Karnataka High Court
Krishna Prabhu vs State Of Karnataka on 2 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:18494
CRL.A No. 1273 of 2012
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1273 OF 2012 (C)
BETWEEN:
KRISHNA PRABHU,
S/O DEVANNA PRABHU,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
R/A KODIKAL, NEAR AMBEDKAR
VYAYAMA SCHOOL, MANGALORE - 575 001
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAVI KIRAN .C., ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
THOUGH KARKALA TOWN POLICE,
KARKALA, UDUPI DIST
REPRESENTED BY STATE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE - 560 001
Digitally signed
...RESPONDENT
by SWAPNA V (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL.SPP.)
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.10.2012 PASSED BY THE P.O.,
F.T.C., UDUPI IN S.C.NO.68/2011 - CONVICTING THE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 307 OF IPC. THE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO S.I. FOR 5
YEARS AND TO PAY FINE OF RS.10,000/-, IN DEFAULT TO PAY FINE,
HE SHALL FURTHER UNDERGO S.I. FOR 6 MONTHS FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 307 OF IPC. THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED PRAYS THAT
HE BE ACQUITTED.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:18494
CRL.A No. 1273 of 2012
HC-KAR
THIS CRL.A., COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
ORAL JUDGMENT
The appellant being accused in SC No.68/2011 on the file
of the Fast Track Court, Udupi, is impugning the judgment of
conviction dated 31.10.2012, for the offences punishable under
Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC'), and
sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of
5 years, and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, and in default, to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be
referred to as per their rank and status before the Trial Court.
3. Brief facts of the case are that, PW1 being the
complainant filed the first information with Karkala Town Police
against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections
326 and 307 of IPC. It is alleged that the accused is the
husband of victim-PW6, and they married during the year
1982. However, they were quarreling with each other. On the
fateful day i.e., on 30.11.2010, there was a quarrel between
NC: 2025:KHC:18494
HC-KAR
the husband and wife. The accused being the husband,
assaulted her with a club marked as MO15, as a result of
which, she sustained injuries. This fact was informed to the
brother of victim-PW6, and he filed the complaint before the
police. It is stated that the accused surrendered before the
police on 02.02.2011, and was in judicial custody till
23.02.2011, on which date, he was released on bail.
4. The Investigating Officer has filed the charge sheet
against the accused for the above said offences. The
prosecution examined PWs.1 to 11, got marked Exs.P1 to 11
and identified MOs.1 to 15 in support of its contention. The
accused has denied all the incriminating materials available on
record. But he has not chosen to lead any evidence. The Trial
Court after taking into consideration all these materials on
record passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order
of sentence convicting the accused for the offence punishable
under Section 307 of IPC, and sentencing him to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period for 5 years, and to pay a fine
of Rs.10,000/- in default, to under go simple imprisonment for
NC: 2025:KHC:18494
HC-KAR
6 months. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused is before
this Court.
5. Heard Sri. Ravi Kiran C, learned counsel for the
appellant and Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, learned ASPP for the
respondent. Perused the materials including the Trial Court
records.
6. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned
counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my
consideration is:
"Whether the appellant-accused has
made out a case 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
7. The materials on record disclose that the accused
married the injured-PW6 during the year 1982. They have
begotten two children in the marriage. There used to be
frequent quarrel between the husband and wife. On the date of
NC: 2025:KHC:18494
HC-KAR
incident i.e., on 30.10.2010, there was again quarrel between
the spouses, which resulted in accused assaulting his wife with
club-MO15. As a result, she sustained head injury. She was
shifted to Prathiba Nursing Home, Karkala and later to Kasturba
Hospital, Manipal.
8. PW1 being the brother of victim-PW6, rushed to the
police station and filed the FIR. Spot mahazar was drawn, the
weapon i.e., wooden club used in the commission of offence,
blood stains at the scene of occurrence were seized under the
mahazar.
9. Ex.P5 is the wound certificate pertaining to PW6,
according to which, she sustained chopped head injury with
right squamous temporal bone fracture, which is described as
grievous injury, along with other two simple injuries.
10. PW6 being the victim has fully supported the case
of the prosecution. Even though PW1 the informant is not the
eye witness, PWs.2 and 7 have deposed before the Court that
they came to the spot immediately after the incident and the
accused was at the spot. Even though PWs.2, 6 and 7 have
been cross examined at length, nothing has been elicited from
NC: 2025:KHC:18494
HC-KAR
them to disbelieve their version. The wound certificate Ex.P5
prima facie supports the contention of the prosecution. PW5 is
the Doctor, who examined the injured and issued the wound
certificate. As per Ex.P.5., MO15 is the wooden club used in the
commission of the offence, which was seized by the
Investigating Officer. Drawing up of panchanama and seizing of
materials from the scene of occurrence is supported by PW3.
11. PW4 is the son of the accused, who speaks about
the frequent dispute between his parents and about the
conduct of the accused. From all these materials, the
contention of the prosecution that the accused being the
husband of the victim-PW6 assaulted her with wooden club
MO15 is proved beyond reasonable doubt. I do not find any
reason to suspect the version of the prosecution to extend the
benefit of doubt in favour of the accused.
12. On going through the impugned judgment of
conviction passed by the Trial Court, I find that the Court has
appreciated the oral and documentary evidence placed before it
and formed an opinion that prosecution is successful in proving
the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under
NC: 2025:KHC:18494
HC-KAR
Section 307 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt. I do not find any
reason to interfere with the same.
13. Even though the prosecution is successful in
proving the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable
under Section 307 of IPC, it is stated that the accused, who
was aged 40 years at the time of the commission of the offence
is now aged 55 years. He is staying separately from his wife
and children, all alone. From the materials it is found that he
had voluntarily surrendered before the jurisdictional Magistrate
on 02.02.2011, and was released on bail on 23.02.2011.
14. The appellant is physically present before the Court
and submits that since he is staying all alone without any
support, either financial or psychological, his case may be
considered leniently.
15. Since the appellant has already undergone
imprisonment for a period of 21 days, I deem it appropriate to
set off the sentence, which he has already undergone. The Trial
Court has imposed a fine of Rs.10,000/-. Looking to the nature
and seriousness of the offence and the relationship of the
accused with the victim, they being the husband and wife, I
NC: 2025:KHC:18494
HC-KAR
deem it appropriate to enhance the quantum of fine to
Rs.50,000/-, out of which, PW6 the victim may be paid a sum
of Rs.40,000/- as compensation. By such an order, the ends of
justice would be met.
16. 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 31.10.2012
passed in SC No.68/2011 on the file of the Fast
Track Court, Udupi is confirmed.
(iii) The order of sentence to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of 5 years and to
pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to
undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months is
set aside.
(iv) The appellant-accused is sentenced to under-
go simple imprisonment, to the period which he
has already undergone and he is sentenced to
pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default, to
undergo imprisonment for a period of 6
months.
NC: 2025:KHC:18494
HC-KAR
(v) Out of the fine amount to be deposited by the
appellant, a sum of Rs.40,000/- is directed to
be paid to the victim-PW6 on due identification,
as compensation as provided under Section
357 of Cr.P.C. The balance amount is to be
appropriated to the State.
Registry to send back Trial Court records along with
copy of judgment for needful action.
Sd/-
(M G UMA)
JUDGE
BH
