Karnataka High Court
Rangaswamy vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:27166
CRL.A No. 821 of 2013
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 821 OF 2013 (C)
BETWEEN:
RANGASWAMY
S/O NARASIMHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/O. GUDDADAPALYA VILLAGE,
KIBBANAHALLI HOBLI, TIPTUR
TALUK, TUMKUR DIST - 572 201
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ONKAR K.B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
KIBBANAHALLI POLICE STATION,
BY SPECIAL PUBIC PROSECUTOR,
TIPTUR TALUK, TUMKUR DIST. - 572201
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP)
Digitally signed
by SWAPNA V
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET
Location: High
Court of ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18.07.2013 PASSED BY THE V ADDL.
Karnataka
DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SIT AT TIPUR IN S.C.NO.248/2012 -
CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
307 AND 326 OF IPC. THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO
UNDERGO R.I. FOR 7 YEARS AND PAY FINE OF RS.25,000/-, IN
DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF FINE TO UNDERGO S.I. FOR FURTHER
PERIOD OF 3 MONTHS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 307 OF IPC. THE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO R.I. FOR 5
YEARS AND PAY FINE OF RS.15,000/-, IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF
FINE TO UNDERGO S.I. FOR FURTHER PERIOD OF 2 MONTHS FOR
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:27166
CRL.A No. 821 of 2013
HC-KAR
THE OFFENCE P/U/S 326 OF IPC. ALL THE SENTENCES SHALL RUN
CONCURRENLTY. THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED PRAYS THAT HE BE
ACQUITTED.
THIS CRL.A., COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA
ORAL JUDGMENT
The accused in SC.No.248/2012 on the file of the learned
V Additional District and Sessions Judge at Tiptur, is impugning
the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
18.07.2013, convicting him for the offences punishable under
Sections 307 and 326 of Indian Penal Code (for short, "the
I.P.C."), and sentencing to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of seven years, and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- for the
offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC; and to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay fine
of Rs.15,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 326 of
IPC, with default sentences.
2. Brief facts of the case as made out by the prosecution
are that, on 11.06.2012 at 2.30 p.m. the accused was having
ill-will against the injured-PW.4, voluntarily assaulted him with
the sickle, with an intention to cause his death, caused grievous
NC: 2025:KHC:27166
HC-KAR
injuries, abused him in filthy language, and provoked the
injured to break public peace, and thereby committed the
offences punishable under Sections 307, 326 and 504 of IPC.
On the basis of first information lodged by PW.2, FIR came to
be registered. The investigation was undertaken and final
report came to be filed.
3. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence
and committed the matter to the Sessions Court. The accused
appeared before the Trial Court, pleaded not guilty and claimed
to be tried. The prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 9, got
marked Exs.P1 to 15 and identified MOs.1 to 5 in support of its
contention. The accused has denied all the incriminating
materials available on record, but has not chosen to lead any
evidence in support of his defence. However, he got marked
Ex.D1 during cross-examination of PW.5. The Trial Court, after
taking into consideration all these materials on record, came to
the conclusion that the prosecution is successful in proving the
guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections
307 and 326 of IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced
NC: 2025:KHC:27166
HC-KAR
the accused as stated above. Being aggrieved by the same, the
accused is before this Court.
4. Heard Sri. Onkar K.B., learned counsel for the
appellant-accused and Smt.Rashmi Jadhav, learned Additional
SPP for the respondent-State. Perused the materials on record
including the Trial Court records.
5. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned
counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my
consideration are as under:
Whether the appellant has made out any
grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment
of conviction and order of sentence passed by the
Trial Court?
My answer to the above point is 'partly in the affirmative'
for the following:
REASONS
6. It is the contention of the prosecution that, the
accused had assaulted PW.4 with an intention to cause his
death, caused grievous injuries and committed the offences
punishable under Sections 307 and 326 of IPC.
NC: 2025:KHC:27166
HC-KAR
7. PW.2 is the eyewitness-informant, who lodged the first
information as per Ex.P3. In Ex.P3, the informant being the
eyewitness has given clear version of the overt act committed
by the accused in assaulting the injured-PW.4. The first
information came to be registered immediately after the
incident. The materials on record disclose that, immediately
after the incident, the injured was taken to the General
Hospital, where PW.1 has examined him. He has issued wound
certificate as per Ex.P1, which discloses that he had sustained
two grievous injuries, which are lacerated wounds over the
nose. PW.1 who examined the injured at the initial stage has
deposed before the Court that, the injuries sustained by the
injured were grievous in nature. He was cross-examined by the
learned counsel for the accused. But nothing has been elicited
from him to disbelieve his version.
8. Initially the injured was treated in the General
Hospital at Tiptur, and later brought to the Mallige Hospital.
PW.7 is the Doctor who treated the injured-PW.4 when he was
admitted to Mallige Hospital as an inpatient. Ex.P2 is the
discharge summary issued by Mallige Hospital. According to
NC: 2025:KHC:27166
HC-KAR
which, the injured was admitted to the Hospital on 11.06.2012
and was discharged on 20.06.2012. The case sheet as per
Ex.P7 is produced to substantiate the case that, the injured was
treated as an inpatient. Exs.P1 and 2 disclose that the injured
was admitted to the Hospital with the history of assault. This
witness was also cross-examined at length by the learned
counsel for the appellant, but nothing has been elicited from
him to disbelieve his version. Learned counsel for the appellant
contends that during cross-examination of PW.1, it is elicited
that the injured has taken treatment even in Mallige Hospital as
outpatient. It is a stray sentence found in the evidence of the
witness. Therefore, his version is to be believed. But the
witness has spoken about Exs.P2 and 7. When such clinching
materials are produced before the Court and PW.7 has deposed
before the Court about the nature of injuries, treatment and
duration of treatment, the contention of the learned counsel for
the appellant that injured had never taken treatment as an
inpatient cannot be accepted.
9. PW.5 is the eyewitness to the incident. He states
about the overt act committed by the accused and the weapon
NC: 2025:KHC:27166
HC-KAR
used in the commission of the offence. PW.4 is the injured and
also an eyewitness to the incident and he is also witness to the
spot mahazar-Ex.P4. PWs.2 to 5 being eyewitnesses have
consistently deposed regarding the incident that had occurred.
Nothing has been elicited from them during cross-examination.
10. Ex.P4 is the spot mahazar, which was drawn at the
spot in the presence of PW.5 and, MOs.1 to 5 are sickle, white
shirt, lungi, sample mud and blood stained mud which were
recovered under the spot mahazar. As per the Scientific Officer,
who issued Ex.P15-the FSL report, the mud which was collected
from the spot, the shirt and lungi worn by the injured-
eyewitness i.e. MOs.1 to 5 were stained with blood. The
Scientific Officer is examined as PW.9 who supports the
contention of the prosecution in that regard.
11. PW.6 is the PSI, who has registered the FIR and
recorded the statements of the witnesses, and PW.8 is the PSI,
who filed the final report. All these witnesses have supported
the case of the prosecution and no glaring inconsistency or
material contradictions were elicited during the cross-
examination.
NC: 2025:KHC:27166
HC-KAR
12. It is pertinent to note that the tenor of cross-
examination of the prosecution witnesses discloses that, the
accused is not disputing the incident. On the other hand, the
accused admits that there was a fight. The second contention
taken by the learned counsel for the appellant is that there was
no intention to cause the death of the deceased, but the
weapon used by the accused being the sickle suggests such
intention, which is to be inferred or gathered from the
circumstances of the case. In view of the version of PWs.2 to 5
who are the eyewitnesses including the injured eyewitness who
speak about the accused and the weapons used for the
commission of the offence, I do not find any reason to
disbelieve the version of the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, I
am of the opinion that the accused is liable for conviction.
13. I have gone through the impugned judgment of
conviction passed by the Trial Court. It has taken into
consideration all these materials on record and arrived at a
right conclusion in convicting the accused. I do not find any
reason to interfere with the same. But it has proceeded to
sentence the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
NC: 2025:KHC:27166
HC-KAR
period of seven years with fine of Rs.25,000/- for the offence
punishable under Section 307 of IPC and to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay fine of
Rs.15,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 326 of
IPC, with default sentences.
14. Sections 307 and 326 of IPC prescribe the maximum
sentence that could be imposed on the accused on his
conviction with fine. The nature of allegations, and the
materials that are placed before the Court, do not call for
imposition of maximum sentence. Considering these facts and
circumstances, I am of the opinion that, reasonable sentence
may be imposed on the accused for the above offences.
Accordingly, I answer the above point 'partly in the affirmative'
and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed in part.
ii) The judgment of conviction dated 18.07.2013
passed in SC.No.248/2012 on the file of the
learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Tiptur, is hereby confirmed.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27166
HC-KAR
iii) The order of sentence imposed by the Trial Court
is modified as under:
(a) The appellant-accused is sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year,
and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/-. In default of
payment of fine, he shall undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of three months for
the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC.
(b) He is sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of six months and to
pay fine of Rs.15,000/-. In default of payment of
fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of two months for the offence punishable
under Section 326 of IPC.
(iii) The accused is entitled for set off for the period
he has already undergone imprisonment.
(iv) The other portions of the order of sentence
passed by the Trial Court are upheld.
(v) The concerned Jail Authority is directed to verify the
length of the imprisonment suffered by the accused
and if in case, he has already served the sentence,
and if fine amount is deposited to release the
appellant forthwith, if he is not required to be
detained in judicial custody in any other case.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27166
HC-KAR
Registry to send back the original records along with
copy of this judgment to the Trial Court, for information and
needful action.
SD/-
(M G UMA)
JUDGE
MKM
CT:VS
