[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
M Hariprakash vs State Of Karnataka on 20 January, 2026
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:2903-DB
CRL.A No. 2052 of 2017
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2052 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
M HARIPRAKASH
S/O LATE MUNIPOOJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R/O CHOKKANDONAHALLI VILLAGE
MALUR TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563130
...APPELLANT
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M (BY MS. TEJASWINI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SHANKARAPPA S, ADVOCATE)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY MALUR P S
REP BY SPP
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BANGALORE - 560001
2. GURAPPA
S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:2903-DB
CRL.A No. 2052 of 2017
HC-KAR
3. HARISHA
S/O GURAPPA
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
4. MUNISHAMI
S/O GURAPPA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
R/O CHOKKANDAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
MALUR TALUK
KOLAR - 563130
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP FOR R1;
SRI VEERANNA G TIGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.372 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED
09.06.2017 PASSED IN S.C.NO.96/2013 BY THE I ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLAR AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:2903-DB
CRL.A No. 2052 of 2017
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)
This appeal is filed questioning the judgment of acquittal
of accused persons for the offence punishable under Section
307 read with Section 34 of IPC and prayed this Court to
convict respondent Nos.2 to 4 for the offence punishable under
Section 307 of IPC.
2. The factual matrix of case of the prosecution that
accused Nos.1 to 3 on 26.10.2012 at 9:45 p.m., when the
informant was dumping the plants in the vacant space abutting
to his house, at that time, accused No.1 who is the neighbour
spitted on him. When the informant told accused No.1-
Gurappa to be cautious while spitting, he abused him in a filthy
language. The sons of Gurappa i.e., Accused Nos.2 and 3 were
also came to spot and accused No.2 assaulted the informant
with bicycle pump on his right side head which caused bleeding
injury. The remaining persons assaulted the informant with
brick and club, as a result, he had sustained injury to right ribs
and back and he has suffered simple injuries. The Gurappa
threatened informant telling his sons to kill him. There was a
NC: 2026:KHC:2903-DB
HC-KAR
civil dispute between informant and the said persons and the
civil suit is pending in the Court at Malur. Due to the said ill-
will, accused have assaulted the informant. One Krishnappa
and Gangaraja shifted injured to the hospital for treatment and
hence, complaint was given in terms of Ex.P.1 and case was
registered in Cr.No.256/2012 and FIR is marked as Ex.P.6. The
Police having registered the case, investigated the matter and
concluded the investigation and filed the charge sheet against
the accused persons for the offences punishable under Section
323, 324, 326, 504, 506 and 307 r/w Section 34 of IPC. The
Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Malur having received the charge
sheet taken the cognizance and registered the case in
C.C.No.111/2013. The accused persons were secured and
committed the matter to the Sessions Court since the offences
are triable by the Sessions Court.
3. The Sessions Judge after receipt of the committal
records, registered the same as S.C.No.96/2013 and presence
of the accused was secured and accused persons did not plead
guilty and they claims the trial. In order to prove the case of
prosecution, prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.12 and got
marked the documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8 and also got marked
NC: 2026:KHC:2903-DB
HC-KAR
MO.1 to MO.4. The accused persons were subjected to 313
statement and they have not lead any evidence and denied the
incriminating evidence. The Trial Court having considered both
oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted
the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section
324 r/w Section 34 of IPC and acquitted the accused for other
offences. The Trial Court having convicted the accused persons
sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for
the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w Section 34 of
IPC. The Trial Court also invoking Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C,
ordered that A1 to A3 shall pay the fine amount of Rs.15,000/-
to P.W.1 as compensation. It is also made it clear that even if
the accused undergoes for the default sentence, they are not
absolved of their liability to pay the fine amount in view of the
proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 421 of Cr.P.C. The period
spent by the accused as under-trial prisoners shall be given set
off against the substantive sentence of imprisonment now
imposed.
4. Being aggrieved by the acquittal for the offence
punishable under Section 307 read with 34 of IPC, the present
NC: 2026:KHC:2903-DB
HC-KAR
appeal is filed by the injured P.W.1. The main contention urged
in this appeal is that the Trial Court gravely erred in acquitting
accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 307
of IPC which is manifestly erroneous and evidence of both oral
and documentary evidence has not been properly considered by
the Trial Court. The Court below gravely erred when evidence
of P.W.1 is clear that respondents have assaulted on vital parts
of the body with an intention to take away the life of the
appellant and this aspect is ignored by the Court below. The
Court below gravely erred that P.W.7 is a Doctor who issued
Ex.P.5-wound certificate and has opined that injuries 1 to 3 are
simple in nature and the 4th injury is grievous in nature and this
aspect is ignored by the Court below. The Court below gravelly
erred that P.W.11 the Doctor who examined the appellant on
26.10.2012 has noticed lacerated wound over right temporal
region sutured, Abrasion over right and left 2nd rib, abrasion of
around right lumbar region, tenderness and swelling over upper
part of forearm and abrasion over right parietotemporal region
and has further deposed that right temporal depressed fracture
with specks of pneumocephaly and has further opined that the
injuries are grievous in nature. It is also contended that patient
NC: 2026:KHC:2903-DB
HC-KAR
was discharged on 13.11.2012 and he was treated for about 19
days and discharge summary is also marked as Ex.P.7. The
Trial Court has ignored the evidence of P.W.11. The Court
below gravelly erred that P.W.12 another Doctor who examined
the appellant on 26.10.2012 on 7:15 PM has noticed right
temporal depressed fracture with speck of pneumocephalus
(When the injury breaches the layer duramater of brain) and
the report is marked as Ex.P.8 and this aspect is also ignored
by the Trial Court.
5. The counsel during the course of argument also
brought to notice of this Court that there is no dispute with
regard to the fact that there was a land dispute between the
parties. The counsel also would contend that the parties are
relatives and injury No.4 is grievous in nature and that there
was depressed fracture and the document Ex.P.8 also
evidenced the said fact. The evidence of Doctors P.W.11 and
P.W.12 is very clear regarding nature of injuries are concerned.
The Doctor P.W.11 who is the treated Doctor has been
examined under whom the injured took the treatment for a
period of 19 days. The counsel also would vehemently contend
that when the injured was taken to hospital and the Doctor who
NC: 2026:KHC:2903-DB
HC-KAR
treated at the first instance referred the patient to Victoria
Hospital and he was again referred to Nimhans Hospital and
certificate issued by the Nimhans Hospital is very clear that he
had suffered depressed fracture. The counsel would vehemently
contend that the weapons which have been used for
committing the offence are bicycle pump and also the club and
stone. The accused No.2 inflicted the injury with bicycle pump
on the victim and accused Nos.1 and 3 assaulted with club and
stone. The evidence of injured corresponds with nature of
injuries.
6. The counsel also would vehemently contend that
when the accused Nos.2 and 3 came to the spot, accused No.1
says not to leave PW1 and this evidence is very clear that with
an intention to take away the life, an assault was made with
the bicycle pump, club and stone. The counsel also would
submit that during the course of cross-examination, suggested
to the P.W.1 that there was a civil dispute and hence,
categorically admitted the motive for committing the offence.
The counsel would vehemently contend that the Trial Court
committed an error only in convicting the accused for the
offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC and that too
NC: 2026:KHC:2903-DB
HC-KAR
imposed only fine and not imposed any sentence and only
imposed the default sentence. The Trial Court committed an
error in acquitting the accused for the offence punishable under
Section 504, 506 and 307 r/w Section 34 of IPC. The counsel
would contend that the evidence of P.W.1 is very clear that civil
dispute is going on between P.W.1 and accused No.1. The
prosecution also relies upon the evidence of P.W.2 who is an
eye witness and also a mahazar witness to Ex.P.4 and P.W.2
went to the house of P.W.1 to collect a workers card at 9:30
a.m., and incident was taken place at 9:45 a.m. The evidence
of P.W.3 is also very clear that he is an eye witness and he was
driving his Auto and going to Chokkondahalli and he witnessed
the incident. The counsel would contend that P.W.4 is examined
to prove the mahazar Ex.P.4 and recovery of MO.1 to MO.4.
7. The other witness is P.W.5 eye witness who is the
mother of P.W.1 had witnessed the incident. The P.W.6 is
Manjunath who is a mahazar witness in respect of Ex.P.4. The
witnesses P.W.4 and P.W.6 are mahazar witnesses to Ex.P.4
with regard to recovery of MO.1 to MO.4. The counsel would
vehemently contend that the Doctor P.W.7 who had treated at
the first instance at Malur Hospital and examined the injured on
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2903-DB
HC-KAR
the very same day at 10:30 a.m., and issued the wound
certificate as per Ex.P.5. Though injury No.1, 2, 3 and 5 are
simple in nature, but injury No.4 is grievous in nature, the fact
that P.W.7 had referred the patient to Victoria Hospital in not in
dispute. The counsel would vehemently contend that in order to
prove that the documents stands in the name of father of P.W.1
examined P.W.8 Gram Panchayat Secretary in respect of Ex.P.2
and Ex.P.3 that is demand register extract and assessment
register extract standing in the name of the Munipoojappa who
is the father of P.W.1.
8. The P.W.9 is ASI who had recorded the statement
of P.W.1 in Malur Govrenment Hospital as per Ex.P.1 having
received the information about the incident and he went and
recorded the statement on 26.10.2012 at 1:45 p.m.
9. The P.W.10 is Malur Police Station PSI speaks about
he had received the message from the Government Hospital on
26.10.2012 at 12:30 and immediately he has sent the P.W.9 to
take the statement of the victim and who also conducted the
spot mahazar on the same day at 4:30 to 5:30 p.m., and so
also recorded statements of P.W.2 and P.W.5 on the very same
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2903-DB
HC-KAR
day. The PSI also recorded the statement of P.W.1, P.W.3,
C.W.3 and C.W.5 on 14.11.2012 and so also received the
wound certificate on 20.12.2012 that is Ex.P.5 from P.W.7. The
counsel would contend that spot extract from Gram Panchayat
officer that is P.W.8 was collected on 25.12.2012 that is Ex.P.2
and Ex.P.3. The counsel would contend that P.W.11 is the
Doctor who has treated the injured at Victoria Hospital and
examined him on the date of the incident at 4:15 p.m., and
issued the discharge summary as per Ex.P.7 and this document
is very clear that he had suffered the fracture. The Doctor
P.W.12 who is the Neurosurgeon of Nimhans Hospital who
examined the injured at 7:15 p.m., on the very same day when
the injured was referred to the Nimhans Hospital from Victoria
Hospital and injured was subjected to CT scan and found the
head injury of right temporal depressed fracture with speck of
pneumocephalus and document Ex.P.8 is very clear that the
said injury could be caused due to hit by the bicycle.
10. The counsel referring the oral evidence and
documentary evidence, would vehemently contend that the
Trial Court has not considered the material on record in proper
prospective and even MO.1 to MO.4 bicycle pump, club, brick
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2903-DB
HC-KAR
and T-shirt which contains the blood stains are also marked.
The defense only relies upon Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2 that is
deposition of P.W.2 in C.C.No.204/2008 and assessment
register extract as Ex.P.2. The counsel would vehemently
contend that the Trial Court committed an error in not
appreciating both oral and documentary evidence available on
record and committed an error in acquitting the accused for the
offence punishable under Section 504, 506 and 307 of IPC and
prayed the Court to convict the accused persons for the offence
punishable under Section 307 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
11. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the
State would reiterate the grounds which have been urged by
the counsel appearing for the appellant/victim and submits that
the evidence of doctors i.e., PW11 and 12 is very clear that the
victim had sustained the depressed fracture that too on the
vital part and the Trial Court ought to have convicted the
accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 307
of IPC.
12. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents/accused persons would vehemently contend that
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2903-DB
HC-KAR
the Trial Court in detail considered both oral and documentary
evidence available on record and also taken note of the
evidence of the doctor-PW7 who treated the injured at the
earliest point of time. The counsel also would submit that Trial
Court taken note of the evidence of PW11 and PW12 and the
Prosecution fails to produce any document to show that the
injured had suffered the fracture and no X-ray is produced
before the Court and the same is also taken note of by the Trial
Court. The counsel also would submit that the Trial Court also
taken note of the judgment of this Court reported in (2011) 4
KCCR 2759 in the case of STATE VS. SHEENAPPA GOWDA
AND OTHERS wherein this Court held that it is well settled
that unless the prosecution produces the X-ray for confirmation
of fracture obtained by the doctor on medical examination
clinically, it cannot be said that the accused have caused
grievous injury of fracture. Hence, not accepted the case. The
counsel also submit that even not proved the case for the
offences punishable under Sections 307 and 326 of IPC and
only convicted the accused for the offence punishable under
Section 324 of IPC and imposed the fine. The counsel also
would submit that incident was taken place in connection with
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2903-DB
HC-KAR
land dispute between the parties and there was civil dispute
and the Court has to take note of the same and dismiss the
appeal.
13. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties and also on perusal of the material on
record, the Points that would arise for the consideration of this
appeal before the Court are:
1. Whether the Trial Court committed an error in
coming to the conclusion that the prosecution
failed to prove the case that there was an
intention to take away the life and the same
also not amounts to invoking Section 326 of
IPC and whether it requires interference of
this Court?
2. Whether the Trial Court committed an error in
imposing the fine of Rs.5,000/- having
accepted the evidence of the victim as well as
eyewitness evidence and whether it requires
modification of the sentence?
3. What order?
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2903-DB
HC-KAR
Points Nos.1 and 2:
14. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties and also on perusal of the material on
record, this Court has to take note of the dispute between the
parties and there was a civil dispute between the parties and
the injured supported the case of prosecution and eyewitnesses
have also supported the case of prosecution. Hence, there was
a scuffle between the parties and the same is also accepted by
the Trial Court while convicting the accused for the offence
punishable under Section 324 of IPC.
15. Having perused the complaint which is marked as
Ex.P1, it discloses that an allegation is made that accused No.2
assaulted the injured-Hariprasad with a bicycle pump on the
head, as a result, he had sustained bleeding injury and accused
Nos.1 and 3 assaulted with brick and club, as a result, he had
sustained injury on his back. PW1 also deposed that Gurappa
told to his sons to inflict injury on the neck and abuse in a filthy
language. Having considered this Ex.P1 which came into
existence immediately after the incident and having considered
the evidence of PW1-injured and other witnesses, it discloses
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2903-DB
HC-KAR
that accused persons were discussing to take away the life, but
no one speaks that Guruppa instigated to aim his blow on the
neck. But in the evidence of injured as well as eye witnesses,
nothing is found with regard to the intention to take away the
life and accused aimed to cause the injury. While invoking
Section 307 of IPC, there must be an intention to take away the
life and also the blow for which they aimed to take away the life
of the injured and the same is missing. Hence, we do not find
any ground to invoke Section 307 of IPC.
16. However, the learned counsel appearing for the
appellate would vehemently contend that Trial Court committed
an error in not convicting the accused for the offence
punishable under Section 324 of IPC since there is a depressed
fracture. No doubt, the counsel brought to notice of this Court
the evidence of PW11 wherein he deposed regarding nature of
injuries and also the injury No.5 as per evidence of PW11 is 2x2
cm abrasion over right parietotemporal region and patient was
advised to take CT brain; chest X-ray; X-ray of right forearm
AP and lateral view; X-ray of right leg AP and lateral view and
complete hemogram and investigation was also done. The
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2903-DB
HC-KAR
doctor refers that there was a CT brain, right temporal
depressed fracture with specks of pneumocephaly and no
evidence of parenchymal injury and opined that it is a grievous
injury and could be caused by recent assault.
17. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court the
evidence of PW12 who is also the doctor who treated the
injured in NIMHANS, Bangalore and PW11 is the doctor at
Victoria Hospital. PW12 also says that CT scan of his head and
found injury of right temporal depressed fracture with speck of
pneumocephalus and no evidence of parenchymal injury. The
evidence of PW11 is also reiterated by PW12. In the cross
examination of PW11, he admits that he has not given any
certificates with respect to the injury sustained by PW1 but
Ex.P7 discharge summary was marked and no certificate was
issued. The counsel relies upon Ex.P7 that there was a
discharge summary, but not produced any CT brain X-ray. So
also PW12 speaks only based on further evaluation, CT scan
but CT scan is not before the Court. No doubt, Division Bench
of this Court in the case of SHEENAPPA GOWDA referred
supra held that if no X-ray is produced, only if report is given
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2903-DB
HC-KAR
based on the clinical examination, then question of invoking
Section 326 and 307 of IPC does not arise. Even the appellant
has not made any effort to produce the CT scan before this
Court by filing any application under Section 391 of Cr.P.C.
However, this Court has to take note of the nature of injury
spoken by PW11 and PW12 and there was a depressed
fracture, but no evidentiary material before the Court to comes
to such a conclusion. When such being the case, the Trial Court
taken note of nature of injuries and not accepted the evidence
of PW11 and PW12 in the absence of CT scan relying upon the
judgment of Division Bench of this Court.
18. However, the Trial Court lost sight while considering
the nature of injuries and also disbelieved the evidence of
PW11 and PW12 on the ground that the injured went to
hospital subsequently. But the fact is that at the first instance,
he went to the hospital of PW7 and took first aid and then
injured was referred to the higher center. Accordingly, he went
to the Victoria Hospital and Victoria Hospital doctor treated him
and also he was again referred to NIMHANS on the very same
day and injured was examined by PW11 in the evening. PW12
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2903-DB
HC-KAR
examined him at around 07.00 p.m., onwards and sent back
and he was hospitalised in Victoria Hospital for a period of 19
days. The Trial Court fails to take note of this aspect into
consideration while sentencing. When the injured was inflicted
with the bicycle pump and also with bricks and club, the Trial
Court ought to have been taken note of the same and also the
period of treatment. But, no sentence was imposed except
imposing fine of Rs.5,000/- which is not commensurate with
the nature of injuries and also the period of hospitalisation for
19 days. Imposing fine of Rs.5,000/- is only a peanut when the
injured took the treatment in the hospital for a period of 19
days in three different hospitals. Thus, this Court confirmed the
judgment of the Trial Court for the offence punishable under
Section 324 of IPC. We felt that the fine has to be increased
and there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the incident
was taken place in view of the civil dispute between the parties
and also they are the neighbours. Taking into consideration of
this fact, enhancement of fine amount would be an appropriate
remedy to the injured. Hence, we answer Point No.1 as
negative and Point No.2 as partly in affirmative.
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2903-DB
HC-KAR
Point No.3:
19. In view of the discussions made above, we pass the
following:
ORDER
The Criminal appeal is allowed in part.
The judgment of conviction dated 09.06.2017
passed in S.C.No.96/2013 for the offence punishable
under Section 324 of IPC is confirmed.
The judgment of Trial Court with regard to the
sentence is concerned, without invoking any sentence of
imprisonment, having considered the date of offence,
enhanced the fine amount to Rs.50,000/- each payable by
accused Nos.1 to 3 and on deposit, the Trial Court is
directed to pay the amount of Rs.1,40,000/- to the
injured and remaining amount of Rs.10,000/- shall vest
with the State.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
RHS/SN
