Sri Rakesh vs The State Of Karnataka
2025 Latest Caselaw 9949 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Sri Rakesh vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 November, 2025

                                                    -1-
                                                              NC: 2025:KHC:45112
                                                          CRL.A No. 2006 of 2016


                       HC-KAR



                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                            DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

                                               BEFORE
                                THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
                                CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2006 OF 2016 (C)
                       BETWEEN:
                       SRI RAKESH
                       S/O SUDHIR C BABU
                       AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
                       R/AT NO.3077/1,3RD CROSS
                       GOKULAM PARK ROAD
                       V V MOHALLA, MYSURU CITY-570002.
                                                                    ...APPELLANT
                       (BY SRI. B S PRASAD ., ADVOCATE)

                       AND:
                       THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
                       JAYALAKSHMIPURAM POLICE STATION
                       MYSURU, REP BY S.P.P
                       HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                       BANGALORE-560001.
                                                                  ...RESPONDENT
                       (BY SRI. B LAKSHMAN, HCGP)
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYAN N
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA                THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
                       374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED
                       26.10.2016 AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 2.11.2016
                       PASSED BY THE II ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU IN
                       S.C.NO.151/2012   CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED
                       FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 326 AND 307 OF IPC AND ETC.

                            THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
                       JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
                              -2-
                                             NC: 2025:KHC:45112
                                       CRL.A No. 2006 of 2016


HC-KAR



CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA


                      ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The appellant-accused has preferred this appeal

against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence

passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Mysuru in

S.C.No.151/2012 dated 26.10.2016.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are

referred to as per their status before the trial Court.

3. The brief facts leading to this appeal is:

3.1. The Jayalakshmipuram Police has submitted the

charge sheet against the accused for the offence

punishable under Sections 326 and 307 IPC. It is alleged

by the prosecution that on 29.12.2011 at 12.10 p.m. near

the compound of Mahajana P.U. College, Mysuru, on the

ground that Smt.Madhuri Heggade (PW12/CW6) refused to

marry the accused and had married another person, the

accused assaulted her with chopper and caused injuries on

her right hand, left leg and cheek and caused grievous

NC: 2025:KHC:45112

HC-KAR

injury to the middle finger of her right hand by cutting that

finger. Further, it is alleged that the accused attempted to

commit murder of Smt.Madhuri Heggade with a chopper.

Thus, the accused has committed the offence punishable

under Sections 326 and 307 of IPC. After filing the charge

sheet, a case was registered in C.C.No.136/2012 on the

file of the JMFC (II Court) Mysore. Thereafter, the case

was committed to the Court of Sessions and case was

registered in S.C.No.151/2012. The accused was enlarged

and bail.

3.2. On hearing the parties, the Trial Court has

framed the charges against the accused for the

commission of offence punishable under Sections 326 and

307 of IPC. The same was read over and explained to the

accused. Having understood the same, the accused

pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3.3. To prove the guilt of the accused, in all 24

witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW24; 27 documents

NC: 2025:KHC:45112

HC-KAR

were marked as Ex.P1 to P27 and 8 material objects were

marked as M.O.Nos.1 to 8.

3.4. On closure of prosecution evidence, statement

under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. Accused has

denied the incriminating materials. He has filed written

statement under Section 313 of CrPC on 08.07.2016.

3.4. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the

Trial Court has convicted the accused for the offence

punishable under Sections 326 and 307 of IPC and

accused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for

a period of 2 years for each offence and also to pay a fine

of Rs.2,05,000/-. Out of the fine amount, Rs.2,00,000/- is

ordered to be paid as compensation to the victim,

Smt.Madhuri Heggade (PW12). Being aggrieved by the

judgment of conviction and order on sentence, the

appellant has preferred this appeal.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

appellant would submit that though the appellant has

questioned the order of conviction for the offences

NC: 2025:KHC:45112

HC-KAR

punishable under Sections 326 and 307 of Indian Penal

Code. Now the accused is not intending to challenge the

same and he only seeks for modification of the sentence

by reducing the period of sentence from 2 years to 346

days as the accused has already undergone the sentence

in judicial custody for a period of 346 days. It is also

submitted that the appellant has already remitted the fine

amount of Rs.2,05,000/-.

5. The Learned HCGP submitted that considering the

nature and gravity of offence, the Trial Court has rightly

imposed the sentence of 2 years for each offence, which

runs concurrently. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the

appeal.

6. Having heard the arguments on both sides and

perusal of the materials available on record, the points

that arise for consideration is:

a) Whether the appellant/accused is entitled

for modification of sentence as sought for?

     b)    What order?

                                                 NC: 2025:KHC:45112



HC-KAR

7. My answer to the above points are as under:

Point No.(1) - In the affirmative

Point No.(2) - As per final order.

Regarding Point No.1:

8. I have examined the materials placed before this

Court. The Trial court has convicted the accused for the

offence punishable under Sections 307 and 326 of IPC and

passed a sentence as under:

ORDER

• "The convict is sentenced to undergo S.I for a period of two years for each of offences punishable under the sections 326 and 307 of IPC and pay a fine of Rs.2,05,000/- (Rupees Two lakh five thousand) only.

• Acting under section 357 Cr.P.C. out of the fine amount Rs.2,00,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to the victim PW-12 - Madhuri Heggade. Rs.5,000/- which is the remaining fine amount is ordered to be defrayed towards prosecution expenses.

NC: 2025:KHC:45112

HC-KAR

• In default of payment of fine amount and compensation the convict is further sentenced to under go S.I for a period of six months.

• The above substantive sentences are directed to run concurrently.

• The convict is entitled for set off under section 428 of Cr.P.C for the period for which he was in custody during the investigation, enquiry and trial of this case.

• Copy of finding regarding guilt of convict and sentence imposed upon him shall be forwarded to the District Magistrate as required under section 365 of Cr.P.C,.

• Office is directed to furnish free copy of judgment to the accused forthwith."

9. While imposing the sentence, the Trial Court has

observed that the accused was in custody for 316 days

during investigation. It is submitted by the learned counsel

for the accused that after conviction, the accused was in

judicial custody for a period of 30 days and in all, the

accused was in custody for a period of 346 days.

NC: 2025:KHC:45112

HC-KAR

10. A perusal of the para No.53 of the judgment, the trial

Court has observed as under:

"PW-9 and 10 are the Medical officers who have examined the injured. PW-9 has operated the injured. To know the injuries suffered by PW:12 the discharge summary marked at ExP:9 is sufficient.

1. Auto amputation of Right middle finger at DIP joint.

2. Fracture of middle phalanx of Right Index finger.

3. Stellate laceration over dorsum of Right wrist

4. Oblique inceration over dorsum of Right forearm in lower 1/3 severing most of the extensors and severe wrist drop present.

5. Laceration over Right Malar 2 inches X 2 inches.

6. Laceration over slept knee on inner side 2 inches X 2 inches.

54. Ex.P:6 which is a operation record notes further throws light upon the minute details of the injuries sustained by the PW:12".

11. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the

accused that now the age of the accused is 40 years and

has aged mother, grand mother and wife who are the

dependents upon him. He is the only earning member in

the family. Hence, sought for reduction of sentence.

NC: 2025:KHC:45112

HC-KAR

12. Considering the nature and gravity of offences and

also injuries caused to the victim, I am of the opinion that

it is just and proper to modify the sentence as sought for.

Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 in the affirmative.

Regarding Point No.2:

13. For the foregoing reasons and discussions, I proceed

to pass the following:

ORDER

i) Appeal is partly allowed;

ii) The judgment of conviction passed by the II Addl. Sessions Judge, Mysuru dated 26.10.2016 in S.C No.151/2012 is confirmed;

iii) The order on sentence passed by the II Addl. Sessions Judge, Mysuru dated 02.11.2016 in S.C No.151/2012 is modified as under;

a. Appellant shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 346 days for each offence under Section 326 and 307 of

- 10 -

                                                    NC: 2025:KHC:45112



 HC-KAR




           Indian        Penal   Code       and    pay    fine    of
           Rs.2,05,000/-.

      b.    The     above        sentences        shall   to     run
           concurrently.

      c.    It is submitted that the fine amount of

Rs.2,05,000/- is already deposited by the accused.

d. The trial Court is directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to PW12-Smt.Madhuri Heggade as per the judgment passed by the trial Court and remaining Rs.5,000/- shall be remitted to the State.

e. Registry is directed to send the copy of this order along with Trial Court records to the trial Court.

Sd/-

(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE

DM,KBM