Karnataka High Court
State By Circle Inspector Of Police vs Raghunatha on 10 January, 2022
Author: B. Veerappa
Bench: B. Veerappa
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA
AND
THE HON'BLE Mrs. JUSTICE M.G. UMA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.433/2020
BETWEEN:
STATE BY CIRCLE INSPECTOR
OF POLICE, BANGARPET CIRCLE,
BANGARPET, REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI .K., HCGP)
AND:
1. RAGHUNATHA
S/O NARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/AT KAMASAMUDRAM VILLAGE,
BANGARPET TALUK, K.G.F.
2. MANJUNATHA
S/O RAMAKRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
2
R/AT GOLLAHALLI VILLAGE,
BANGARPET TALUK, K.G.F.
... RESPONDENTS
(RESPONDENTS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 377 CR.P.C
BY THE STATE P.P. FOR THE STATE PRAYING TO MODIFY THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 17.06.2019 IN S.C.NO.276/2014
PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
KOLAR (SITTING AT K.G.F). IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO
IMPOSING INADEQUATE SENTENCE FOR DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF
FINE ON THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.
302 R/W SEC. 34 OF IPC.
THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2 ARE SENTENCED
TO UNDERGO IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE AND TO PAY FINE OF
RS.7500/- FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S. 302 R/W SEC. 34 OF IPC.
AFORESAID SENTENCE SHALL RUN CONCURRENTLY.
THE SPP PRAYS THAT THE ABOVE ORDER OF CONVICTION
MAY BE ENHANCED SUITABLY.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, B.VEERAPPA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
JUDGMENT
The State filed the present appeal against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.06.2019 in S.C.No.276/2014 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kolar (Sitting at K.G.F.) for convicting the accused persons but not imposing the fine as default sentence for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B and 302 read with Section 34 of IPC against accused persons and in the prayer they confined the appeal for seeking modification of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, in so far as it relates to imposing inadequate sentence in default of payment of fine on the respondents/accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. The respondents/accused Nos.1 and 2 filed Criminal Appeal No.1389/2019 and this Court after hearing both the parties, by order dated 14.07.2021, allowed the said appeal in part. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence was modified and accused persons were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-I IPC and sentenced to undergo 4 imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.75,000/- each and in default, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years, giving benefit under the provisions of Section 428 of Cr.P.C. The said order passed by this Court on the appeal filed by the accused persons has reached finality.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that deceased-Ramu, who was father of CW.1-Lokanathan had taken away CW.1 along with him, after there were misunderstandings in the business run by CW.1 and accused No.1 on account of the loss sustained and hence accused No.1 had enmity with him. Therefore, accused Nos.1 and 2 hatched a conspiracy to commit the murder of the deceased- Ramu. On 06.05.2015, charges were framed against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B and 302 of IPC and the accused persons have denied the said charges and claimed to be tried.
4. In order to prove the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution examined 23 witnesses as PWs.1 to 23 and got marked Exs.P1 to P20 and material objects as MOs.1 to 8.
5
5. The learned Sessions Judge recorded the statements of accused Nos.1 and 2 under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., and further proceeded to convict the accused persons and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.7,500/- each for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B and 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. As already stated above, the accused persons filed criminal appeal No.1389/2019 before this Court and this Court by order dated 14.07.2021 allowed the appeal in part and modified the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, convicting the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-I IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.75,000/- each and in default, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years, giving benefit under the provisions of Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
6. The Criminal Appeal No.1389/2019 filed by the accused persons, in all fairness was brought to the notice of this Court. Though the present appeal is filed only for enhancement of fine and to modify the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence insofar as imposing inadequate sentence for default of 6 payment of fine on the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC, this Court, in Criminal Appeal No.1389/2019 decided the matter on merits and held that the accused persons have made out a case to modify the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and convicted the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-I IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.75,000/- each and in default, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years, giving benefit under the provisions of Section 428 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the present appeal challenging only the inadequate sentence for default of payment of fine on the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC, would not survive for consideration. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the State is hereby disposed as devoid of merits as this Court already convicted the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-I IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.75,000/- each and in default, they shall undergo simple 7 imprisonment for a period of three years, giving benefit under the provisions of Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
7. In view of the above, we pass the following:
ORDER Criminal appeal is disposed off with the observations stated supra.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE SMJ