Karnataka High Court
Nagaraja @ Naga @ Muga @ Ibbaluru Naga vs The State Of Karnataka By on 11 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:45734
CRL.A No. 427 of 2012
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 427 OF 2012 (C-)
BETWEEN:
NAGARAJA @ NAGA
@ MUGA @ IBBALURU NAGA
ABOUT 21 YEARS,
SON OF VENKATESHAPPA,
RESIDENT OF IBBALURU VILLAGE,
SARJAPURA ROAD, BANGALORE.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. R. SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE
APPOINTED AS AMICUS CURIAE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
Digitally signed HSR LAYOUT POLICE STATION,
by
SHARADAVANI BANGALORE, REPRESENTED BY ITS
B
GOVERNMENT PLEADER,
Location: High
Court of HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BANGALORE.
Karnataka
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RANGASWAMY R, HCGP)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.374(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:29.2.12 PASSED BY THE P.O.,
FTC-IX, BANGALORE IN S.C.NO.960/10 - CONVICTING THE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.4 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 395 R/W
397 OF IPC. AND THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.4 IS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:45734
CRL.A No. 427 of 2012
HC-KAR
SENTENCED TO UNDERGO R.I. FOR A PERIOD OF 07 (SEVEN)
YEARS AND HE IS ALSO LIABLE TO PAY A FINE OF RS.5,000/-
(RS.FIVE THOUSAND ONLY), AND IN DEFAULT TO PAY THE
FINE AMOUNT, HE SHALL FURTHER UNDERGO S.I. FOR A
PERIOD OF TWO (2) MONTHS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 395
R/W 397 OF IPC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Appellant-Nagaraja, who is accused No.4 has preferred
the appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 29th February 2012 passed in S.C.No.960 of
2010 by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-IX, Bangalore
(for short "the trial Court").
2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant
would submit that HSR Layout Police filed charge-sheet against
the accused for commission of offences punishable under
Section 395 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. But the
trial Court as framed charges for the offence punishable under
Section 395 read with Section 397 of Indian Penal Code and
convicted the accused for the offence punishable under said
NC: 2025:KHC:45734
HC-KAR
Sections the accused sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a
period of 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default
to pay the fine amount, they shall further undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of two months. Being aggrieved by
this judgment of conviction and order on sentence, accused
No.5-Venkatesh, accused No.3-S Rambabu and accused No.4-
Nagaraju, preferred appeal before this Court in Criminal Appeal
No.391 of 2012 connected with Criminal Appeals No.424 of
2012 and 538 of 2012. All these cases were clubbed together
and the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has acquitted all the
accused for the offence punishable under Section 397 of Indian
Penal Code and the conviction passed by the trial court in
respect of offence punishable under Section 395 of Indian Penal
Code was confirmed and the same was modified subject to
payment of enhanced fine in a sum of Rs.50,000/- payable by
each of the appellants on or before 20th March 2025. The
learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the
appellant is not able to pay the fine amount of Rs.50,000/- and
he has already undergone 2 years 4 months 11 days
imprisonment. Accordingly, he seeks to allow the appeal by
modifying the sentence passed by the trial Court for the offence
NC: 2025:KHC:45734
HC-KAR
punishable under Section 395 of IPC. The counsel for the
appellant has produced copy of order passed by the Co-
ordinate Bench in the aforestated appeals. All the above three
appeals arise out of S.C.No.960/2010 dated 29th February,
2012. The Order portion of the judgment passed by the Co-
ordinate Bench in the above appeals reads as under:
(i) Criminals Appeals are allowed in part;
(ii) All the appellants are acquitted for the
offence punishable under Section 397 of
Indian Penal Code;
(iii) Conviction of the appellants for the
offence punishable under Section 395 of
the Indian Penal Code is maintained and
the custody period already undergone by
them is treated as period of
imprisonment subject to payment of
enhanced fine in a sum of Rs.50,000/-
payable by each of the appellants on or
before 20th March, 2025;
(iv) Failure to make payment of the enhanced
fine amount, the appellants shall undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of one
year and six months;
NC: 2025:KHC:45734
HC-KAR
(v) Out of the fine amount recovered,
Rs.25,000/- each is ordered to be paid to
PW7 and PW14 as compensation;
(vi) Balance fine amount shall be
appropriated towards defraying expenses
of the State.
(vii) Office is directed to return the trial Court
records with copy of this judgment for
issue of modified conviction warrant.
3. This Court has received the Report from the Chief
Superintendent, Central prison, Bangalore. In the report, it is
stated that accused No.4-Nagaraja @ Naga @ Muga @ Ibbaluru
Naga, the jail authorities have stated that the period of
sentence undergone by the accused during trial 26.03.2010 to
21.03.2012 i.e., 1 year 11 months and 26 days and period
undergone as a convict prisoner from 22.03.2012 to
06.08.2012 i.e., 4 months 15 days. Total period undergone in
Sessions case No.960/2010 is 2 years 4 months 11 days.
4. Sri.Shashidhara, Amicus Curiae would submit that
the present accused is unable to pay the fine amount. He is
unable to contact this accused.
NC: 2025:KHC:45734
HC-KAR
5. Considering the financial status of the present
appellant and also considering the judgment passed by the Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court, I am of the opinion that it is just
and proper to modify the sentence to the offence under Section
395 of IPC restricting to the custody period undergone by the
appellant. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) Appeal is allowed in part;
ii) Appellant is acquitted of the offence
punishable under Section 397 of Indian Penal
Code;
iii) Conviction of the appellant for the offence
punishable under section 395 of Indian Penal
Code is maintained and the custody period
undergone by the appellant is treated as period
of imprisonment;
v) Registry is directed to pay an amount of
Rs.5,000/- to Sri.R.Shashidhara, Amicus Curiae
for the appellant.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
