Karnataka High Court
Sri Guruprasad vs State By Kamakshipalya Police on 6 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:5427
CRL.A No. 464 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 464 OF 2013 (C)
BETWEEN:
SRI. GURUPRASAD
S/O SHESHAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 34 YERS,
RESIDING AT 2ND CROSS,
2ND MAIN ROAD,
SALLAPURADAMMA LAYOUT,
SUNKADAKATTE,
BANGALORE-560 091.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RITHIK Y.M, AMECUS CURIAE)
AND:
STATE BY KAMAKSHIPALYA POLICE
Digitally signed by REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
MAYAGAIAH HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
VINUTHA
BANGALORE.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF ...RESPONDENT
KARNATAKA (BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K, HCGP)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S. 374(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:20.3.13 PASSED BY THE
P.O., FTC-XVII, BANGALORE CITY IN S.C.NO.1033/12 -
CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES
P/U/S 324, 504, 427 OF IPC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:5427
CRL.A No. 464 of 2013
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal by the convicted accused is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed in S.C.No.1033/2012 dated 20.03.2013 by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track (Sessions) Court - XVII, Bengaluru City, whereby the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 504 and 427 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,500/-, and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC. Further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC. Further, sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 427 of IPC. Further it was directed that all substantive sentences shall run concurrently. -3-
NC: 2025:KHC:5427 CRL.A No. 464 of 2013
2. The abridged facts of the case are that:
On 06.02.2012, between 4 to 4.30 p.m., at 2nd Cross, 2nd Main Road of Salapuradamma Layout, Sunkadakatte, the accused damaged the door of the house belonging to PW.2 and CW.5 and verbally abused them by picking a row with PW.1 and assaulted him with a size stone i.e., MO.1 on his head. Owing to the assault, the accused sustained bleeding injuries and was admitted to Mallige Hospital, Hegganahalli, Bengaluru for treatment and thereafter, a compliant was lodged against the accused on the same day at about 6.00 p.m. as per Ex.P1. On the strength of Ex.P1, an FIR was registered against the accused in Cr.No.85/2012 dated 06.02.2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 427, 504, 307 and 324 of IPC as per Ex.P6. Subsequently, PW.12-PSI of respondent Police investigated the matter and laid the charge-sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences.
3. In order to prove the charges levelled against the accused before the Sessions Court, the prosecution collectively examined 12 witnesses, marked 7 documents as Exs.P1 to P7 and identified two material objects.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:5427 CRL.A No. 464 of 2013
4. On assessment of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 324, 504 and 427 of IPC and sentenced him as stated supra. The said judgment is challenged in this appeal.
5. I have heard the learned Amicus Curiae Sri. Rithik.Y.M. for the appellant and the learned HCGP Sri. Rahuk Rai.K for the respondent and perused the material on record.
6. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Sessions Judge has erred while convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 504 and 427 of IPC without duly appreciating the evidence available on record in right perspective. He contended that the evidence of PW.1-injured suffered from grievous infirmities. The contents of the compliant-Ex.P1 lodged by PW.1 does not corroborate with his evidence and the wounds he sustained as per Ex.P7-wound certificate. Further, the eyewitness-PW.2 is a chance witness to the prosecution and on perusal of his evidence he has admitted that though he had witnessed the incident, he failed to lodge a complaint and -5- NC: 2025:KHC:5427 CRL.A No. 464 of 2013 inform the same to anybody. It appears that this witness appeared out of the blue and thereafter he disappeared into thin air. In such circumstances, his version cannot be relied upon to prove the charges levelled against the accused. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal.
7. Per contra, the learned HCGP contended that the learned Sessions Judge after examining the evidence at length, convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 504 and 427 of IPC in a well reasoned judgment, which does not call for any interference. He contended that the evidence of PW.1-injured complainant and PW.2-eye witness corroborates with each other and both of them have categorically deposed that the assault was perpetrated by the accused using MO.1 on PW.1. Further, the said evidence also corroborates with the contents of Ex.P7-wound certificate. In such circumstances, there is no reason to discard the evidence of PW.1. As such, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly convicted the accused for the aforementioned offences. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal. -6-
NC: 2025:KHC:5427 CRL.A No. 464 of 2013
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of documents made available before me, the sole point that surface for consideration is:
"Whether the learned Sessions Judge is justified in convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 504 and 427 of IPC and whether any inference is required in the impugned judgment?
9. It could be seen from the records that in order to prove the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution has predominantly relied on the evidence of PW.1-injured and PW.2 and PW.3, who are the eye witnesses to the incident. On perusal of the evidence of PW.1, by reiterating the contents of Ex.P1, he deposed that on the date of incident i.e., on 06.02.2012 at about 1.00 p.m., he witnessed the accused pelting stones on the door and also on the vehicles parked in front of his residence. When confronted the accused assaulted him with a size stone on his head, saying who he was to question the said act. Thereafter, he was admitted to Mallige Hospital and was treated for the injuries sustained. Following which a complaint was lodged on the same day i.e., Ex.P1. Further, PW.1 also identified MO.1-stone which was used by the -7- NC: 2025:KHC:5427 CRL.A No. 464 of 2013 accused in the crime. This evidence of PW.1 clearly corroborates with the testimony of PW.2-eye witness to the incident, he also reiterated the version of PW.1 and identified MO.1. PW.3-wife of PW.1 also deposed similar to that of PW.1 regarding the assault perpetrated by the accused using MO.1 on PW.1. Hence, on careful reading of the evidence of PW.1 to PW.3, all these witnesses have categorically stated that on the date of incident, the accused pelted stones on the door of PW.1's residence and further assaulted him on his head with Mo.1.
10. Further, on perusal of Ex.P7-wound certificate marked following the evidence of PW.12-Investigating Officer establishes that PW.1 sustained lacerated wound on his forehead and also abrasion on both knee-joints. Hence, the evidence of PW.1 and other eye-witnesses unambiguously corroborates with the contents of Ex.P7-wound certificate. Though the author of Ex.P7 has not been examined, nevertheless, the genuineness of the said document cannot be discarded for the said reason. Further, on perusal of the evidence of PW.6 and PW.8, it can be gathered that they have categorically deposed about drawing of Ex.P2-spot mahazar -8- NC: 2025:KHC:5427 CRL.A No. 464 of 2013 and seizure of MO.1 i.e., size stone which was used by the accused in the crime. In such circumstances, the prosecution also proved the recovery of MO.1.
11. On perusal of the evidence of the above material witnesses in this case, none of the witnesses have stated the reason and motive behind the incident. Per contra, it is the case of the prosecution that the accused was inebriated during the incident. In such circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 504 and 427 of IPC.
12. Though the accused was charged for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC, however, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused under Sections 324 and 504 of IPC by imposing imprisonment and fine. Albeit both these offences are punishable either by imposing fine or imprisonment, as such, the sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 504 of IPC may be modified by imposing reasonable fine instead of imprisonment as imposed by the Trial Court. -9-
NC: 2025:KHC:5427 CRL.A No. 464 of 2013
13. On perusal of the facts and circumstances of this case, the incident was caused by the accused without intention, motive and premeditation, however, it occurred owing to the accused being inebriated. In such circumstances, by considering the peculiar facts of the case and taking into consideration that the incident occurred in the year 2012 and that the accused is on bail for the last 13 years, my discernment compels that rather than sentencing the accused to undergo imprisonment, imposing reasonable fine and default sentence would meet the ends of justice.
14. Accordingly, by confirming the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court, the sentence imposed by the Trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 504 of IPC calls for modification. Against this backdrop, I answer the point raised supra in partly affirmative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed in part.
ii) The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed in S.C.No.1033/2012 dated 20.03.2013 by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track (Sessions) Court - XVII,
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5427 CRL.A No. 464 of 2013 Bengaluru City is hereby modified in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 504 of IPC.
iii) The accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC. Further, the accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine he shall undergo simple imprisonment for two months for the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC.
iv) The sentence imposed by the Trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 427 of IPC is hereby kept intact.
v) The accused shall deposit the fine amount within four weeks from the date of receiving the certified copy of this judgment.
vi) If the accused failed to deposit the fine amount, the learned Sessions Judge is directed to secure presence of the accused and consign him to prison to undergo default sentence.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5427 CRL.A No. 464 of 2013
vii) If the accused deposits the fine amount, then learned Sessions Judge is requested to notify the same to PW.1-K.T.Kumar and disburse Rs.35,000/- to him on due identification.
viii) The bail bond executed by the accused shall stand cancelled.
ix) The default sentence shall run concurrently. The Karnataka State Legal Services Authority is directed to pay Rs.15,000/- to Sri. Rithik.Y.M., Amicus Curiae for the appellant, who has rendered his assistance in this matter.
SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE VM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16