Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Sri.Gangappa S/O Sannabasappa Bettal on 28 May, 2024
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7088-DB
CRL.A No. 100259 of 2019
C/W CRL.A No. 100057 of 2019,
CRL.A No. 100260 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MAY 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T. G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100259 OF 2019
C/W CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.100057 OF 2019
AND 100260 OF 2019
IN CRL.A.NO.100259 OF 2019:
BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH CPI RANEBENNUR RURAL CIRCLE,
HALAGERI POLICE STATION
REP. BY ADDITIONAL S.P.P.,
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD-580011.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT.GIRIJA S.HIREMATH, HCGP)
AND:
Digitally signed by
BHARATHI H M
Location: HIGH
SRI. GANGAPPA
COURT OF
KARNATAKA S/O. SANNABASAPPA BETTAL,
DHARWAD
BENCH AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
Date: 2024.06.03
14:40:16 +0530 R/O: GUDDADHOSALLI, TQ: RANEBENNUR,
DIST: HAVERI.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.A.M.GUNDWADE, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 378(1) AND (3) OF
CR.PC., SEEKING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 30.01.2019 PASSED
BY THE II ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT HAVERI
(SITTING AT RANEBENNUR) IN SC NO.78/2014 SO FAR IT RELATES
TO ACQUITTAL OF RESPONDENT/ACCUSED NO. 1 FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE U/SECTION 302 OF IPC (NOT CONVICTING U/SEC 302
OF IPC) AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7088-DB
CRL.A No. 100259 of 2019
C/W CRL.A No. 100057 of 2019,
CRL.A No. 100260 of 2019
30.01.2019 PASSED BY THE II ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE AT HAVERI (SITTING AT RANEBENNUR) IN SC NO.78/2014
AND TO CONVICT AND SENTENCE THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED NO.1
FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC 143, 147, 323, 504 AND
302 R/W SECTION 149 OF IPC.
IN CRL.A.NO.100057 OF 2019:
BETWEEN:
GANGAPPA SANNABASAPPA BETTAL
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: GUDDADHOSALLI, TQ: RANEBENNUR,
DIST: HAVERI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. A.M.GUNDAWADE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY STATE OF PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, AT: DHARWAD,
THROUGH HALAGERI POLICE STATION.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S.HIREMATH, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC.374(2) OF CR.P.C.,
PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE CASE
BEARING S.C.NO.78/2014, FROM THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT HAVERI (SITTING AT
RANEBENNUR) FOR THE PERUSAL OF THE HON'BLE COURT AND TO
PASS JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
OF CONVICTION DATED 30.01.2019 AND ORDER OF SENTENCE
DATED 31.01.2019, PASSED AGAINST THE APPELLANT IN
S.C.NO.78/2014 BY HON'BLE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AT HAVERI (SITTING AT RANEBENNUR) FOR THE
OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 304-II AND 504 OF IPC.
IN CRL.A.NO.100260 OF 2019:
BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7088-DB
CRL.A No. 100259 of 2019
C/W CRL.A No. 100057 of 2019,
CRL.A No. 100260 of 2019
REP. BY THE POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR,
HALAGERI POLICE STATION,
THROUGH THE ADDL. SPP,
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S.HIREMATH, HCGP)
AND:
1. SMT. SHANTHAMMA W/O. YAMANAPPA MULGUND,
AGED: 66 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE.
2. BASAVARAJ S/O. MAHESHAPPA MULGUND,
AGED: 28 YEARS, OCC: FARMER.
3. HANMGOUDA HALAPPA MULGUND
OCC: FARMER.
4. MAHESH YAMANAPPA MULGUND
OCC: FARMER.
ALL ARE R/O: GUDDADHOSALLI,
TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581208.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A.M.GUNDAWADE, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 378 (1) AND (3) OF
CR.P.C. SEEKING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 30/01/2019 PASSED
BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT HAVERI
(SITTING AT RANEBENNUR) IN SC NO.78/2014 AND TO SET ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 30/01/2019 PASSED BY THE II
ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT HAVERI (SITTING AT
RANEBENNUR) IN S.C.NO.78/2014 AND TO CONVICT AND SENTENCE
THE RESPONDENTS / ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTION 143, 147, 323, 504 AND 302 R/W SEC.149 OF IPC.
THESE CRIMINAL APPEALS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING,
THIS DAY, MOHAMMAD NAWAZ J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7088-DB
CRL.A No. 100259 of 2019
C/W CRL.A No. 100057 of 2019,
CRL.A No. 100260 of 2019
JUDGMENT
These 3 appeals are preferred against the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 30.01.2019 passed by the Court of II Additional District and Sessions Judge at Haveri (sitting at Ranebennur) in S.C. No.78/2014.
2. Vide impugned judgment, the trial court has convicted accused No.1 for offences punishable under Sections 304 Part II and 504 of the Indian Penal Code(hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC', for brevity) and acquitted him of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147 and 323 read with Section 149 of IPC and acquitted accused Nos.3 to 6 of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 504 and 302 read with Section 149 of IPC.
3. So far as accused No.2 is concerned, as she died during the pendency of the trial, the case against her stood abated.
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7088-DB CRL.A No. 100259 of 2019 C/W CRL.A No. 100057 of 2019, CRL.A No. 100260 of 2019
4. As against acquitting accused No.1 of the principal offence under Section 302 of IPC, which was charged against him, along with other offences, the State has preferred Criminal Appeal No.100259/2019 and as against the acquittal of accused Nos.3 to 6 of the charged offences, the State has preferred Criminal Appeal No.100260/2019.
5. Accused No.1, insofar as the judgment of conviction and sentence passed against him for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II and Section 504 of IPC, has preferred Criminal Appeal No.100057/2019.
6. We have heard the learned counsel Sri. A.M. Gundawade appearing for accused Nos.1 and 3 to 6 and Smt. Girija S. Hiremath, the learned High Court Government Pleader, appearing for the State in all the three appeals.
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7088-DB CRL.A No. 100259 of 2019 C/W CRL.A No. 100057 of 2019, CRL.A No. 100260 of 2019
7. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that, the complainant/CW-1(PW-3) and accused No.2 are husband and wife. Rest of the accused are the relatives of accused No.2. The complainant married accused No.2 about 13 years prior to the incident. After the birth of a child, there was dis-cordial relationship between the couple and hence, accused No.2 went to her parental home situated at Guddadahosalli village. She filed a maintenance petition against her husband i.e. the complainant and also filed a suit for partition of the property. The Court granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month. Further, 1/3rd share each was allotted to the complainant, accused No.2 and her only daughter in the land bearing Sy.No.25 measuring an extent of 2-05 guntas. Against this, an appeal was preferred by the complainant before the High Court. Further, the complainant had given land bearing Sy.No.3 measuring an extent of 01.16 guntas situated at Timmenalli-Pattepur road adjacent to the garden land of one Hemappa Mudabagil, to his sister by name Mahadevakka Malager, after the death of her -7- NC: 2024:KHC-D:7088-DB CRL.A No. 100259 of 2019 C/W CRL.A No. 100057 of 2019, CRL.A No. 100260 of 2019 husband. Accused No.2 filed a suit seeking share even in the said land given to Mahadevakka Malager. In this connection, an appeal was preferred by Mahadevakka Malager and an order of stay was granted. Hence, accused No.2 and her family members were having animosity against the family of the complainant. In this background, on 23.06.2014, at about 4:00 pm, all the accused having formed an unlawful assembly, went to land bearing Sy.No.3 measuring an extent of 01-16 guntas. On seeing the complainant and his mother, accused persons started abusing them in filthy language and threatened them with dire consequences. Accused No.1 assaulted complainant's mother, by name Iramma, with a club on her head, over left ear forcibly and caused bleeding injuries. He chased and slapped the complainant on his cheek. Further, all the accused abused the complainant and others in filthy language etc.
8. The trial Court framed charges against accused Nos.1 and 3 to 6 for the offences punishable under -8- NC: 2024:KHC-D:7088-DB CRL.A No. 100259 of 2019 C/W CRL.A No. 100057 of 2019, CRL.A No. 100260 of 2019 Sections 143, 147, 323, 302 and 504 of IPC read with Section 149 of IPC.
9. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution in all examined 12 witnesses and got marked 24 documents and M.Os.1 to 5. The defence got marked Exs.D-1 to 3.
10. The learned Sessions Judge has found accused No.1 guilty of assaulting deceased Iramma on her head with a club and causing multiple injuries, however found insufficient evidence insofar as other accused are concerned. Insofar as charges leveled against accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC is concerned, the learned Sessions Judge was of the view that the ingredients of the said offence was not made out and observed that if, real intention or common object of the accused was to assault the complainant, definitely, they would have carried the weapons and accused No.1 would have assaulted the complainant also i.e. the son of deceased Iramma with the very same club i.e. M.O.1. It is -9- NC: 2024:KHC-D:7088-DB CRL.A No. 100259 of 2019 C/W CRL.A No. 100057 of 2019, CRL.A No. 100260 of 2019 further observed that the incident occurred in a spur of moment without any intention, motive or preparation and accused No.1 picked up the club that was lying on the spot to assault the deceased. Hence, the learned Sessions Judge convicted accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II as against the charged offence under Section 302 of IPC.
11. Assailing the impugned judgment, insofar as acquitting accused No.1 of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of IPC and acquitting other accused persons of all the charges leveled against them, the learned High Court Government Pleader has contended that all the accused have gone to the disputed land forming an unlawful assembly with the sole intention of causing harm to the complainant and his mother and they had a common object of committing the offence. Hence, it is contended that the learned Sessions Judge was not justified in acquitting rest of the accused of the charges leveled against them. It is vehemently contended
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7088-DB CRL.A No. 100259 of 2019 C/W CRL.A No. 100057 of 2019, CRL.A No. 100260 of 2019 that even accused Nos.3 to 6 are also liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 by virtue of Section 149 of IPC, in view of the evidence of the complainant, who is examined as PW-3 and the evidence of PWs.5 and 6. The learned Government Pleader has also contended that accused No.1 has assaulted deceased Iramma on her head which is a vital part of the body, forcibly, on multiple occasions and caused multiple fractures, which clearly shows his intention to cause her death and therefore, the ingredients of Section 300 of IPC are clearly made out. She has contended that the learned Sessions Judge was not proper in holding that the incident has occurred in a spur of moment without any intention, motive or preparation. She, therefore, has sought to allow the appeals preferred by the State.
12. Learned counsel appearing for the accused, on the other hand has contended that there is no sufficient evidence adduced by the prosecution to establish that it was accused No.1 and he alone caused the injury to
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7088-DB CRL.A No. 100259 of 2019 C/W CRL.A No. 100057 of 2019, CRL.A No. 100260 of 2019 deceased Iramma by assaulting on her head. He would contend that complainant-PW.3 is none other than the son of the deceased and he is an interested witness and certain admission in his cross-examination would clearly show that he was not present at the scene of occurrence when the incident took place. It is also contended that PWs.5 and 6 are not eyewitnesses as projected by the prosecution, but they are planted witnesses, who were not at all present at the scene of occurrence.
13. The learned counsel has further contended that PW.3 has admitted in his evidence that the disputed land does not belong to him, as such, the prosecution has failed to prove the motive for the accused persons to commit the offence. Insofar as acquittal of other accused persons is concerned, it is contended by the learned counsel that the learned Sessions Judge, after giving his anxious consideration to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, has rightly come to the conclusion that the said
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7088-DB CRL.A No. 100259 of 2019 C/W CRL.A No. 100057 of 2019, CRL.A No. 100260 of 2019 accused are innocent of the offences alleged against them and rightly acquitted them.
14. The incident took place on 23.06.2014 at around 4:00 pm in Timennahalli village in land bearing Sy.No.3 measuring an extent of 1-16 guntas. It is the case of prosecution that on account of the matrimonial dispute between the complainant and his wife i.e. accused No.2 and the dispute with regard to the property, all the accused formed an unlawful assembly and went to the land wherein the complainant and his mother were present and abused them in filthy language and accused No.1 assaulted complainant's mother with a club on the back portion of the head and near left ear, forcibly, on account of which, she sustained grievous bleeding injuries and subsequently succumbed to the said injury while undergoing treatment in the hospital. Further, accused No.1 chased the complainant and slapped on his cheek and all the accused threatened them with dire consequences etc.
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7088-DB CRL.A No. 100259 of 2019 C/W CRL.A No. 100057 of 2019, CRL.A No. 100260 of 2019
15. PW-11 is the ASI of Halageri Police Station, who on receiving the MLC intimation from Bapuji Hospital, Davangere, regarding admission of the injured, went to the hospital and as the injured was not in a position to give her statement, recorded the statement of PW-3 as per Ex.P-11 between 11:30-00:30 hours on the intervening night of 23.06.2014 and 24.06.2014. Thereafter, he returned to the Police Station and registered a case and issued the FIR marked as Ex.P-16, to the jurisdictional Court. Investigation was taken over from him by the CPI-PW-12, who conducted the inquest mahazer, spot mahazer etc. In the meanwhile, the deceased who was taking treatment in the hospital, died at about 4.30 am on 24.06.2014 and therefore requisition was sent to the jurisdictional court to incorporate Section 302 of the IPC. PW-12 recorded the statements of witnesses and on completion of investigation, filed the charge sheet.
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7088-DB CRL.A No. 100259 of 2019 C/W CRL.A No. 100057 of 2019, CRL.A No. 100260 of 2019
16. The prosecution has got examined the Medical Officer-PW9, who conducted the post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. The post-mortem report is marked as Ex.P13.
17. As per the evidence of PW9 and post-mortem report, death is due to craniocerebral injury as a result of blunt force impact over the head. PW9 has noticed fractures on the left temporal and occipital bone on the head and linear fracture in the skull. PW9 has given opinion as per Ex.P14 stating that the injuries shown in the post-mortem report can be caused by M.O.1 - club, sent for examination.
18. From the above evidence on record, the prosecution has established that deceased Iramma died a homicidal death. Even otherwise, the defence has not disputed the cause of death of the deceased.
19. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the accused that, on account of the admitted
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7088-DB CRL.A No. 100259 of 2019 C/W CRL.A No. 100057 of 2019, CRL.A No. 100260 of 2019 civil dispute between the complainant and accused No.2, all the accused are falsely implicated in this case. It is his contention that, neither PW3 nor PWs. 5 and 6 were present at the spot at the time of incident and the said witnesses are planted and PW3 being an interested witness and relative of the deceased, has falsely implicated accused No.1 and others.
20. Among the witnesses examined by the prosecution, PWs. 3, 5 and 6 are the material witnesses, who speak about the incident in question.
21. PW3 is the son of the deceased and he is the complainant. It is relevant to mention that, immediately after the incident, the deceased was shifted to District Hospital, Davangere and when PW11 received the MLC intimation and went to the hospital, PW3 was very much present in the said hospital and he narrated the incident to PW11 as per Ex.P11, which was reduced into writing. A perusal of Ex.P11 reveal that there was a matrimonial dispute between the complainant and his wife, i.e.,
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7088-DB CRL.A No. 100259 of 2019 C/W CRL.A No. 100057 of 2019, CRL.A No. 100260 of 2019 accused No.2. A maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month was awarded to her by the court. She was also given 1/3rd share in the disputed property. It is also stated in the complaint that, an extent of 01 acre 16 guntas was sold by the complainant to his sister Mahadevakka, but even in the said property, accused No.2 was claiming a share. Insofar as 1/3rd share given to accused No.2 by the Civil Court is concerned, an appeal was preferred by the complainant's sister and there was an order of stay granted. Hence it is very evident that there was a civil dispute between the complainant and his family members on the one side and accused No.2 i.e., the wife of complainant on the other side. Accused No.1 is none other than the brother of accused No.2. Other accused are also her relatives.
22. PW3 in his evidence has reiterated the complaint averments. He has stated that, in view of the above dispute, when he along with his mother were present in the land, all the accused came to the land and
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7088-DB CRL.A No. 100259 of 2019 C/W CRL.A No. 100057 of 2019, CRL.A No. 100260 of 2019 started ploughing the land, which was questioned by his mother and at that time, accused persons scolded them and accused No.1 assaulted his mother on the head with a club. Merely because PW3 is the son of the deceased, it cannot be said that he is an interested witness. There is nothing elicited in the cross-examination to discard his evidence and to hold that he was not at all present at the scene of occurrence when the incident took place. He has deposed that he shifted his injured mother to the Government Hospital, Tumminakatti and then for higher treatment shifted her to CJ Hospital, wherein he was advised to take her to Bapuji Hospital, Davangere. The victim was admitted in the said hospital. He has also deposed about the police visiting the said hospital and recording his statement/complaint as per Ex.P11.
23. The learned counsel for the appellant by drawing the attention of the court to the cross- examination of PW3, wherein he has admitted that, earlier in the year 2008, there was an incident of assault and a
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7088-DB CRL.A No. 100259 of 2019 C/W CRL.A No. 100057 of 2019, CRL.A No. 100260 of 2019 case was registered against accused No.1 and others by him, would contend that PW3 was nurturing ill-will against accused No.1 and therefore, he has filed a false case against him. He contended that, in the said case, police filed 'B' report, which was not challenged by PW3 and therefore, in similar fashion, he has filed the present false complaint against accused No.1.
24. The above contention raised by the learned counsel cannot be accepted to hold that PW3 has foisted a false case against accused No.1. In the present case, deceased sustained grievous injuries on her head, which has resulted in her death. PW3 has categorically stated that, on account of the civil dispute etc., accused No.1 assaulted his mother with a club on the head. He has stated that, after assaulting his mother, accused No.1 threw the club on the spot and all the accused went away. The said club was seized under a mahazar-Ex.P6. The doctor has opined that the injuries sustained by the
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7088-DB CRL.A No. 100259 of 2019 C/W CRL.A No. 100057 of 2019, CRL.A No. 100260 of 2019 deceased on her head could be caused by the said M.O.1 - club.
25. It is also contended by the learned counsel that, according to the prosecution, accused persons have come to the spot in a tractor, but in the complaint, the registration number of the tractor is not mentioned and in the cross-examination, PW3 has stated that he is not aware of the registration number of the tractor.
26. Merely because the registration number of the tractor in which the accused came to the spot is not mentioned by PW3 either in Ex.P11 or in his evidence, is not a ground to discard his evidence. In the cross- examination, PW3 has stated that the accused came in a blue colour tractor and he has shown the tractor to the police in the police station on 24.06.2014 itself.
27. PWs. 5 and 6 are the other eyewitnesses examined by the prosecution. Both the said witnesses are independent witnesses.
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7088-DB CRL.A No. 100259 of 2019 C/W CRL.A No. 100057 of 2019, CRL.A No. 100260 of 2019
28. PW5 has deposed in his evidence that, on 23.06.2014, in the afternoon, he was grazing the cattle in the arecanut garden of one Hemanagouda Mudabagil and at that time, all the accused came to the land for ploughing. He has spoken about the incident and the assault made by accused No.1 on the head of deceased Iramma, on account of which she collapsed to the ground. A perusal of his evidence shows that the complainant - PW3 was very much present at the spot. PW5 has stated that, after assaulting Iramma, accused No.1 threw the club at the spot and fled away. He has identified M.O. 1- club as the one used by accused No.1. He has denied the suggestion put by the defence that he has not at all witnessed the incident.
29. PW6, another independent eyewitness has deposed about the incident stating that accused No.1 has assaulted the deceased Iramma on the back of her head with the club. He has identified M.O.1 - club as the weapon from which accused No.1 assaulted the deceased.
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7088-DB CRL.A No. 100259 of 2019 C/W CRL.A No. 100057 of 2019, CRL.A No. 100260 of 2019 The evidence of PWs. 5 and 6 corroborates the evidence of PW3.
30. From the above evidence on record, we have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has established that the deceased Iramma died a homicidal death on account of the assault made by accused No.1 with club - M.O.1. It is contended by the learned HCGP that accused No.1 had the motive and intention to commit the murder of Iramma and with that intention, assaulted the deceased on her head multiple times and therefore, the offence committed by accused No.1 would attract Section 302 of the IPC.
31. A perusal of the entire evidence on record would clearly indicate that, when the accused went to the disputed land, they were not aware of the presence of either PW3 or the deceased in the said land. They went to the land for the purpose of ploughing the land. The prosecution has not placed any evidence to show that, when they went to the land, they were carrying any weapon.
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7088-DB CRL.A No. 100259 of 2019 C/W CRL.A No. 100057 of 2019, CRL.A No. 100260 of 2019
32. The evidence of PW3 shows that, on seeing the accused persons present in the disputed land, the deceased not only questioned them but also abused them in a filthy language and at that time accused No.1 assaulted her with a club on the back of her head and near the right ear. The incident has therefore taken in a quarrel on account of a land dispute and in the heat of passion, without premeditation. Though, more than one blow was given by accused No.1 which resulted in multiple fractures, it cannot be said that accused No.1 has acted in a cruel or in an unusual manner. Findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge to bring down the offence from Section 302 of IPC to Section 304 Part-II IPC against accused No.1 cannot be said to be either illegal or perverse.
33. The learned Sessions Judge has appreciated the evidence adduced by the prosecution elaborately to come to conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges leveled against other accused persons.
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7088-DB CRL.A No. 100259 of 2019 C/W CRL.A No. 100057 of 2019, CRL.A No. 100260 of 2019
34. Having re-appreciated the evidence on record, we are of the considered view that there is no sufficient evidence to hold that other accused are guilty of the offences charged against them. Even accepting their presence at the spot, it cannot be said that they were the members of unlawful assembly or that they shared common intention along with accused No.1 to commit the offence. The evidence against other accused persons is insufficient to convict them with the aid of Section 149 of IPC. Further, the prosecution has failed to prove that they were aware of the offence likely to be committed by accused No.1.
35. The trial court has sentenced accused No.1 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 304 Part-II of IPC.
36. Further, accused has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months and
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7088-DB CRL.A No. 100259 of 2019 C/W CRL.A No. 100057 of 2019, CRL.A No. 100260 of 2019 to pay fine of Rs.3,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 month for the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC.
37. Accused No.1 was in custody during trial from 24.06.20214 to 12.02.2015 and after the judgment of conviction and sentence passed against him on 30.01.2019 till his sentence was suspended on 21.02.2019, he was in custody. Pursuant to the order of suspending the sentence, he was released on 27.02.2019.
38. The incident took place in the year 2014. Ten years have lapsed. The incident is on account of a civil dispute as well as the matrimonial dispute between the complainant and his wife i.e. accused No.2 who is no more. Accused No.1 being the brother of the accused No.2 probably wanted to support his sister. The parties are related to each other. When the incident took place accused No.1 was aged 45 years. It is submitted that he has his family to look after and he is a farmer.
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7088-DB CRL.A No. 100259 of 2019 C/W CRL.A No. 100057 of 2019, CRL.A No. 100260 of 2019
39. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, we are of the view that sentence imposed against accused No.1 can be reduced by enhancing the fine amount. Hence, the following:
ORDER
i) Crl.A.No.100057/2019 is allowed in part.
ii) The judgment dated 30.01.2019 passed in SC No.78/2014 by the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Haveri (Sitting at Ranebennur) convicting accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Sections 304 Part-II and 504 of IPC is hereby confirmed.
iii) The sentence imposed against accused No.1 for the offence under Section 304-II of IPC is hereby modified.
iv) Accused No.1 is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years for the offence under Section 304 Part-II of IPC and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.50,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months.
v) The sentence imposed against accused No.1 for the offence under Section 504 of IPC is hereby confirmed.
- 26 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7088-DB CRL.A No. 100259 of 2019 C/W CRL.A No. 100057 of 2019, CRL.A No. 100260 of 2019
vi) Crl.A.No.100259/2019 and Crl.A.No.100260/2019 are dismissed.
vii) Both the sentence imposed against accused No.1 shall run concurrently and he is entitled for set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
viii) If fine amount is deposited, a sum of Rs.40,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to PW.3-Iranagouda Moodabagilu. Balance shall be adjusted towards cost of State expenses.
ix) The order shall be communicated to the trial Court for implementation of the sentence.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Kmv-upto para 15 GAB - para 16 to 31 HMB -32 to end