Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Sri. Ambarish on 25 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:42406-DB
CRL.A.No.612/2017
C/w CRL.A.No.611/2017
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.612/2017 (A)
C/w
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.611/2017 (A)
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY BAGALURU POLICE
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001 ...APPELLANT
(COMMON)
(BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, SPP-II)
AND:
1. SRI AMBARISH
S/O. KADAPPA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
2. SRI RAJAPPA @ RAJU K
S/O. KADAPPA
Digitally
signed by K S AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
RENUKAMBA 3. SRI KADAPPA
Location: S/O. LATE CHIKKAMUNISHAMAPPA
High Court of AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS
Karnataka
R1 TO R3 ARE R/AT
MAHADEVAKODIGEHALLI VILLAGE
JALA HOBLI
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK - 560 013 ...RESPONDENTS
(COMMON)
(BY SRI S.V.BHAT, ADVOCATE, FOR R1 & R2
APPEAL AGAINST R3 ABATED VIDE ORDER DATED 05.04.2024)
CRL.A.NO.612/2017 IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1) AND (3)
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED
01.02.2017 PASSED IN S.C.NO.15032/2015 ON THE FILE OF V
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:42406-DB
CRL.A.No.612/2017
C/w CRL.A.No.611/2017
HC-KAR
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DEVANAHALLI,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT INSOFAR AS ACQUITTING
RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 307 AND 506 IPC.
CRL.A.NO.611/2017 IS FILED UNDER SECTION 377 CR.P.C
PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED
01.02.2017 PASSED IN S.C. NO.15032/2015 ON THE FILE OF V
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DEVANAHALLI,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT INSOFAR AS IT RELATES TO
IMPOSING INADEQUATE SENTENCE AGAINST RESPONDENT NOS.1
TO 3/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS
324 AND 504 IPC.
THESE CRIMINAL APPEALS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL) State has preferred these appeals challenging the judgment and orders of acquittal of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC') and adequacy of sentence awarded for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 504 IPC passed in S.C.No.15032/2015 by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Devanahalli, Bangalore Rural District.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:42406-DB CRL.A.No.612/2017 C/w CRL.A.No.611/2017 HC-KAR
2. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 in both these appeals were accused Nos.1 to 3 in S.C.No.15032/2015 before the trial Court. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to henceforth according to their ranks before the trial Court.
3. Accused Nos.1 and 2 are the sons of accused No.3. Pending these appeals, accused No.3 died and these appeals against accused No.3 stood abated.
4. Accused Nos.1 to 3 were tried in S.C.No.15032/2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 324, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC on the basis of charge-sheet filed by PW.7/PSI of Bagaluru Police Station in Crime No.113/2015 of their Police Station. Crime No.113/2015 was registered against the accused on the basis of complaint filed by PW.1 as per Ex.P1.
5. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:
That PW.2 was constructing house by the side of the house of the accused. On 29.05.2015 at 06.00 p.m., the scaffold of the under construction house fell on the cement sheet ceiling of the house of the accused and caused damage. Being enraged by that, accused Nos.1 and 2 picked up quarrel -4- NC: 2025:KHC:42406-DB CRL.A.No.612/2017 C/w CRL.A.No.611/2017 HC-KAR with PWs.1 and 2, abusing them in foul language and intimidating them, accused No.1 assaulted PW.2 with MO.1-reaper on his head and hand and caused him grievous injuries. Accused No.2 assaulted PW.1 with MO.2-club and caused him bleeding injuries. Further, he assaulted PW.2 also with the same club and caused him bleeding injuries. Accused No.3 assaulted PWs.1 and 2 with MO.3-umbrella and caused them injuries. When PW.3 came to the rescue of PWs.1 and 2, accused No.1 kicked her with his legs and caused her simple injury. Further, accused Nos.1 to 3 by pushing PW.2 to a drain, attempted to commit his murder.
6. Though the charge-sheet was filed for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 307, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC, the trial Court on hearing both side framed charges against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 324, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC. No charge was framed for the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC.
7. As the accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried, trial was conducted. In support of the case of the prosecution, PWs.1 to PW9 were examined, Exs.P1 to P9 and -5- NC: 2025:KHC:42406-DB CRL.A.No.612/2017 C/w CRL.A.No.611/2017 HC-KAR MOs.1 to 9 were marked. After their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused did not lead any defence evidence. However, Exs.D1 to D6 were marked by way of confrontation during cross examination of PW.2.
8. Trial Court on hearing the parties by the impugned judgment and order acquitted the accused of the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 506 IPC and convicted them only for the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 504 IPC. The trial Court sentenced accused Nos.1 to 3 for the said offences with sentence of fine as follows:-
Sl. Offence Imprisonment Fine Default
No. punishable Amount sentence
under Section in Rs.
1. 324 of IPC - 5,000/- SI for 3 months
2. 504 of IPC - 1,000/- SI for 1 month
9. Challenging the judgment and order of acquittal for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 506 IPC, Crl.A.No.612/2017 is filed. Questioning the adequacy of sentence for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 504 IPC, Crl.A.No.611/2017 is filed. -6- NC: 2025:KHC:42406-DB CRL.A.No.612/2017 C/w CRL.A.No.611/2017 HC-KAR
10. Heard Sri. Vijay Kumar Majage, learned SPP-II for the appellant/State and Sri. S.V. Bhat, learned Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2/accused Nos.1 and 2. Submissions of Sri. Vijay Kumar Majage, learned SPP-II.
11. The evidence of PWs.1 to 3/injured eyewitnesses, PWs.4 and 5/eye-witnesses and PWs.8 and 9/medical officers shows that accused had assaulted the victims with dangerous weapons with an intention to commit their murder. The evidence on record shows that, PW.2 had suffered grievous injury on the vital part of his body. Considering the weapon used and the body parts chosen to inflict injury, it could not have been said that the acts of the accused amounts to only the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC. Trial Court was in error in rejecting the evidence of PW.8 regarding the injuries suffered by PW.2. Similarly, in the complaint as well as in the evidence of injured witnesses PWs.1 and 2 and eye witness PW.5, it is categorically stated that the accused threatened the victims of their lives. Under such circumstances, the trial Court was in error in disbelieving their evidence in that regard and acquitting them of the charge of the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC. The case is based on evidence of injured -7- NC: 2025:KHC:42406-DB CRL.A.No.612/2017 C/w CRL.A.No.611/2017 HC-KAR eyewitnesses and due credence should have been given to their evidence. Having regard to the nature of the injuries and the manner of assault, the trial Court committed error in sentencing the accused only for fine amount. Hence, both appeals be allowed and accused shall be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 506 IPC. In addition to that, the order of sentence with regard to Sections 324 and 504 IPC needs to be modified by enhancing the same. Submissions of Sri.S.V.Bhat, learned counsel for accused/respondent Nos.1 and 2.
12(i). There are material contradictions in the evidence of PWs.1 to 5 i.e., injured eyewitnesses and eyewitnesses and the evidence of PWs.6 and 7/police witnesses regarding the victims approaching the police and manner of they approaching the hospitals. The evidence on record clearly shows that PWs.1 and 2 had caused substantial damage to the property of the accused by their negligent construction and to avoid payment of compensation, they have falsely implicated the accused in the case. The evidence on record further shows that PW.2 was trying to drive away the accused from the said area on the ground that they are carrying on pig rearing business and in that context, they are falsely implicated. So far as the alleged -8- NC: 2025:KHC:42406-DB CRL.A.No.612/2017 C/w CRL.A.No.611/2017 HC-KAR grievous injuries of PW.2 in the incident, the evidence of PW.8 was totally without any basis. As per the prosecution witnesses themselves, the victims were taken first to Yelahanka Government Hospital and from there, PW.2 was referred to either Bowring Hospital or NIMHANS hospital. However, PW.2 claimed to have been taken to Eskay Health Care Hospital, where PW.8 was working as Medical Officer. To show that PW.2 was taken to that hospital, PW.8 was examined. Neither case sheet and admission records, nor investigation records, like x-ray or scanning reports, were produced to show that PW.2 had suffered fracture of bone as deposed by PW.8. Said Eskay Health Care hospital had not issued any medico-legal communication to the concerned police station. Neither the Investigating Officer collected such medical records nor the public prosecutor summoned those records during the course of evidence of PW.8. Such suppression of medical records was sufficient to hold that the evidence of PW.8 was unacceptable regarding PW.2 suffering grievous injuries or any attempt on his life.
(ii). So far as the charge under Section 506 of IPC, the evidence on record clearly shows that there was an attempt on the part of the Investigating Officer/prosecution to improve or -9- NC: 2025:KHC:42406-DB CRL.A.No.612/2017 C/w CRL.A.No.611/2017 HC-KAR exaggerate the case bringing the same from offence punishable under Section 324 IPC to 307 IPC and 506 IPC. There was inordinate and unexplained delay in filing the complaint and registering the FIR. PW.1 and PW.2 state that first they went to the police station and police referred them to the hospital. But PW.6 deposed that only PW.1 appeared in the police station and filed the complaint. Therefore, the genesis of the case itself is doubtful and the impugned judgment and order of acquittal for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 506 IPC does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.
(iii). So far as the enhancement of sentence for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 504 IPC, the sentence of imprisonment is not mandatory for those offences. The trial Court on weighing all the relevant factors, considered it just and proper to impose only the sentence of fine. Hence, the same does not warrant interference.
13. On considering the submissions of both sides and on examination of the material on record, the questions that arise for determination of this Court are:-
1. Whether the impugned judgment and order of acquittal of the accused for the offences
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42406-DB CRL.A.No.612/2017 C/w CRL.A.No.611/2017 HC-KAR punishable under Sections 307 and 506 IPC is sustainable?
2. Whether the sentence imposed by the trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 504 IPC is sustainable?
Analysis Reg. Acquittal of the accused for the charge for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 506 IPC.
14. There is no dispute that PW.2 was constructing a house by the side of house of the accused. It is also not in dispute that on the date of the incident, there was intensive rain. PW.2 in his cross-examination was confronted with Exs.D1 to D4/the photographs of house of PW.2, which was under
construction and depiction of house of the accused adjacent to under construction house of PW.2. PW.2 admitted in his cross- examination that for construction he erected scaffold of his building taking support from the house of the accused. But he claimed that, that was done by the workers without his knowledge. The fact that due to rains, some of the building materials fell on the ceiling of the house of the accused damaging their house was also not disputed. In the complaint itself, PW.1 has stated that due to such damage to their house,
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42406-DB CRL.A.No.612/2017 C/w CRL.A.No.611/2017 HC-KAR the accused assaulted them, even though they tried to pacify them saying that they will set right the damage.
15. According to the prosecution, accused Nos.1 to 3 assaulted PW.1 and PW.2 with M.Os.1 to 3 and caused them grievous injuries and attempted to commit their murder. Though the accused denied the entire incident and claimed that to avoid their liability to pay compensation for the damages caused by PWs.1 and 2, they are falsely implicated in the case, the trial Court on evaluation of the evidence held that the offence of assault by accused Nos.1 to 3 with club, reaper and causing them simple injury is proved and convicted them for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 504 IPC. The accused have not challenged the said judgment and order of conviction and sentence. Therefore, the finding of the trial Court regarding occurrence of the incident and the presence of accused and PWs.1 and 2 at the scene of offence has attained finality. Therefore, the only question is whether the accused attempted to commit the murder of PWs.1 to 3 and in that course, caused grievous injuries to PW.2.
16. It is no doubt true that when the case is based on the evidence of injured eye witnesses, their evidence should be
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42406-DB CRL.A.No.612/2017 C/w CRL.A.No.611/2017 HC-KAR given due credence. But such evidence of injured eye witnesses must inspire confidence of the Court about the manner of occurrence of the incident. It is no doubt true that both, PWs.1 and 2, deposed about accused Nos.1 to 3 assaulting them with MOs.1 to 3 and further assaulting PW.3 by kicking her. However, they say that after the incident, PW.1 took PW.2 on the motorcycle to Bagaluru police station, by the time, they went to the police station, the condition of PW.2 was serious, therefore, the police sent them to Yelahanka Government Hospital along with a police officer. They further deposed that in Yelahanka Hospital, the wound of PW.2 was sutured and bandaged and they were told that the injury is grievous one. The Doctor at Yelahanka Hospital referred PW.2 to Bowring Hospital or NIMHANS Hospital. Both PWs.1 and 2 stated that PW.1 was taking PW.2 to NIMHANS Hospital in an ambulance, but, due to rain and traffic jam, they were getting delayed, therefore, PW.2 was taken to Eskay Hospital situated in Gangammanagudi Circle. PW.1 states that in Eskay Hospital, his father was kept in ICU and he remained in the hospital to take care of his father and on 30.05.2015 at 8.00 a.m., he went to Bagalur police station and filed the complaint.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42406-DB CRL.A.No.612/2017 C/w CRL.A.No.611/2017 HC-KAR
17. PW.2 states that in Eskay hospital, he was enquired about the initial treatment taken by him and about registration of MLC case regarding the same, then he was treated in ICU for 2 days. He says, thereafter, for one week, he was treated in Eskay Hospital as inpatient. Whereas, PW.6 /the Head constable of Bagalur police station does not whisper anything about PW.1 and 2 approaching Bagalur police station before they going to the hospital or said police officer taking PWs.1 and 2 to Yelahanka Hospital or to any other hospitals. PW.6 says that on 30.05.2015, at 9.00 a.m., PW.1 appeared before him in the police station and presented the complaint Ex.P1 and based on the said complaint, he registered FIR/Ex.P6. It is also material to note that initially FIR/Ex.P6 was registered only for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 504, 324 and 34 IPC. The above evidence goes to show that the genesis of registration of FIR itself was shrouded with suspicion.
18. Ex.P8/wound certificate of PW.1 said to have been issued by PW.9. PW.9 states that PW.1 was seen by Casualty Medical Officer, General Hospital, Yelahanka, who was brought by PC 9408 of Bagalur police station on 29.05.2015 at 07.40 p.m. with history of assault by accused Nos.1 to 3 on 29.05.2015 at 06.30 p.m. with sticks and reaper. There is no
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42406-DB CRL.A.No.612/2017 C/w CRL.A.No.611/2017 HC-KAR mention in the said document of umbrella M.O.3. Further, Ex.P7/wound certificate of PW.2 said to be issued by PW.8. He states that PW.2 was brought to Eskay Health Care Hospital at 10.00 p.m. Ex.P7 shows history of assault by some unknown persons was given. For the reasons best known to the Investigating officer/prosecution, the admission records or the inpatient records of PW.2 were not collected/summoned. Suppression of such material documents creates doubt about the manner of assault and the weapons used, so also the nature of injuries mentioned in Ex.P7. PW.8, who treated PW.2 in his cross-examination, states that on looking into the records before the Court, he cannot say, who admitted PW.2 into their hospital and from which hospital, he was referred to the said hospital. He also states that by looking into the court records, he cannot say how many days PW.2 was treated as inpatient in their hospital and what was the treatment given to him. Unless the investigation records and such medical records are produced, it would be difficult to say that the injury suffered by PW.2 were grievous one. In State v. Sheenappa Gowda and Ors1, it is held that unless the prosecution produces X-ray for 1 2010 SCC OnLine 5294
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42406-DB CRL.A.No.612/2017 C/w CRL.A.No.611/2017 HC-KAR confirmation of the grievous injury of fracture opined by the Doctor on medical examination clinically, it cannot be said that the accused have caused grievous injury.
19. It is also material to note that if at all PW.1 and PW.2 appeared in the police station soon after the incident in question and reported to the police about the occurrence of such non-cognizable offence, it was bounden duty of the police to register the FIR based on such information. However, same was not done and there was no explanation for the same. Ex.P6/FIR shows that the incident occurred on 29.05.2015 at 6.00 p.m. and FIR was registered on 30.05.2015 at 9.00 a.m. But the endorsement on Ex.P6 shows that FIR was delivered to the jurisdictional Court on 01.06.2015 at 11.00 a.m. There was delay of more than 24 hours. Absolutely, there is no explanation for such delay in delivery of FIR to the court. As per Exs.P7 and P8, the victims were treated in respective hospitals by 06.30 p.m. and 10.00 p.m. on the same day. These material and unexplained contradictions and inconsistencies, lend support to the contention of the accused that there was attempt on the part of the prosecution and PWs.1 and 2 to improve the case stage by stage and to include grave offence in the matter.
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42406-DB CRL.A.No.612/2017 C/w CRL.A.No.611/2017 HC-KAR
20. It is also to be noted that PWs.3 and 4 are the relatives of PWs.1 and 2 and PW.5 was the contractor employed by PW.2 himself for construction of the house. Therefore, they cannot be considered as independent eye witnesses. PW.5 though claims that he was an eyewitness, he himself states that his statement was recorded by the police after 15 days. His name did not appear in the complaint as the person present at the time of occurrence of the incident. That fact also creates doubt of he being an eye witness to the incident.
21. So far as PW.3, though it was claimed that she was also injured by the assault of the accused and same was reported to the police, even after registration of FIR, she was not referred to the medical examination. No medical examination report or wound certificate relating to her was produced. Therefore, the allegation of assault on her was justifiably rejected by the trial Court.
22. The scope of interference by the Appellate Court in an appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal was dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment in Prem
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42406-DB CRL.A.No.612/2017 C/w CRL.A.No.611/2017 HC-KAR Singh v. State of Haryana2. In para 7 of the said judgment, relying on its earlier judgment in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, it was held as follows:
"7. In a recent decision in Murugesan v. State this Court had the occasion to consider the broad principles of law governing the power of the High Court under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The summary of the relevant principles of law set out in para 21 of the judgment may be extracted herein under:
"21. A concise statement of the law on the issue that had emerged after over half a century of evolution since Sheo Swarup is to be found in para 42 of the Report in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka. The same may, therefore, be usefully noticed below:
"42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge: (1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.
(3) Various expressions, such as, 'substantial and compelling reasons', 'good and sufficient grounds', 'very strong circumstances', 'distorted conclusions', 'glaring mistakes', etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal.
Such phraseologies are more in the nature of 'flourishes of language' to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with 2 (2013) 14 SCC 88
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42406-DB CRL.A.No.612/2017 C/w CRL.A.No.611/2017 HC-KAR acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.
(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.' "
(Emphasis supplied)
23. Reading of the above judgment shows that in an appeal against the order of acquittal, scope of interference is very limited unless it is shown that the judgment suffers patent illegality or perversity. The Appellate Court cannot interfere in the judgment merely on the ground that on re-appreciation of evidence, another view is possible as on such acquittal, accused gets double presumption namely presumption of innocence available at the stage of trial and secondly the same got reaffirmed by the order of acquittal.
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42406-DB CRL.A.No.612/2017 C/w CRL.A.No.611/2017 HC-KAR
24. In para 13 of the said judgment, it was held that if conclusion with regard to the innocence of the accused is reasonably possible on the basis of evidence and materials on record, the High Court ought not to have disturbed the findings recorded by the trial Court, even if, on re-appreciation of the evidence, different view is possible.
25. Re-appreciation of the evidence in the present case shows that there is no patent illegality or perversity in the order of the trial Court in acquitting the accused of the charge for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC.
26. So far as the charge under Section 506 of IPC, the evidence on record shows that the incident occurred due to damage to the property of the accused caused by the construction of the complainant party. In the complaint, it is stated that accused No.1 threatened PW.2 saying that he would kill him. There is nothing in the complaint to impute the common intention to the other accused of criminal intimidation. Improving that version, PW.1 in his chief examination states that accused Nos.1 and 2 both threatened PW.2 of his life and accused No.3 also threatened PWs.1 and 2 of their lives. Whereas PW.2 himself in his chief examination does not speak
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42406-DB CRL.A.No.612/2017 C/w CRL.A.No.611/2017 HC-KAR about criminal intimidation by any of the accused. PW.3 does not speak about any criminal intimidation at the time of occurrence of the incident. She says that as PW.2 was constructing the house, accused had grudge against him. Therefore they were threatening PW.2 of his life.
27. PW.4/the other alleged eyewitness, who is none else, but the father-in-law of PW.2 does not whisper anything in his evidence about any of such criminal intimidation. Thus, it becomes clear that the evidence regarding alleged criminal intimidation was not cogent and consistent. Hence, the trial Court has not accepted the same.
28. The aforesaid discussion of the evidence goes to show that there is no patent illegality or perversity in the judgment of the trial Court in acquitting the accused of the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 506 of IPC, warranting interference of this Court. Hence, Crl.A.No.612/2017 deserves no merit.
Reg. Quantum of sentence:
29. As already noted, for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 504 of IPC, the trial Court has sentenced the
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42406-DB CRL.A.No.612/2017 C/w CRL.A.No.611/2017 HC-KAR accused to fine of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.1,000/- respectively with default sentence.
30. It is submitted that said fine amount is already deposited. The grievance of the prosecution is that a sentence of imprisonment should have been handed over to the accused. Reading of Sections 324 and 504 of IPC shows that those offences carry sentence of imprisonment or fine. Sentence of imprisonment is not mandatory, as the term 'or' is employed in both those provisions. The judgment of the trial Court indicates that while imposing the sentence of only fine, trial Court had considered the fact of accused No.3 being aged 78 years and the socio economic background of the accused. Coupled with that, as per the prosecution itself, the accused indulged in assault and breach of peace as their property was damaged by the construction put up by the complainants, placing the scaffolding on the property of the accused. The records show that the incident took place in a spur of moment due to such loss and by provocation caused by it. The original proceedings are of the year 2015. The accused have faced these proceedings for more than 10 years. Pending proceedings, accused No.3 passed away. Considering the aforesaid facts, we
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42406-DB CRL.A.No.612/2017 C/w CRL.A.No.611/2017 HC-KAR do not find any merit in the contention that the sentence of imprisonment should have been imposed against the accused. Therefore, Crl.A.No.611/2025 also fails. Hence, the following order:
ORDER Crl.A.No.611/2017 and Crl.A.No.612/2017 are dismissed.
Sd/-
(K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE (PER:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) While agreeing with the aforesaid judgment, the same is sought to be supplemented by the following reasonings:
(i). Learned SPP-II has taken us through the evidence of PW.1 to PW.9 and also the documents got marked by the prosecution as per Exs.P1 to P9. We have scrutinized the evidence adduced by the parties. The trial Court accepted the evidence of PWs.1 and 2/injured eyewitnesses. PW.1 has deposed about the manner of assault by accused persons on him and PW.2/his father and about the incident. He has stated
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42406-DB CRL.A.No.612/2017 C/w CRL.A.No.611/2017 HC-KAR that accused No.1 assaulted his father PW.2 with MO.1 reaper on his head and accused No.2 assaulted PW.2 with club MO.2 on head and left shoulder and accused No.3 assaulted with umbrella MO.3 on the person of PW.2 and when he tried to save his father, accused No.1 assaulted with reaper on his head and accused No.2 also assaulted him with club on his left shoulder and back and accused No.3 also assaulted him on his left shoulder, ear and head. When PW.1 screamed, PW.3 Venkatalakshmamma came and she also received injuries. It shows that accused Nos.1 to 3 have assaulted PWs.1 and 2 with MOs.1 to 3. Nothing has been elicited in their cross examination to disbelieve their evidence. PW.4 Govindappa, grandfather of PW.1 and PW.5 Contractor of PW.1 an eye witness to the incident corroborated the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 regarding the assault caused by accused Nos.1 to 3 in furtherance of common intention. PWs.1 and 2 are natural and injured eye witnesses. In view of the fact that nothing has been elicited in their cross-examination to disbelieve their evidence and their evidence is corroborated by the evidence of PW.8 Dr.S.Praveen and PW.9 Dr. B.A. Nagamohan and the wound certificate issued by them as per Exs.P7 and P8, it is clear that the prosecution has
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42406-DB CRL.A.No.612/2017 C/w CRL.A.No.611/2017 HC-KAR proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused have committed the offences as alleged against them and assaulted PWs.1 and 2 and caused grevious injuries to them. The accused have not chosen to file any appeal against the order of the trial Court and even otherwise having regard to the above said material on record, the finding of the trial Court with regard to the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court in respect of Section 324 IPC is unassailable.
(ii). Learned SPP-II contended that the offences that is committed by the accused would fall within the ambit of Section 307 IPC, as the accused persons have assaulted PWs.1 PW.2 on their heads, which is vital organ, thus Section 307 IPC would attract.
(iii). Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/accused contended that the offences that is committed by the accused would not fall within the ambit of Section 307 IPC and the order of the trial Court that the same falls within the ambit of Section 324 of IPC is justified, as no x-ray report is produced and burden to prove the guilt of the accused is always on the prosecution and never shifts to the accused. Therefore, it has to be considered as to whether the
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42406-DB CRL.A.No.612/2017 C/w CRL.A.No.611/2017 HC-KAR injury caused to PW.2 is grievous in nature or simple in nature as held by the trial Court.
(iv). PW.8 Dr. Praveen, who examined PW.2, has stated about the injuries sustained by him and he has issued wound certificate as per Ex.P7 which discloses the injuries sustained by PW.2, viz.,
(i) Contusion over left shoulder 5 cm x5cm
(ii) Abrasion over the base of the left thumb 3 cm x 2cm
(iii) Cut lacerated wound 3 cm x 1cm over the right parietal region.
The doctor has further deposed that injury Nos.1 and 3 are grievous in nature and injury No.2 is simple in nature. Therefore, the question for determination is limited to find out whether injury Nos.1 and 3 are proved to be grievous injuries so as to attract section 307 IPC, as contended by the prosecution. It is well settled that in criminal cases, the burden of proving the guilt of the accused is always on the prosecution and the burden would not shift unless there is presumption or defence as enumerated in the Penal Code, 1860 as contended by the accused. In this case, the defence taken by the accused is one of total denial. It is clear from the evidence of PW.8
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42406-DB CRL.A.No.612/2017 C/w CRL.A.No.611/2017 HC-KAR Doctor that he has given description of the injuries on physical examination of PW.2 and has come to the conclusion that there was fracture of left shoulder and right parietal region.
(v). It is well settled that when the prosecution alleges that grievous injuries has been caused, it is necessary for the prosecution to prove the same beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence of PW.8 Doctor would only go to show that there was injury as described in the wound certificate Ex-P7. As per x-ray of left shoulder, there is fracture of scapula and as per C.T. scan of brain, the fracture is not clearly seen. It is true that in the cross-examination of PW.8/Doctor, learned counsel appearing for the accused has not disputed the nature of injuries spoken to by PW.8. However, the same would not dispense with the production of x-ray by the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the injured had sustained fracture of scapula, which is opinion given by PW.8. Therefore, it is clear that the finding of the trial Court holding that the prosecution has failed to prove that accused Nos.1 to 3 have committed the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and that the offence committed by them falls within the ambit of Section 324 IPC is justified.
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42406-DB CRL.A.No.612/2017 C/w CRL.A.No.611/2017 HC-KAR
(vi). Before proceeding further in analysing the evidence led in the matter, it has to be borne in mind that this is an appeal against the judgment of acquittal of accused Nos.1 to 3 in respect of offences punishable under Sections 307 and 506 IPC r/w 34 IPC and inadequacy of sentence in respect of Sections 324 and 504 IPC. Therefore, the accused persons have primarily double-benefit. Firstly, the present law is that unless their guilt is proved in respect of Sections 307 and 506 IPC, they have to be treated as innocent persons in respect of those offences. Secondly, the accused have already enjoyed the benefit of judgment of acquittal in respect of aforesaid offences passed under the impugned judgment. As such, bearing the same in mind, the evidence placed by the prosecution is required to be analyzed.
(vii). In so far as section 506 IPC is concerned, according to the prosecution, the accused persons made criminal intimidation to eliminate PWs.1 and 2. We have perused Ex.P1 complaint. The first informant has not disclosed as to criminal intimidation made by accused Nos.1 to 3 to PWs.1 and 2. Further, PWs.1 and 2 and PW.5 stated that accused Nos.1 to 3
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42406-DB CRL.A.No.612/2017 C/w CRL.A.No.611/2017 HC-KAR made criminal intimidation, but such threat appears to be general and omnibus allegations in nature.
(viii). In the case of Manik Taneja and Another v. State of Karnataka and Another3reported in the Hon'ble Supreme Court had examined the ingredient of Sections 503 and 506 IPC, which reads as under:-
11. Section 506 IPC prescribes punishment for the offence of criminal intimidation. "Criminal intimidation" as defined in Section 503 IPC is as under:
"503.Criminal intimidation.--Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.
Explanation.--A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section."
A reading of the definition of "criminal intimidation" would indicate that there must be an act of threatening to another person, of causing an injury to the person, reputation, or property of the person threatened, or to the person in whom the threatened person is interested and the threat must be with the intent to cause alarm to the person threatened or it must be to do any act which he is not legally bound to do or omit to do an act which he is legally entitled to do.''
(ix). Thus, it is clear that criminal intimidation would indicate that there has to be an act of threatening another by 3 (2015) 7 SCC 423,
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42406-DB CRL.A.No.612/2017 C/w CRL.A.No.611/2017 HC-KAR causing an injury to his person, reputation or property or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person in interested and the threat must be in respect of causing that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do.
(x). Whereas in the instant case, PW.2 was constructing his house and while constructing such house, one scaffold fell on the roof of the accused persons. Therefore, in that context, the incident took place. Moreover, the accused persons and PWs.1 and 2 are neighbours. The term used by accused Nos.1 to 3 would not attract the ingredient of Section 506 IPC, as alleged. The threat made by accused persons would not lead to prohibit PWs.1 and 2 to do certain acts or not to do certain acts.
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE KVK, MN, KSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10