Purandara Naika from his free
movement, near Shakthi Ganapathi Temple, P.B. Road,
Davanagere and demanded petrol from his motorcycle.
Purandara Naika resisted said demand and a quarrel took
place.
3.2. Accused persons abused him in filthy language and
assaulted him with their hands. Two of the accused persons
held him and remaining two accused persons assaulted him
with iron rod, pipe on his face and each one of the accused
have tried to kill him and they have caused obstruction to the
free movement of Purandara Naika. He raised alarm. At that
juncture, accused persons on seeing the people gathered there,
have ran away from the spot. Purandara Naika immediately
was shifted to the medical aid. Thereafter police visited the
hospital and enquired the complainant and based on his
complaint case came to be registered.
4. RMC yard police after registering the case in
Cr.No.81/2008, investigated the matter thoroughly and filed
the charge sheet against the accused persons for the offences
NC: 2025:KHC:2243
punishable under Section 341, 504, 323, 332, 353, 307 r/w
Section 34 IPC.
5. On receipt of the charge sheet, learned Trial
Magistrate committed the matter to the Sessions Court.
Learned Sessions Judge secured the presence of the accused
persons and 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 accused,
twenty one witnesses were examined on behalf of the
prosecution as P.Ws.1 to 21 and twenty documents were placed
on record which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P.1 to P.20,
besides, marking four material objects as M.Os.1 to 4,
comprising of iron pipe, iron rod, blood stained shirt and pant
of the complainant and a mobile telephone.
7. On conclusion of recording of evidence of the
prosecution witnesses, accused statement as contemplated
under Section 313 Cr.P.C., was recorded wherein accused
persons have denied all the incriminatory materials. They did
not choose to place any written submissions on record as is
contemplated under Section 313 (4) Cr.P.C., nor they have
placed any defence evidence on their behalf.
NC: 2025:KHC:2243
8. Thereafter, learned Sessions Judge heard the
parties in detail and on appreciation of the material evidence on
record in a cumulative manner, convicted the accused persons
and passed an order of sentence as under:
"For the offence P/U/Sec.341, 504, 323 R/w. 34 of
IPC, accused No.1 to 4 shall undergo R.I. for 10 days for
each offence.
For the offence P/U/Sec.333 R/w.34 of IPC, each
one of the accused shall undergo R.I. for 5 years and
each one of them shall pay fine of Rs.10,000/ -, in
diefaulit to undergo R.1 for one year.
For the offence P/U/Sec.307 R/w.34 of IPC, each
one of the accused shall undergo R.I. for 7 years and
each one of them shall pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in
defauit to undergo R.I. For one year.
The aforesaid substantive sentence of all the
offenses shall run concurrently.
Acting under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. It is ordered
that each one of accused are entitled for set off in respect
of their period of JC if any in the period of their respective
imprisonment.
Out of the fine amount paid by the accused or
recovered from them, an amount of Rs.50,000/- is
ordered to be paid to injured PW.1 Purandara Naika as
compensation under Sec.357(3) of Cr.P.C., as he has
suffered severe injuries from these accused.
NC: 2025:KHC:2243
M.O.1 being worthless shall be destroyed after the
appeal period is over.
M.O.2 and 3 are ordered to be confiscated to the
Government after the appeal period is over.
M.O.4 Mobile is ordered to be returned to the
injured PW.1 if he did not claim it, then the same shall be
confiscated to the Government after the appeal period is
over.
Office is directed to issue free copy of the judgment
to all the accused forthwith and to issue conviction
warrant against them."
9. Being aggrieved by the same, these two appellants
being accused Nos.2 and 4 have preferred these appeals
respectively.
10. Sri Umesh B.N., representing Sri R.B. Deshpande,
Sri Shivayogesh Shivayogimath, learned counsel for the
appellants, have reiterated the grounds urged in the appeal
memorandum and contended that the entire case of the
prosecution is based on the self serving testimony of Purandara
Naika and there were no eyewitnesses to the incident.
Therefore, learned Sessions Judge ought not to have convicted
the accused persons for the aforesaid offences, which has
NC: 2025:KHC:2243
resulted in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the
appeals.
11. They also pointed out that among the prosecution
witnesses, serious contradictions are elicited which were
marked as Exs.D.1 to D.3 in the evidence of P.W.5 and so also
in the evidence of P.W.9 as Ex.D.4. They also pointed out that
the wound certificate issued by the Doctor vide Ex.P.11 does
not indicate any serious injury, more so, if P.W.1 was assaulted
with M.Os.2 and 3.
12. They also contend that the radiological report
marked at Ex.P.12 does not clearly indicate as to the nature of
the injury which would not corroborate with the wound
certificate marked at Ex.P.11. Therefore, sought for allowing
the appeals.
13. They further contend that material evidence on
record is hardly sufficient to convict the accused for the offence
punishable under Section 307 IPC and at the most the action
attributed by accused No.2 and 4 would only be to the extent of
offence under Section 324 IPC and sought for allowing the
appeal.
NC: 2025:KHC:2243
14. Alternatively, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants contend that in the event of this Court upholding the
order of conviction, the custody period already under gone by
accused No.2 and 4 about four months twenty one days may be
treated as period of conviction by enhancing the fine amount
reasonably and portion of the fine amount will be paid as
compensation to the injured.
15. Per contra, Sri Channappa Erappa, learned High
Court Government Pleader, opposes the appeal grounds
vehemently. He further contended that P.W.1 being the police
constable was returning to his house for taking food as he had
to attend the night duty and all of a sudden all the accused
persons intercepted his free movement near Shakthi Ganapathi
Temple at Bada cross and demanded petrol. When P.W.1
refused, all the accused persons assaulted mercilessly to P.W.1.
16. He also pointed out that P.W.1 was in police
uniform at the time of incident. Despite the same, all the
accused persons picked up quarrel voluntarily. He further
argued that weapons used by the accused are the deadly
weapons and they assaulted on head which is vital organ.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:2243
Therefore, all the ingredients are attracted to maintain the
conviction of the appellants for the aforesaid offences.
17. He also pointed out that no leniency can be shown
for such people who have assaulted P.W.1 with deadly weapons
without there being any reason whatsoever and therefore,
sought for dismissal of the appeals in toto.
18. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court
perused the material on record meticulously.
19. On such perusal of the material on record, the
following points would arise for consideration:
(i) Whether the prosecution was successful in
establishing all the ingredients to attract the
offence under Section 341, 504, 324, 333, 307
r/w Section 34 IPC?
(ii) Whether the appellants have established that the
impugned judgment is suffering from legal
infirmity, perversity and thus calls for
interference?
(iii) Whether the sentence is excessive?
(iv) What order?
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:2243
20. Regarding point Nos.1 and 2: In the case on
hand, there is no dispute that P.W.1 sustained blood injuries.
Wound certificate marked at Ex.P.11 coupled with the
radiological certificate marked at Ex.P.12, would sufficiently
establish the nature of injury sustained by P.W.1.
21. The injuires mentioned in Ex.P.11 reads as under:
"1. Lacerated wound over the forehead, bone deep, size ½"
x 1½". Fresh wound.
2. Cut lacerated wound left temporal area, size ½" x 3"
3. Cut Slit and lacerated upper lip size ¼" x ¾".
4. Nasal bone #2
5. X-ray chest Ap-view No.38951 date 30.11.2008, Report
no fracture Ribs are seen. Normal chest X-ray.
6. Skull-Ap No.38951 date 30.11.2008. Report Fracture of
frontal bone on the left side
7. X ray - Nasal bone No.39131 date 02.12.2008. Report
fracture of nasal bones
8. Provisional report.
The C.T. Scan brain, report entered in separate sheet and
attested and enclosed separately.
I am of opinion that the injury No.1, 4, 5, 7 are grievous in
nature"
22. According to the version of P.W.1, he was returning
to his house for taking food on his motorcycle bearing
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:2243
registration No.KA-17-Q-5772, as he was required to attend his
night duty later.
23. When he was so returning to the house, near
Shakathi Ganapathi Temple at Bada cross, all the accused
persons intercepted his free movement and thereafter they
demanded petrol to be taken out from his motorcycle. When
P.W.1 refused for the said demand, quarrel took place. At that
juncture, accused persons abused P.W.1 in filthy language and
they also told that they would somehow take the petrol from
his motorcycle. So saying, among the accused persons,
accused No.4 Lingaraja and accused No.3 Anneshi held the
hands of P.W.1 and accused No.2 - Manjunatha assaulted him
with an iron rod on his lips, accused No.1 -Mahesha assaulted
him with iron pipe on his head. As a result, he sustained
bleeding injuries on his lips and on the head. At that juncture,
P.W.1 raised alarm. Noticing said alarm, Manjunatha, Narayana
Naika, Gurulingappa came there. Seeing them, all the accused
persons ran away from the spot.
24. Court has noted the scar on the forehead of P.W.1
as a result of the injuries at the time of recording of the
evidence. P.W.1 was shifted to S.S. High Tech Hospital.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:2243
Doctor admitted P.W.1 in Intensive Care Unit and he took
treatment for a period of twenty days.
25. He further deposed that RMC yard police came to
the hospital and took statement of P.W.1 and thereafter
registered the case and apprehended the accused persons.
26. In the cross-examination of P.W.1, he denied the
suggestion that the injuries are sustained by him due to assault
made by some other vehicle owners and a false complaint has
been lodged.
27. He denied the suggestion that when he admitted to
the hospital, he was unconscious and he was unable to speak.
He has specifically answered that he was acquainted with the
accused persons earlier but he was not knowing their names
correctly. As such, he had not given the details of the accused
persons while giving the statement to the police.
28. On behalf of fourth accused, he has answered that
the place of incident is a busy road and there was a barricade
installed.
29. Manjunatha, Naryana Naika and Shivu have
supported the case of the prosecution by deposing that on
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:2243
seeing the quarrel they arrived at the scene and at that
juncture, accused persons ran away from the spot.
30. Doctor who examined the complainant and issued
wound certificate vide Ex.P.11, supported the case of the
prosecution.
31. No useful material is elicited in the cross-
examination so as to disbelieve the version of above witnesses.
32. Ex.P.12 radiological report would sufficiently
corroborate the contents of Ex.P.11 wound certificate.
33. The Doctor in Ex.P.11 has specifically stated that
the injury Nos.1, 4, 5 and 7 are the grievous in nature based
on the radiological report issued at Ex.P.12.
34. All these aspects of the matter on cumulative
consideration would be sufficient enough to establish the
offences alleged against the accused even after re-appreciation
of the material evidence on record.
35. In order to establish that these findings are
suffering from legal infirmity or perversity, no material
whatsoever is forthcoming on record. Accused persons did not
place any material on record to substantiate that they have
been falsely implicated in the incident, more so, in the absence
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:2243
of previous enmity or animosity between complainant and
accused.
36. Cross-examination in detail of the prosecution
witnesses did not yield any materials so as to probabilise the
theory of false implication. The suggestions made to P.W.1
that he sustained the injuries because of the assault made by
other vehicle owners is nothing but farfetched imaginary
suggestion.
37. Crowing all these things, the accused persons did
not place their version about the incident and where they were
there at the time of incident. As such, the finding recorded by
the learned Sessions Judge in the impugned judgment with
regard to the guilty of the accused is based on sound and
logical reasons.
38. In the light of appeal grounds, even after re-
appreciation of the material evidence on record, this Court does
not find any legal infirmity or perversity in arriving at such a
finding by the learned Sessions Judge.
39. From the above discussion, this Court has no
hesitation whatsoever to hold point No.1 in the affirmative and
point No.2 in the negative and accordingly they are answered.
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:2243
40. Regarding point No.3: Counsel for appellants
have stated that accused persons were in custody during the
period of trial to some extent and thereafter passing of
conviction order. In all they were in custody for a period of
four months twenty one days. They submit that there was no
motive for the incident even according to the prosecution.
They further contended that since they are first time offenders,
leniency can be shown by considering the period of custody
already undergone by them as the offence under Section 307
IPC would not get attracted.
41. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, this
Court is of the considered opinion that the custody period
already under gone by them, if treated as period of
imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- each and portion of which could be paid as
compensation to P.W.1, would meet the ends of justice.
Accordingly, point No.3 is answered partly in the
affirmative.
42. Regarding point No.4: In view of finding of this
Court on point Nos.1 to 3 as above, following order is passed:
ORDER
(i) Criminal appeals are allowed in part.
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:2243
(ii) While maintaining the conviction of accused
persons for the offences punishable under
Section 341, 504, 323, 333, 353, 307 r/w
Section 34 IPC, the custody period of four
months twenty one days already undergone by
the appellants is treated as period of
imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount in a
sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each in addition to the fine
amount already imposed by the learned Sessions
Judge to be paid on or before 28th of February,
2025, failing which they shall undergo
imprisonment as ordered by the learned
Sessions Judge.
(iii) Out of the fine amount received, a sum of
Rs.1,50,000/- is ordered to be paid as
compensation to P.W.1 under due identification.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
