K R Rangappa S/O K Romappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 March, 2008

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

K R Rangappa S/O K Romappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 March, 2008

Bench: K.Sreedhar Rao

I?

(3.121. A0
C21. A.

IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA AT aHGHLGHGf¥G--

DATED THIS THE: 2.8"' DAY 05!   

PRESENT 3 *""°

THE HON'BLE M. JUS@IC£_ KQGHHGGHARQRAG5

-as-up-u---u----

5$ﬁIMf$AL"ﬁEPEALfN©;1967/2005

- gum-..-

CRIMINAL AEGGAL so.2¢12z2aos .(c)

IN CRL.A nojaoiz or 2505 ._ 5
BGIHGGH. G    k% % u  

K R RANGAPEA. .

s/o K ROMﬂPPA.ﬁGEﬁ 33 YEARS,

 OCC:»i€GﬁfC'ULTUT%Ea... %%%%% 

 G VDAVANAGEBE . . .

Rio JIGALI"vILLAGE,TALuK HARIHAR
APPELLANT

{Gt ski} H s QHIVAPRASAD, ADV.)

fV%]@HEGsTHrE or KARNAGAKA
°GB¥'MBLEBENNUR POLICE

~»°H°"°¢HNm=a 3! STATE PUBLIC

I\l2l_§ l\I€ll-IIIIIV l I-"cl

 j»GpRoGGcuToR. HIGH couar BUILDING
»_GHNGnLGaE~G1 ...

(BY SRI.G.BHAVENI SINGH, SPP¥II)

110.2012/2005 .
"°*1G937/999% V



Crl . A. NCL2012/2005
C/wi

Crl. A. 140.1967/2005

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL Is EILED U/s,a747I2)
CR.P.C BY TEE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED
AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT DT.l7-9-O5 TEsEEE"BE TEE,
s.J., DAVANAGRE, IN s.c.No.192/2o00ac0NvIcTING'.
THE APEELLANT~ACcUsED FOR THE OFFENCE E/U/s_302ﬁ'"
OF IEC AND EENTENCING HIM 'TO_KUNDERGO "LIFE
IMPRISONMENT AND To PAY EINE,oE-Es;2oooo/4; Imp.
TO UNDERGO IMPRISONMENT FOR 5zMoNTEs.T;I«'~ »=.'.

IN cRL.A NO 1967 OF 2005'~"

BETWEEN

l HANUMANTHAPPA
S/O K REMEEPA g
AGE 33 TEENS

2 EIDDATEA E"E' _
s/QMK'EAMAEPA
AGE 3 T" 3

3 KEEEABASANNAEA~EAsEvAEAJAPpA
s/o'GQvINDAPPA».¥
AGE 46~TEARE "

 V'   " A ..... .. 'V
f._sjo,GQvINDAPPA
    AGEEITS4 TEARS

A. CHANNﬁBﬁSAPEA
"S/O GOVINDAPPA
AGE 33 YEARS

:31  " .

 "-.V5v_ TTEKANUR SHIVAJI
' V. "S/0 RAMAPPA
AGE 41 YEARS

'*7 POOJARI BEERAPPA
S/O EIEEAEPE



Crl. A. NO.2012/2005
C/w.
Crl. A. NO.1967/2005

AGE 27 YEARS

(33

ALL ARE AGRICULTURISTS
R/O JIGALI VILLAGE
TALUK HARIHAR

DIST DAYANAGERE =f', "Y.;,APPEELANTs
(BY BBI. Y S sBIvfPRAG'D;--ADv;E
__9

THE STATE OE,EARNATAKA_y M

BY MALEBENNUR EOLIGEG1' W."'"w*
REPRESENTED BY ETATE PUBLIC? ,3
PROsEcuTOR,_MIGH COURT BUILDTNG
BANGALORE~0I; '" '.-. *«m=

... RESPONDENT

BY SRI.G.BHAVAﬁI'SINGﬁ, SPP~II}

p-.

THIS CRL A TEEED U/3.374(2) CR.P.C. BY THE
ADVOGATE FOR THE APPELLANTS AGAINST THE JUDGMENT

=<YDT.j'E7,9.o5 EAESEI: BY 'THE s.J., DAVANGERE, IN

s.c{NO;192f2DDD ~ GONVIGTING THE

OeAPPEELANTsAACcusED NOs.3 TO 7, 11, 17 AND 22 FOR

TEE OPEEN¢EjEfU/s.324 OF IPC AND SENTENCING THEM
TO DNDERGO R.I. FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AND TO
PAY FINE-OF RS.3000/- EACH AND I.D., TO PAY THE

._M_ xEINE, THEY SHALL UNDERGO FURTHER IMPRISONMENT
'"p*_FOR A PERIOD OF ONE MONTH.

. qA=~THEsE CRIMINAL APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND

»E"'REsEBvED, COMING ON FOR PRONODNGEMENT OF

_*-JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, PAGBHAPURE. J., DELIVERED
*.THE FOLLOWING:



1

('of persons near a tractor.

Crl. A. NO.2012/2005
Crl. A. NO.196?(2Q9§

The appellant in Crl.A.No...2_012i'2bQ§'.';v{hcc_eseg"~. 
No.23 before the Trial court), 

conviction and 3entence'tt._f:o3;_ 

anr_*l_.... 1;;-.e, 

|u-A.
I

u-.'.o*~2-4-.----.-o _

"I
I

F'

11,
and 22 beforefche    challenged
their  ah;_2._é_:'een.te1f:ce:'mtor the offence

under Sectionr32:;§ ' 
2. 'Hvf1'he 'feci;'et»":::e1evant for the purpose of
these -appeelssh are as Vtiinder:

'kin 23.2.%2ooo Rudragowda (991.1) was

"§roceeci:i'ﬁQ" Kokkenur in his jeep bearing

2032 from the house

Regi.stra~ti<>FiA !*€o.K.'--'..1'? 

z""'««._ his brother Hallappa Gowcia and at about 5.30
V' in the gaontana of the village opposite to

 house of one Malteshappa, he found a group

At that time,

Accused No.1 and his sons were talking each



Crl. A. 10.2012/2005
C/w.g*,
Crl. A, NO.1957ﬁ2005

other to finish a person and while thef ﬁére gag
saying, a big stone fell on the jeep ﬁﬁich h;tV '
the front glass of the jeep faﬁd tthefeﬁfia the

complainant sustained dinjuriee:.byddthe,--gleaed

pieces. He stopped and elighted item the jeep

1...- 4.|....a. +:_;~. 
Dy I..uaI.. L..I.l y _~

n
CL

' I

ill

11%
dragging hi'? af";'5" He saw
K.Chandrappd¢'iﬁpreeﬂﬁ:(§W§5t;WﬁRudraGowda bin
Rangappa"gT9ﬁ;tg1itﬁdwﬂﬁeeeverajapa (PW.9) and
othereﬁ whet dame _£§§n1ng and made efforts to
gesoue toidh '=#£ettﬁ§td point of time, Rangappa

~cuao" No.23} hit K.Chandra""e {the deceased}

dy withg e goertpeg on the head. The deceased

éh§nd:a§§aQ£ei1 down with bleeding injuries and

-- other éeoueed having formed an unlawful assembly

d<d ﬁrmed dwith cartpeg and stones chased the

-f;eohpiainant up to the house of hie brother

and amongst the said group of persons, the

complainant identified Accused Nos.1 to 23. T254

I/\a"""--..



Lip

c:1. A. no"""I'i9a§'~:«/zoos

I

" I.

con-"lainant P!I.'.l; after the ineitient 

Malebennur Foiice and submitted niaTs"":'.."_.:"""q.'5:i;.1:Ti:1:.E'."u'. Wee, 

these facts stating that 

formed an unlawful assembly  an

cause the death of   him and
also caused injuries..':a'*   icitiatainaq-ed the
jeep. ..e  take action
against    E'.".'é'.1
filed  was registered 13)?
PW.16 the officer in Crime

No.32/2'O0O.it  complaint Ex.P.1 and

 the_§_£"IR.ExiPc,9"'to'V'the Magistrate and thereafter,

'w._eri't_;.-to."'*theff$pot. In tne fa"-eseT"' c:-f P'.'€.3 and

 _ CW."6, .-._he-wiheld the spot mahazar Ex.P.3 and at

Jtehat time, seized the cartpeg and two stones

 and 2 and the glass pieces MO.3. The

-"it:1jured Chandrappa was sent tovthe hospital for

treatment and _r.:n_...t_i him not in a position to

give the statement. he reee ueu tue statement

 
 



Crl. A. NO.20l2/2005
Crl. A. No.19e7/2005

of some witnesses a1d'iUOKing to tn~ nature of

'mg

injuries sustained, made a mrequest'uto'Vinclude."

Section 307 IPC as per the ietter3ExrPil$ff,dﬁr

The Police Inspector ;(PW.26)~,havihg heard
the information dot. the; death of decea
the inquest-..'E§§;_E'.~2':~in t_hef;,1ore's'ence of pw.2 and
other _witnesses: and 'sentiithe dead body for
postmortem examination.' He arrested some of the

accused' and 'sécuredi the injury certificates

Exs.P.?f P.l0 to P;15 of Pwsal, 6, 8 to 12; we
also tenured the postﬁortem report E".?.4 from

'pwi7i'aﬁa.g£hé FSL report Ex.P.l9. After the

cohpletion; of the investigation, he filed the

iVichargesheet against the accused.

:z
0

=l9r/200

O

nnrinn the tr1a1. in .,,g

= -------- '"3 - ---------- - ~ - --- 5
the prosecution examined P"s.l to 20 a d

in their evidence got marked Exs.P.l to

x...



01:1. A. 110.2012/2005

Crl. A. N0.196'U2005'

10:
b--'
M'

Q 4,; '1'h_ accused 

icience of un.1 and get "carted Exs.D31,"'=E'§';--.1"i§-3.3'.

and D1 (b) and closed theglx' evidei1ce';:: '' 

statement of the accused 
Section 313 Cr.P.C. * 'I'~hVe e~m..a1 ev'V['%cm:;t_eMi em}

S.C.No.192/2000 acquitted 'all _thé~ ecceeed for

{'1'
I

h. offences ,r;u.n1etia;:«:b:1eA :a;ne:;eux_:""V--£;'e:;t_ions 148, 42?,

U0

(3
L

U0

a--1c'1 sea 'IT'-'3§?':uwi.ti'i'»«1'§59"Jiru ea svicteci and
sentenced    offence under
Section _  vpay the fine. The
other  of the offence

under séeﬁioﬁséz ..%:is;ef'é¢iw1th 149 and 114 IPC.

_ AccL_1§{ed   '.?, 171, 17 and 22 were also

A
-.4 fa": the offence under

 IPC. The other accused were

}.§gAg.r_ieVec by the conviction and sentence,

 No.23 has preferred Crl.A.No.2012/2005

VT  Accused N-05.3 to '7, 11, 17 and 22 have

,./

S
4- x)9~_



Crl . A. ll). 2012/2005
G./Ia.

Crl. A. uo.1967F2oos

4. We have heard the learned  "
11.115 appellants and also fthe. 
Prosecutor in mth the casesi'.«V__  iiipoiintts 

arise for our ooosidsraticvc"'~s:s:.

(1) ﬂhethei§o" _   "j..ur.iéjment of
conviction and" H   "  the
appellants  V in  tﬁa]: ~._  ls for
the u'uo_'uc__1":--,_  302 and

324__  pfasverse ?

'¢_¢2)vnbétDo§ds§?'7

  Tha"'A.l_wHéarné:d counsel for the appellants

 conteocfis.A'. . 't.f1at the ..\.ricl.t.r--.2nce led by the

. of t"~hev-iaccinsed beyond reasonable doubt and tuat

ﬁros.scﬁ't'ion insufficient to pro':-s the guilt

it .ai4nd{apsendent witnesses have supported the case

tithe prosecution and therefore, submits that

"the Tirial Court was wrong in relying upon such

evidence and convicting the appellants for the

offence under Sections 3'62 a'*ud 324 of I." 11;

8/.'
'J' '$-



ll

pun

CD
If

on. A. N0.2012/2005
C/w.
Crl. A. NO.196'7/2005

is also his contention that the prosecution has

iled to prove mensrea and the intention etoe
cause the death and therefore( haS"s§ﬁQ0fsIQf*
setting aside the order of' oohﬁictiohg*oeDThe

learned State Public Proseontor_submits;t0§£§theﬂv

Trial Court rightly relieo open the eviéence of

P!'

h j_n"'n

red

(D
L.
D.)

no :ne.éye witnesses and has taken

A n

US

Q.

or W convicting the appellants for

!_|

éé' 3

DJ
L__|-
.' ' F'.

the offences charged; *0

   the"""'homioid_a1 death of

Chandraﬁpa,V the ,proseoution relies upon the

evidenoe of PW,2 an attesting witness for Ex.P.2

Jhthe inquest, the evidence **** of PW.7, the Doctor,

0ﬁhoLheidﬁsstopsy and submitted the report Ex.P.4

'.;'cou1d"be.eeen from the evidence of Pm'? and

x«."oonténts or EX.B.4, the dead oooy of

ano else the evidence of other witnesses. As

1;'?
b

r!-
::r
as

V_o0debeased was brought for postmortem examination

0'on 4.3.2000 and there were sutured wounds over

«Q



.11.
Crl. A. NO.2012/2005
C/'w.

Crl. A. No. 1967/2005
the vertex, the swelling of the right parietal
and occipital area and abrasions overfthéfleftﬂ
knee and these injuries were said iii he ante."

mortem in nature. On dissections of "the ddead

"ody, it revealed then" fracture ~ o£"~-right=d

occipital and temporal bong and there was sub-

xI> . * "

dural haemotoma in the right parietal region.
In addition, there were dontusions on different
parts of the tenporai lobe of the twain. On

examination of the dead bodﬁ, the Doctor opined

that the deathWQes=dee to severe head injury and

29-3

that these, injuriesf could be caused with

h*Wea?5n; like dthe «stick MO.1. The evidence

Vkfurther reveals that the injuries were sustained

by the dedeased in an assault. The prosecution

U3

'xha. led the evidence of other witnesses to prove

. k'.l..'I...
'.l..J,l

'=r":"eceased,

 an 

"incident of assault wherein apart from the

also sustained

2|
U3
1.:
\
O
-

GD r1- 0 |...5 1'-D reinjuries and were admitted in the hospital. It is suggested in the cross examination. of PW.7 /' \)\f----._ -12- Crl. A. NO.2012/2005 Crl. A. m.i§§j(i39o5 that the injuries on the head of tliei~- could be caused by a fall on a hard oﬁtfaooifraﬁuik a height of 3 to 10 feet denied the suggestion aﬁd2a1ao"statéoifthat than '.3 1%' in LJ-

E |-do m w ID H m n-t po§gibiaﬂby*; oi glo oi V, of PW.7 ano_ the "iﬂggﬁieﬁ ioootoined by the deceased,§ tog :moto;i§i sninttéi on record is sufficient to Holo toot too deceased Chandrappa died a:'r..hoznit:ViEia1..::dovétt1';--. so with this background of the .:ﬂ;c_ieath Q_f_ the deceased A" led by the ﬁrosecution to prove the incident. noth on the aﬁpact 22* of ﬁotive and the proof of the incident. It is i"i:Hl1 who lodged the complaint Ex.P.1 immediately fatter the incident at about 11.00 p.m.. on 23.2.2000. Though the complaint does not reveal 0/\ Vpoiica at 11.99 p.m. 0 Cr). . A. nq,.;es'n_4_2oo5 an" facts reiating to the motive, ie'7.i'n the, evidence of the witnessee er. political rivalry between deceased during the Par.};ha.yat}iv- ";There' ind is a specific suggestion___VVVby 'the hide-ﬁezggie to a 1 the-e in.;h__ed I.-.rit:i'en.;=eeeL. are faleel "ﬁg the econ'.-3edV'*ithe poiitical rivalry jéeeoﬁeyath elections. In and the assertion of the injered:'.._:ivit'r:ee:sees~' regarding the assault, we areirxoifr that there is ample V "3,*-,_:V"ii!ie.::i:.{ncident occurred at about 5.30 'p.m. aed!ithe.iccﬁp1aint (Ex.E,i) we- filed to tue the 3:-arr' day'. It was 'all A by PW.i6, who sent the said complaint and the FIR (Ex.P.9) to the ﬂfnagistrate. Though it was received by the Magistrate on the next day, as the complaint was C11. A. NO.2012/2005 C11. A. registered within a reasonable be eaid that there is any d_e.'l.a_y information of the incident were many Persons injl _ the Eoiice Station 'is at____i:§j».:giietan§,«k~:>\p£ f%about 3 kms. In that 'Jiee even if there is some delay', a :~"e'at:if:efeeteryjejtolanation is found from «t he 5ex;:idenee.,, 9,' ~:'egaiids_the aeeéuit, though z-1-as.1, 5, 6, 8 to.1«3 are'V'j_f&:.he-.__Vie»ye witnesses, PWe.9 to 13 have Awturned hoet=i1e the prosecution and their 'xV"'e.ta1:;einent"before """ the Police is contradicted as P.6. The remaining witnesses 'Wits: See;-s u.-ns.1, 6, 3, 11 a"id 1 have 2;-'-rr~.n-5*.-ztti t--e prosecution and enongt these 0

1. E176 "'-Qivtnesses and their injury certificates have produced at E:xs.P.7, P.10 to P.15. The uiﬂpoctor PW.17 examined PWs.1, 6, 8 to 12 on the date of the incident inbetween 7.00 p.m. and OL _s-__-?......-.1 n..J.-. ;. .. ...I.... uuutzezgalsu. £3-vl.-VI.-'Ill! V-V.I.\a||'.'3l -15- c;1. A. 30.2012/2005

-on-u-v-4-_.n ' egg. 3;. 30.1 96712005 8.30 53.111. He found the 1njurie.si~. persons and has issued the _inj_ury;'"cert';:.f'ic:'ate.sQ"» He is of the opinion that the by these witnesses arej't_s'i;Ip1e"-and_ t'the:_"injuriee.t' could caused bythe ob_'i:ject's,v like..,the§ cartpeg witnesses have V.::..ji:1ﬁ.uries, their evidence 'V they are the injured .... true that some of these to the deceased and particu3'l_ra'r_';ly,V' the brother of the 1 t ._ .. .. _ A... ...-G' 4- 4.. .-. 44- -- n n n -- n -nan Us-33 UL Lllﬂﬂﬁ WLLIIBDBCD G5 regarcis assault on the deceased (Thandrappa byAV".-..VAcoesﬁ'.;;."'V"No.23 with cartpeg (MO.1) is

-V consist--ehti It is relevant to note that even in (Ex.P.1), PW..1 has made a specific eriiehtijon about the assault on the deceased by " "n_;.,.............a u. 0-: ...-2 +1.. ,. .-.5...-4-.-...... an H", ).......-:| 'V "\\v\aI-I33'-I I''-' I L-nJ 'VJ. LII Q La-EL \-III U-I I17 II'5H\aI 9 Though does not support the prosecution as regards the persons, who assaulted the deceased f3O\ £;i.scs.I:r3.A their ev deﬁes-

"c'3ecesso€1'~« ._a V . the W111 ness es belo c:1. A. uo.2o1g/zoos n I...

Crl. A. uo.i3s1/zoos and 'I-he 131-': :1 ran] 'I-n i-hnf av'!-ani- ': 'J "L1" IQ\' 'II-IIHCD T M. 2 treated hostile and has been cross"'v--s§tsiIii:ned toy} the prosecution. But as other witnesses is cog:-:§nt_;_V arV1t<:.'._ mere fact that PWs.1, 9 hostile to the prosecution doeér' _An«ot;;_vha--ve.A"'shy effect over s:n_I_r_-n'l"|r;\r n*F > .. _ . _ . ... _, ..

the case of the the evidehcev &f,"t'iﬁ;" 11 and 12 would go to Accused No.23 in assaultitk; Chandrappa with the cartpeg"..._(Mn.1';t; has been elicited in the_;'c.ross".V of these witnesses to It ms}; he the th.

i {ii _ L I] gal HI-

0» Q» 5! mi Q! E 3"'?

accused" other party in politics, but the :_"sc1:u_.:t.i..n--3; of the evidence clinchingly establish played by Accused No.23 in assaulting

-»t--he deceased. Furthermore, the evidence of these witnesses is c mentioned 11': the spot mahazar Ex.P..3, at the .17.

Crl. A. 10.2012/2005 cm. A. uo.19sfn!.2oo__§_ time when the investigating of ficer ~ spot, he also found tl_1e.. jeeﬁ " .1: it "

Registration No.l(A.17 M 'ﬂee by PIL1, after hitting be the -:-n.c_:_u.eed. aleo the the glass pieces These circumstances. ehireieeion of the eye witnesses ' it 1C!.,;v of the accused «me are convieted. 12, who in his evidence speaks_.about" tVheV'.pe"rt""'e1ayed by Accused No.3 in I-ﬁeseeuiting 'him the cartpeg M0.1(b). PW.12 Latin:-an 3|-:L\.ryu witnesses a-'nu nis 'videﬁce re-"eels tuat h"ad" injury and the certificate has '' -ucesd at E2! Nos.4 and 22 hit him with the stones He was examined by the Doctor PW.17 and the injury certificate in this regard has been produced at Ex.P.11. The evidence of 351.10 I 06;

__7, 1;, 1'? a.:se_l22, em- as, g 01:1. A. 110.2012/2005 Ciw.

cm. A. N0.19G?f3005 reveals that Rccused 'N'os.1l an" 15 He was also examined and anminjurgf'"ceI:ti'ficaﬁe"= 'V was issued by PW.1'I which has Ex.P.14.

11. Though Accused PW.10 does not regards the assault by observation of the learned of the judgment about the aseauli;"byg;'-Kccusedy 340.5 is er.I:on..cus=

12. llrecjetds assault by Accused Nos.4, lo, 11 have stated about the-assault and the ii' ur" certificates of these' 'Viv.{i;ne~;a.'ses have been produced and all V --V these persons were examined by the Doctor PW.17. vsthevfe is sufficient material as regards the

-.lu'_-;;}a!1ft'AA--p1ayed by Accused Nos.3, 4, 6, '7, 11, 17 » ".;.

" G nd 22.

..s rest of the accused have been I-

acquitted solely neca-use tn ir part was no. spoken to by the witnesses, we are of the AL v --

Crl . A. H'D.2012/2005 Cr"w'.

cm. A. no.19<s§)I»2oos opinion that even Accused }.'c.5 convicted by the Trial Court order of acquittal as none' oft} speak regarding the particgbatioin Accused No.5. The cross examination of theeeﬁ"wi"tne»e:eeel'does not reveal any such neeteriial tcv._c!iecerd W tee' evidence of > these witne_sl~3e.e5'e't'eo., "fair as,' accused i~ioe.3, 4, 6, 7, 11, They have caused 7._th__e-- 1-.~Iries«,oV'_:"a.nd [the evidence of PW.17 reveals the denature' suffered by these vwitneeeee and.,V_:tnerefore, we are of the opinion ,the.t as. regards ..he amve eaid accused; the approach :°*o_f vV."_'ti'1e Trial Court in convicting the _eaid""--accused cannot be found fault with. .. -. 1-...

"an L...........|.. 3...... .................... -I J:..J. Tnuu u tutu yJ.u:a!:uut.I.GJ. u 3 I'§'Ji€Imi"iu"'d the Tahsildar, who recorded the dying 'ﬂxdeclaration of the deceased Chandrappa, the perusal of the dying declaration is of no help /, O<x~~ .20.

C121 . A. NO . 2012/2005

C/w.

Crl. A. N0.l967/2005 to the prosecution as the Doctor in Uwhose presence the dying declaration we I?

not been examined. Tuouqu {§ £ﬁéj:dyinq» declaration the deceased 'mag¢a*Veldsubm1aai;5 about the assault by the accﬁsed, it it Stated » that he became unconscieas_ scene after the assault and was not in a eosition to say as to who actually .

narrated the part played by each of the accused, in View of the clinchiag_etidence of the injured eye witnesses, the incomplete efoarticulars in the dying declaeation does not have any effect over the ";_casei" of' the prosecution. Ftrthermore, the coateats Ref. the dying declaration Ex.P.l6 are 'ld_not 'inconsistent with the, evidence adduced by "'5lFthe;prosecution. lV"a d"Ctl.A.No.20l2/2005 submits that the evidence/ﬂ 4 a -

14. Learned counsel for the appellants in cm. A. uc.2o12/zoos Crl. A. uo.19c:m*zoos reveals only that Rccuaed No.23 gave. blow with the cartpeg on_.....t_he deceased. So also, it is the deceased was f.:crdt ended geﬁeitizing to the submits that ae the blow -eee during t..e scuffle, the1r.fe-- the part of Accused and in that View " submits that the conviction' for the offence under Section is improper: and therefore. he ,e2ubm.i-te that the eat of the eccueed falls trxefircvisions of Section 304 Part-I .T.'t"c. eeeeieeeeeelefges the evidence of nw.1 and Ex.D.1

-V reveelstthet the deceased was suffering from HIV 'There is nothing in the evidence of DW.1 eh t"e.:e1;°:ee deceased died due to HIV. The evidence ('D "cf the %c-tor $3? reveals the cause of deer... cf the deceased as due to severe head injury. In that View of the matter, the evidence of 31.1 is bl bu) Crl. A. N0.2012/2005 Cfw.

Crl. A. NO.1967/2005

the deceased and though there wete abﬁesiohs oh the body of the deceased;_Accused,No;23~wae notc F9' 13'' m responsible for the other vinjuries _end W I-I incident has occurred duzihg the scuffle betwee %bo_h th I ('D parties and furthe:more;7there is also a counter caeeffegainst the injuted witnesses in Spl.C.SC/STe2%ZQQO. so taking into consideration the materials placed on record, we are of the considered opinioh that the act of Accused Noa23 falls within the provisions of Section 304 Part- w IH : "U ..

W3 7, ee_he_ued the "n'w1edge that the injury

-I }gqid!cauSeddedth, and it could be gathered from 'i'the hature of injury and the material placed on "7t7%§eor§{u~Eherefore, Accused No.23 is entitled to tecgecenittai for the offence under Section 302 :of-FIPC and has to be held gtilty of the offence ea:

Crl. A. 510.2012/zoos C-lw. . " , Q;:1._,____A. uo.i.9'ev./zoos

-under Section 304 Part--I IPC. sa=M§ﬁT=rééVe appreciation of the evidence,~avai1a$ie;fgaie ihpidiiii that in cr1.A.uo.2o12/2005.ifethe-iiéppeizént (Accused No.23 before o ijiec and '-5 :| H:

H-

.2!' C) '3 hi 1-4 ID

5. 12 0 IID .5 In [D L:

:3 I1.

« m g. ,1 in m 0 Ir'?

|--| ID ':3 In.

':3 lb ''0 ll! !"'5 r=-r I H Appellant Nos,_1",,__ 2,:"I;' 'V'? 8 (Accused Nos.3. 4, 56;" the Trial Court} _.i..a.. it cfqnviction of Appellant No.3 iAccuaed9Rg;5ine£ore the Trial Court) for the effeniie ":1 .324 IPC! has to be set A":§Jr1c::Vl'e--..a:f_ 304 Part--I IPC, taking into ce11aiderat'.:§on;'V"V.the nature and gravity of the

--pffen'ce;'*v.«Vv§rei think it "just and proper to award aentience of 12.1. for a period of eight years c.» p_y a fine oi? 85,50 3

-«SE... u 1H' woffence under Section 324 IPC awarded by the Trial court is on the higher side. In the _m..: _.1 Ere-

..,.I.I..Ld.l.'.'~"\.aU C131. 11. IKL2012/2005 C/w.

cF1:"§1r!9:1?§?{2995 circumstances, we answer the Point ~ in affirmative and partly_ in' eég§£1§ét[gne"

proceed to pass the followingd':-A A V t' V' A The Ynnee;e ere eliceede ;:~.§g;£. The

1... .n. n ...i '1 [_JI=.l..I.cl| I..,»uua:sg,4., 5,'.

..._._-..l ....I. .1 ._ _ LJLJIl.V..I.'u'|...l.\)l..I U ~ ".3. g: c -1 ......I .-sag .3; u, I aau 8 in Cr1.A.Nov.43.96__7i2'0'0£5h*::'§.§§:cj;eV®. 4. 6, T'; 11, 1'7 and_. for the offence under éectrceddﬁe rec is affirmed. The convicticn~. ' appellant in Crl . A. No . No . 23 before the ;.._4I_ I ULL] d*IEr},1s (set, aeide and he is convicted for the offerxce Section 304 Part-I IPC. The V convictiee"d of Appellant VNo.3 in Hi"44'Cer1.vA,zNc'§196'?/2005 (Accused No.5) is set aside

-aﬁd- ﬁe is acquitted for the offence under ~ b';),+ 4 ..

'gDU\;l.....LlJ 0,,"

! $0 I I' Ink.-. guns-up-us-_\1 1 c,-uu\.II- rt. JL'! J.l-'\.In J-I15 QWEJLQIIL .-Jo r1.A.No.2012/2005 is ordered to undergo 71.1. for a period of eight years and to pay the fine /' ";_.

A C121 . A. 140.2012/2005 Cfw.

on. A. 1eo.1:+':6'*:/.2005 ~4- of Re.50,G(':0;'-, in default to ur;c;'ers<3'%§m';'%;.;;'--n._" Iaﬁér one year for the offence undeg; 3ectiee:j'_Vv3G4 I IPC. On deposit of the seine ' shall be paid to Nagarm:I_:a's.._V.(PVIr--'J'.~..tl'V').,V the deceased. As _regard_Le"-..:1_:he s.e"n--fA_[ef'1ce:} for the :3 ,4, offence I_Inder See1;i-- is reduced to they are or Rs.10',0CICv'-

each for a period of three amount for the offence under S§'eetioﬁ- shall be distributed eqI_e;11y.eme:igetV the injured eyewitnesses namely, JL

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court