Sunil vs The State Of Karnataka
2025 Latest Caselaw 6024 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Sunil vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 June, 2025

                                                -1-
                                                                NC: 2025:KHC:19647
                                                           CRL.A No. 819 of 2013


                 HC-KAR



                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                            DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

                                               BEFORE
                                 THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

                             CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 819 OF 2013 (C)

                BETWEEN:
                1.   SUNIL
                     S/O. REVANASIDDAPPA
                     AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS

                2.   SANTHOSHA
                     S/O. SHEKHARAPPA
                     AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS

                     ALL ARE RESIDING AT
                     MAYAKONDA VILLAGE,
                     DAVANAGERE TALUK,
                     DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
                                                                      ...APPELLANTS
                (BY SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE (AB))

                AND:
Digitally       THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
signed by
SWAPNA V        REPRESENTED BY THE C.P.I.
Location:       MAYAKONDA POLICE
High Court of                                                        ...RESPONDENT
Karnataka       (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL.SPP)

                        THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET
                ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 11.07.2013 PASSED BY THE II ADDL.
                DIST. & S.J., DAVANAGERE IN S.C.NO.132/2011 - CONVICTING THE
                APPELLANTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 448, 504, 323, 506
                & 306 R/W 34 OF IPC. THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED ARE SENTENCED
                TO UNDERGO S.I. FOR 6 MONTHS FOR EACH OF THE OFFENCES
                P/U/S     448,   504,   323   AND   506   R/W   34   OF   IPC.   THE
                               -2-
                                            NC: 2025:KHC:19647
                                        CRL.A No. 819 of 2013


HC-KAR



APPELLANTS/ACCUSED ARE SENTENCED TO UNDERGO S.I. FOR 10
YEARS AND PAY FINE OF RS.50,000/- EACH, IN DEFAULT TO PAY
FINE, HE SHALL UNDERGO S.I. FOR FURTHER 6 MONTHS FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 306 R/W 34 OF IPC. AFORESAID SENTENCES SHALL
RUN CONCURRENTLY. THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED PRAYS THAT THEY
BE ACQUITTED.

     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

Accused Nos.1 and 3 in S.C.No.132/2011 on the file of

the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge at

Davanagere, are impugning the judgment of conviction and

order of sentence dated 11.07.2013, convicting them for the

offences punishable under Sections 448, 504, 323, 506 and

306 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC')

and sentencing them to undergo simple imprisonment for a

period of 6 months each for the offences punishable under

Sections 448, 504, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC

and sentencing them to undergo simple imprisonment for 10

years for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC with

fine of Rs.50,000/- each, with default sentences.

NC: 2025:KHC:19647

HC-KAR

2. Brief facts of the case as made out by the

prosecution is that, about 20 days prior to the incident i.e. on

02.05.2011, PW.11 had parked his motorcycle in front of the

house of accused No.1. Taking advantage of the said parking,

accused No.1 said to have stolen the petrol from the

motorcycle. PW.11 picked up quarrel with accused No.1

regarding stealing of the petrol. Accused No.1 on the

assumption that the said information was given by the

deceased-Basavaraj to PW.11, he along with accused Nos.2 and

3 had criminally trespassed into the house of the deceased,

abused him in filthy language and provoked him to break public

peace. The accused have assaulted the deceased, voluntarily

caused hurt and abetted commission of suicide. They have also

criminally intimidated him of taking away his life and liberty,

and as a result of which, he consumed pesticides and

committed suicide on the very same day. Therefore, it is stated

that accused Nos.1 to 3 have committed the above said

offences.

3. PW.1 is the mother of the deceased, who filed the first

information as per Ex.P1. The inquest was conducted as per

Ex.P4. The Post Mortem examination was held and the report is

NC: 2025:KHC:19647

HC-KAR

as per Ex.P6. The spot mahazar as per Ex.P2 was drawn, the

statements of the witnesses were recorded and the charge

sheet came to be filed for the above said offences. The Trial

Court took cognizance of the offences and summoned the

accused. During pendency of the trial, accused No.2 had died

and the criminal case against him was dismissed as abated.

4. The prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 13 and got

marked Exs.P1 to P13 in support of its contention. Accused

Nos.1 and 3 have denied all the incriminating materials

available on record, but they have not chosen to lead any

evidence in support of their defence. 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 above said offences and accordingly

passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of

sentence. Being aggrieved by the same, accused Nos.1 and 3

have preferred this appeal.

5. In spite of giving sufficient opportunity, learned

counsel for the appellants has not addressed his arguments.

The order sheet dated 17.04.2025 discloses that the matter

NC: 2025:KHC:19647

HC-KAR

was adjourned to this day, finally as a last chance. In spite of

that, there is no representation and hence his argument is

taken as nil.

6. Heard Smt.Rashmi Jadhav, learned Additional SPP for

respondent No.1-State. Perused the materials on record

including the Trial Court records.

7. In light of the contention raised by the learned

Additional SPP, and on going through the materials on record

and in light of the grounds urged in the memorandum of

appeal, the point that would arise for consideration is as under:

"Whether the appellants have 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 in the 'negative' for the

following:

REASONS

8. It is the specific contention of the prosecution that

about 20 days prior to 02.05.2011, PW.11 had parked his

motorcycle in front of the house of accused No.1. It is alleged

NC: 2025:KHC:19647

HC-KAR

that accused No.1 had stolen the petrol from the motorcycle

belonging to PW.11. In that regard, PW.11 had picked up

quarrel with accused No.1 on the assumption that it was the

deceased who informed PW.11 regarding stealing of petrol,

trespassed into his house, abused him in filthy language,

criminally intimidated him, assaulted and caused hurt and

abetted commission of suicide. Due to which, the deceased

consumed pesticides on 02.05.2011, as a result of which he

died. Therefore, it is the contention of the prosecution that

accused have committed the offences punishable under

Sections 448, 504, 323, 506 and 306 read with Section 34 of

IPC.

9. In order to prove its contention, the prosecution has

examined PW.1-the mother of the deceased, the first informant

who lodged the first information as per Ex.P1 and she has

deposed about the incident and also the overt acts committed

by the accused in detail. On the basis of EX.P1, FIR came to be

registered by PW.12 as per Ex.P10 and spot mahazar was

drawn. PW.2 is the witness to the inquest mahazar as per

Ex.P4. PW.3 is the uncle of the deceased, who has deposed

NC: 2025:KHC:19647

HC-KAR

before the Court regarding the incident as heard by him, rather

he is a hearsay witness. PW.4 is the witness to the spot

mahazar as per Ex.P2. PW.5 is also a hearsay witness.

10. PW.6 is the sister of the deceased. It is stated that

she is the eyewitness to the incident along with PW.1. PW.7 is

the eyewitness to the incident and he has fully supported the

case of the prosecution. PW.8 is the doctor who conducted post

mortem examination and issued the Post Mortem report as per

Ex.P6, which also supports the contention of the prosecution.

PW.9 is the Panchayath Development Officer who issued Ex.P8

confirming that the house where the incident had occurred

stands in the name of PW.1. PW.10 is the hearsay witness and

PW.11 is the person who had parked his motorcycle in front of

the house of accused No.1 and later he had picked up quarrel

with accused No.1. But this witness has not supported the case

of the prosecution. During cross-examination, this witness has

stated that the accused belongs to his own caste. That may be

the reason for the witness for not supporting the case of the

prosecution. PW.12 is the Head Constable who registered the

NC: 2025:KHC:19647

HC-KAR

FIR as per Ex.P10. PW.13 is the Investigating Officer who filed

the charge sheet after investigation.

11. PW.1 being the mother, PW.6 being the sister of the

deceased and PW.7 being the independent witnesses are the

material witnesses who have spoken regarding the incident in

detail. Even though these witnesses were subjected to cross-

examination by the learned counsel for the accused before the

Trial Court, nothing has been elicited from them to disbelieve

their version. PWs.1 and 6 being the mother and sister of the

deceased are the natural eyewitnesses to the incident and

there is no reason to disbelieve their version. PW.7 is the

independent witness who has spoken about the overt acts

committed by accused Nos.1 and 3. There are no grounds to

disbelieve his version. Taking into consideration the evidence of

PWs.1, 6 and 7 in the light of the inquest spot mahazar, P.M

report and also the Tax Register extract-Ex.P8, I am of the

opinion that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of

the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the above said

offences.