Karnataka High Court
Suresh vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:19927
CRL.A No. 2189 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2189 OF 2018 (C)
BETWEEN:
SURESH
S/O VELU
AGED 33 YEARS
#R/AT HOSAMANE
KALLUR POST
GUDIYATHAM TALUK
VELUR DISTRICT
TAMIL NADU - 632 011.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PRASAD B.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY CHINTAMANI
TOWN POLICE STATION
BY INSPECTOR, CHINTAMANI,
Digitally signed CHICKBALLAPURA DISTRICT - 563 125
by NANDINI B G
Location: High
REP. SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Court of BENGALURU - 01.
Karnataka
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. HARISH GANAPATHY, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2)
CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE CONVICTION AND SENTENCE
DATED 17.07.2014, PASSED BY THE FAST TRACK COURT II,
CHINTHAMANI, CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.2 FOR
THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 392 AND 201 READ
WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC; THE ACCUSED NO.2 IS SENTENCED TO
UNDERGO RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR 14 YEARS FOR THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 392 READ WITH SECTION
34 OF IPC AND SENTENCED TO PAY FINE OF RS.5000/; FURTHER,
THE ACCUSED NO.2 IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO SIMPLE
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:19927
CRL.A No. 2189 of 2018
HC-KAR
IMPRISONMENT FOR THREE YEARS FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTION 201 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC AND
SENTENCED TO PAY FINE OF RS.2000/-; THE ACCUSED NO.2 SHALL
PAY FINE OF RS.7000/- IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF FINE, THE
ACCUSED NO.2 SHALL SENTENCED TO UNDERGO S.I FOR SIX
MONTHS; THE PUNISHMENT SO IMPOSED SHALL RUN
CONSECUTIVELY; AND THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED PRAYS THAT HE
BE ACQUITTED.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL, 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-accused No.2 is before this Court
impugning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 17.07.2014 passed in SC No.101 of 2011 by the Fast
Track Court-II, Chintamani, for the offences punishable under
Sections 392 and 201 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal
Code (for short 'the IPC') and sentencing him to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of 14 years and to pay fine
of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 392 of
IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three
years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable
under Section 201 of IPC, with default sentences.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be
referred to as per their rank and status before the Trial Court.
NC: 2025:KHC:19927
HC-KAR
3. Heard Sri B S Prasad, learned counsel for the
appellant and Sri Harish Ganapathy, learned High Court
Government Pleader for the respondent - State. Perused the
materials including the Trial Court records.
4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant that, accused Nos.1 and 2 were charged for the
offence punishable under Sections 302, 392 and 201 read with
Section 34 of IPC. After full-fledged trial, the accused were
convicted only for the offence punishable under Sections 392
and 201 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced them
as stated above.
5. It is his further contention that accused No. 1 has
not challenged the impugned judgment of conviction and the
order of sentence. According to him, accused No. 1 is already
dead. The appellant being accused No. 2 was apprehended on
12.01.2012 and since then he is in judicial custody. He has
already undergone imprisonment for more than 13 years.
Under such circumstances, it is prayed that set off may be
given to the above period, which the appellant has already
undergone the sentence.
NC: 2025:KHC:19927
HC-KAR
6. Even though, learned High Court Government
Pleader opposed the appeal stating that serious allegations are
made against accused Nos.1 and 2, he submits that granting of
set off to the appellant is left to the discretion of the Court.
7. On consideration of the materials on record, the
allegations made against both the accused are very serious.
Clear case under Sections 392 and 201 read with Section 34 of
IPC was made out. Admittedly, accused No. 1 has not
challenged the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. It
is stated that the appellant - accused No. 2 is in custody since
12.01.2012. As on today, he has undergone sentence for a
period of 13 years and 5 months. Even though, I do not find
any reason to interfere with the judgment of conviction passed
by the Trial Court, I deem it appropriate to consider the only
request made by the appellant to give set off to the period
which the appellant has already undergone, considering the
length of sentence served by the appellant and the fact that the
order of sentence imposed on him is to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of 14 years. No prejudice would be
NC: 2025:KHC:19927
HC-KAR
caused to the respondent, if the appellant is given set off to the
sentence, which he has already undergone.
8. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The judgment of conviction dated 17.07.2014
passed in SC No.101 of 2011 by the Fast Track Court-II,
Chintamani, for the offences punishable under Sections 392
and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC is hereby confirmed.
(iii) The order of sentence passed by the Trial Court
against the appellant - accused No.2 to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of 14 years for the offence
punishable under Section 392 read with Section 34 of IPC is
modified.
(iv) Instead, the appellant - accused No.2 is sentenced
to undergo imprisonment which he has already undergone,
along with payment of fine of Rs.5,000 as ordered.
(v) The order of sentence with regard to the offence
under Section 201 read with Section 34 of IPC is confirmed.
(vi) Substantive sentences shall run concurrently.
NC: 2025:KHC:19927
HC-KAR
(vii) Registry is directed to intimate the Chief
Superintendent, Central Prison, Bellary to release the appellant
- accused No.2, if he is not required to be detained in judicial
custody in any other case.
Registry to send back the Trial Court records along with
copy of the judgment for needful action.
Sd/-
(M G UMA)
JUDGE
*bgn/-
CT:VS
