Karnataka High Court
The State vs Vinod Kumar on 28 January, 2026
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:4607-DB
CRL.A No. 819 of 2018
C/W CRL.A No. 1918 of 2017
CRL.A No. 818 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.819 OF 2018 (A)
C/W
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1918 OF 2017 (C)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.818 OF 2018
IN CRL.A No.819/2018
BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ASSISTANT POLICE COMMISSIONER
PANAMBUR SUB DIVISION
PANAMBUR, MANGALURU
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
BENGALURU-01.
...APPELLANT
Digitally signed by
MOUNESHWARAPPA (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDITIONAL SPP)
NAGARATHNA
Location: High Court
of Karnataka
AND:
1. VINOD KUMAR
S/O. CHANDRASHEKARA GATTI
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
RESIDING AT MOORU KATE, KUMPALA
SOMESHWARA VILLAGE
KOTEKAR POST
MANGALURU TALUK-575 001.
2. PRAKASH @ PAKKU @ VIJAYAPRAKASH
S/O. M.K. MOHANDAS
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
RESIDING AT VINOD NIVAS, KUMPALA
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:4607-DB
CRL.A No. 819 of 2018
C/W CRL.A No. 1918 of 2017
CRL.A No. 818 of 2018
HC-KAR
MOORU KATE, KUMPALA
SOMESHWARA VILLAGE
KOTEKAR POST
MANGALURU TALUK-575 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI P.P. HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL ALONG WITH
SRI PRUTHVIRAJ S., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & R-2)
***
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1)
AND (3) OF THE CR.P.C PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 26-10-2017 AND
28-10-2017 PASSED IN SPECIAL CASE NO.28 OF 2010 ON THE FILE
OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS (SPECIAL) JUDGE,
D.K., MANGALORE IN SO FAR AS ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED NO.1
AND 3/RESPONDENTS FOR THE REST OF THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 323, 506, 307 R/W
149 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(2)(V) OF THE SC/ST OF (POA) ACT.
IN CRL.A NO.1918/2017
BETWEEN:
1. VINOD KUMAR
S/O. CHANDRASHEKARA GATTI
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
RESIDING AT MOORUKATE, KUMPALA
SOMESHWARA VILLAGE
KOTEKAR POST
MANGALURU TALUK-575 022.
2. PRAKASH @ PAKKU @ VIJAYAPRAKASH
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
RESIDING AT VINOD NIVAS
MOORU KATE, KUMPALA
SOMESHWARA VILLAGE
MANGALURU TALUK-575 022.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:4607-DB
CRL.A No. 819 of 2018
C/W CRL.A No. 1918 of 2017
CRL.A No. 818 of 2018
HC-KAR
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI P.P. HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL ALONG WITH
SRI PRUTHVIRAJ S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE
THROUGH ASSISTANT POLICE COMMISSIONER
PANAMBUR
SUB DIVISION, PANAMBUR
MANGALURU (REPRESENTED BY THE
LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDITIONAL SPP)
***
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2)
OF THE CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF
CONVICTION DATED 26-10-2017 AND ORDER OF SENTENCE
DATED 28-10-2017 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS (SPECIAL) JUDGE, D.K., MANGALURU IN
SPL.C.NO.28 OF 2010.
IN CRL.A NO.818/2018
BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ASSISTANT POLICE COMMISSIONER
PANAMBUR SUB DIVISION, PANAMBUR
MANGALURU
(REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
BENGALURU-01.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDITIONAL SPP)
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:4607-DB
CRL.A No. 819 of 2018
C/W CRL.A No. 1918 of 2017
CRL.A No. 818 of 2018
HC-KAR
AND:
1. VINOD KUMAR
S/O. CHANDRASHEKARA GATTI
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
RESIDING AT MOORUKATE, KUMPALA
SOMESHWARA VILLAGE
KOTEKAR POST
MANGALURU TALUK-574 211.
2. PRAKASH @ PAKKU @ VIJAYAPRAKASH
S/O. M.K. MOHANDAS
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
RESIDING AT VINOD NIVAS, KUMPALA
MOORU KATE, KUMPALA
SOMESHWARA VILLAGE
KOTEKAR POST
MANGALURU TALUK-574 211.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI P.P. HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL ALONG WITH
SRI PRUTHVIRAJ S., ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 377 OF
THE CR.P.C PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER
DATED 26-10-2017 AND 28-10-2017 PASSED IN
SPL.C.NO.28 OF 2010 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS (SPECIAL) JUDGE, D.K. MANGALURU IN SO FAR
AS AWARDING MEAGER SENTENCE TO THE
ACCUSED/RESPONDENTS FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 504, 324 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC
AND UNDER SECTION 3(1)(X) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT AND ETC.
THESE CRIMINAL APPEALS, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:4607-DB
CRL.A No. 819 of 2018
C/W CRL.A No. 1918 of 2017
CRL.A No. 818 of 2018
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH) Criminal Appeal No.819/2018 and Criminal Appeal No. 818/2018 are filed by the appellant/State as against acquittal of accused Nos.1 and 3/respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 506 and 307 read with 149 of IPC and under Section 3(2) (v) of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'SC/ST(PoA) Act') as well as for inadequate sentence imposed against accused Nos.1 and 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 324 read with Section 34 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST(PoA) Act and Criminal Appeal No.1918/2017 is filed by the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 3 challenging their conviction and sentence dated 26.10.2017 passed in Spl.Case No.28/2010 by learned II Addl. District & Sessions(Special) Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 324 read with Section 34 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST(PoA) Act.
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:4607-DB CRL.A No. 819 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 1918 of 2017 CRL.A No. 818 of 2018 HC-KAR These three appeals are arising out for consideration of case only against accused Nos.1 and 3 as accused No.2 was absconded and was not subjected for trial.
2. The factual matrix of case of the prosecution before the trial Court is that:-
The complainant Praveen Kumar in his complaint Ex.P1 made allegations that on 07.04.2010, while he was under
treatment at Nethaji Hospital, Thokkottu, Ullal, police came and recorded his statement and registered the case in Crime No.109/2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 504 and 307 r/w Section 149 IPC and Section 3 (1) (x) and (xi) of SC/ST(PoA) Act as against accused Nos.1 to 3 and other three persons as per FIR marked as Ex.P13. It is stated by the complainant PW.1 that he was working as a Mechanic in the Mangalore University for about 7 years and for the last 7 months prior to lodging of the complaint, by virtue of a Government Order, he had been deputed as a Personal Assistant to the local MLA; it is further stated that on 07.04.2010 at about 10.00 p.m., he had gone to Wine & Dine Bar and Restaurant situated at Kapikad along with -7- NC: 2026:KHC:4607-DB CRL.A No. 819 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 1918 of 2017 CRL.A No. 818 of 2018 HC-KAR his friend PW.3 Rajesh and sat on the general table, in which, PW3 was already sitting. In the adjacent table, accused Nos.1 to 3 were sitting along with other three unknown people and accused Nos.1 to 3 started abusing PW.1 in filthy language stating that 'a son of bastard belonging to Dikka caste and that he will assault him and are you the personal assistant of MLA Khadir, are you are a big man' and in that scuffle, PW.3, PW.4 and PW.8 were also along with PW.1 and accused No.1 Vinod Kumar assaulted PW.1 on his left cheek by means of a brass punch and caused injury, accused No.2 Sujeer took a soda bottle and assaulted him on the back of his head causing bleeding injury. Since PW.1 raised hue and cry, the people gathered and the assailants ran away from the spot.
Immediately, PW.1 i.e., complainant was shifted to Netaji Yellappa Hospital and police intimation was sent and the police came and recorded his statement from 11.00 p.m. to 11.30 p.m. as per Ex.P1 and police having registered the case, investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet against the accused persons.
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC:4607-DB CRL.A No. 819 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 1918 of 2017 CRL.A No. 818 of 2018 HC-KAR
3. The trial Court also framed charges and the accused did not plead guilty. Hence, the prosecution in order to prove the case, examined PW.1 to PW.15 and got marked documents Exs.P1 to P15 and MO.1 to MO.4 and Exs.6 to 8 have been marked by consent and hence the learned Public Prosecutor gave up the examination of CW.13 to CW.15. The accused were subjected to 313 Cr.P.C. statement and the accused have not led any defence evidence.
4. The trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence on record comes to the conclusion that point Nos.1 and 2 are proved that accused Nos.1 and 3 have committed the offences under Sections 504 and 324 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (PoA) Act, 1989 and in respect of other offences, the accused were acquitted.
5. Hence, two appeals are filed by the State questioning the quantum of sentence and also the acquittal order. The accused have also filed appeal questioning their conviction.
6. The main contention of learned Addl. SPP Smt. Rashmi Jadhav appearing for the appellant/State in respective appeals -9- NC: 2026:KHC:4607-DB CRL.A No. 819 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 1918 of 2017 CRL.A No. 818 of 2018 HC-KAR is that the trial Court committed an error in not appreciating the evidence in proper perspective; that PW.1 to PW.4 have supported the case of the prosecution and even PW.6 also supported the case of the prosecution and the medical evidence of the Doctor is also clear that the injuries sustained by PW.1 could be caused by MOs.3(brass punch) and 4(broken soda bottle) and the evidence of PW.1 is corroborated by the evidence of PW.2 and PW.3 that the accused with an intention to commit his murder, assaulted him; that even the sentence imposed by the trial Court for the offences invoked against the accused are inadequate and hence Additional SPP Smt. Rashmi Jadav would submit that the trial Court committed an error in convicting the accused only for the offences under Sections 504 and 324 IPC and Section 3(1) (x) of SC/ST (PoA) Act and acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 506, 307 r/w 149 of IPC and Section 3(ii) (v) of SC/ST (PoA) Act.
7. Per contra, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 3 in his arguments would vehemently contend that the prosecution evidence is
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4607-DB CRL.A No. 819 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 1918 of 2017 CRL.A No. 818 of 2018 HC-KAR inconsistent, unbelievable and untrustworthy; that PW.1 claims to be the personal secretary of the MLA and the MLA had become the Cabinet Minister of Karnataka State at the relevant point of time and PW.1 being a very influential person misusing the authority, has filed a false case against the accused. The counsel also brought to the notice of the Court the admission made by PW.1 in the cross-examination stating that he does not know as to whether accused No.3 had come to assault him or pacify the galata, but he only says that accused Nos.1 and 2 assaulted him and he cannot say as to which other persons assaulted him and when such being the case, the trial Court ought not to have convicted accused No.3; that PW.2 in his cross-examination has stated that he cannot say as to in whose hands the water jug was there, but he says that accused No.1 was assaulted with water jug; the admission on the part of PW.6 is that when he was bringing food from the kitchen, he found the accused and the complainant(PW1) assaulting and that he is not aware as to how and who started the incident; the counsel also brought to the notice of this Court the evidence of PW.9 Doctor, wherein he has admitted that injury No.1 shown in Ex-P9 could be caused by MO.4 Soda bottle and
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4607-DB CRL.A No. 819 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 1918 of 2017 CRL.A No. 818 of 2018 HC-KAR injury No.2 could be caused by MO.3 Brass punch and his opinion which is given to IO is at Ex-P11; learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court that PW.1 was in the hospital for 14 days for stomach pain and in respect of other injury, 2 days' treatment was taken; PW.15 in his evidence has categorically admitted that he did not make any of the customers of the Bar and Restaurant as witnesses and that during the course of investigation, he came to know that the complainant is the personal assistant of the local MLA. These are the materials which have not been taken note of by the trial Court while considering the evidence available on record and hence learned counsel prays this Court to acquit the accused even for the offences for which they have been convicted.
8. Having heard learned Senior Counsel Sri. P.P. Hegde for the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 3 and learned Addl. SPP Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, for the appellant/State in the respective appeals and also considering the evidence available on record, both oral and documentary evidence, the points that arise for our consideration are:
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4607-DB CRL.A No. 819 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 1918 of 2017 CRL.A No. 818 of 2018 HC-KAR
1. Whether the trial Court committed an error in acquitting the accused Nos.1 and 3 for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 506 and 307 r/w 149 of IPC and 3(ii) (v) of SC/ST (PoA) Act?
2. Whether the trial Court committed an error in convicting accused Nos.1 and 3 for the offences punishable under Section 504 and 324 r/w Section 34 IPC and Section 3(1) (x) of SC/ST (PoA) Act?
3. What order?
9. We have perused both oral and documentary evidence available on record in respect of the incident is concerned and having considered the materials, particularly, the evidence of PW.1 and PW2 to PW4, the genesis of the crime is that when accused Nos.1 to 3 started abusing PW.1, the incident has taken place and the accused assaulted PW.1 in the presence of PW.2, PW.3 and PW.4. The prosecution evidence of PW.1 is very clear that accused Nos.1 and 2 assaulted him with their hands and also with the soda bottle, but the overt-act allegation against accused No.2 is that he assaulted PW.1 with
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4607-DB CRL.A No. 819 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 1918 of 2017 CRL.A No. 818 of 2018 HC-KAR soda bottle on his head and as he was not subjected to trial, his role will not be looked into it, however, we have to see as to whether accused Nos.1 and 3 inflicted injury to PW.1 as deposed by the prosecution witnesses. Though it is the case of the prosecution that accused No.1 and 3 assaulted with their hands, but it is the case of the prosecution that accused Nos.1 assaulted PW.1 by means of a brass punch, as a result, he sustained the injuries. But, PW.1 categorically given an admission that he noticed the assault made by accused Nos.1 and 2, but whether accused No.3 came to rescue him or assault him, he is not aware of the same. No doubt, other witnesses PW2, PW3 and PW4 narrate as to how the incident had taken place. But, the evidence of PW.2 is that accused No.2 assaulted on the cheek of PW1 and he assaulted PW.1 with a soda bottle on his back and the remaining accused assaulted PW.1 with their hands, but also threatened that they will not leave him and abused in filthy language, however, he cannot say as to for what reason, the accused assaulted PW.1. This witness was subjected to cross-examination. In the cross-examination, he speaks about assault made to PW.1 with a soda bottle, however, he cannot tell as to in whose hands, the water jug
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4607-DB CRL.A No. 819 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 1918 of 2017 CRL.A No. 818 of 2018 HC-KAR was there, however, he says PW.1 was assaulted with a water jug. But this is not the version of PW.1 that he was assaulted by a water jug, but he says he was assaulted with a soda bottle and with regard to overt-act of accused No.3 is concerned, he does not speak about the assault made by him and only an omnibus statement is made that accused Nos.1 to 3 assaulted him alongwith others. The evidence of PW.3 is also similar with regard to the abuse made by accused Nos.1 to 3 that they will not leave him, that accused No.1 assaulted with a fighter punch on his cheek and also he had sustained injury on the head and there was bleeding injury. In the cross-examination, he says that he used to visit Wine and Dine Bar and Restaurant occasionally and that there were more number of customers. However, it is to be noted that there is no specific allegation against accused No.3 by PW.3 and so also in the cross- examination of PW.4, he says that accused abused PW.1 in filthy language and threatened that they will not leave him. However, PW.4 also says that accused No.1 and accused No.2 assaulted and abused PW.1 and his evidence is also that accused No.1 punched PW.1 on his face. He also identifies MO.3-brass punch and also MO.4 soda bottle. In the cross-
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4607-DB CRL.A No. 819 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 1918 of 2017 CRL.A No. 818 of 2018 HC-KAR examination, he states that he did not question the accused as to whom they were abusing, but he states that all the three accused persons assaulted PW.1 and that, while PW.1 was assaulted with soda bottle, he was sitting in the chair, however, he stated that he cannot say as to whether the accused assaulted PW.1 from front side or back side, however, he found that PW.1 was assaulted with soda bottle.
10. Having perused the above evidence, we find that there is no material found against accused No.3 and even PW.1 was also not sure about the assault made by accused No.3 and he says that he does not know whether accused No.3 came to rescue him or assault him. When such being the case, there is no consistent evidence against accused No.3 is concerned. However, eye-witnesses PW.2 to PW.4 consistently depose against accused No.1 that he assaulted PW.1 with M.O.3 brass punch. But, the Court has to take note of Ex.P11 report given by Dr.Mahabalesh Shetty-PW.9, the Medico Legal Consultant, Kadri, Mangalore, when to a query made to him as to whether the injury on the cheek could be caused by use of MO.3 brass punch, he opined that MO.3 could not cause such injury and it
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4607-DB CRL.A No. 819 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 1918 of 2017 CRL.A No. 818 of 2018 HC-KAR could be on account of slap or smack by bare hand on the cheek of PW1. When such being the case, the offence was only against accused No.1 that he slapped on the cheek of PW1 and hence instead of invoking Section 324 IPC, the trial Court ought to have invoked Section 323 IPC against accused No.1, however, convicted the accused erroneously under Section 324 IPC without considering the opinion of the Doctor PW.9 given in terms of Ex.P11. It is also important to note that considering the nature of injuries, as per PW.9 Doctor, PW.1 was in the hospital for a period of 14 days for his stomach pain 2 days of in-patient treatment was sufficient, which ought to have been taken note of by the trial Court, but the trial Court lost sight of the same while considering both oral and documentary evidence available on record. But the evidence of PW.1 to PW.4 are consistent with regard to the overt-act of accused No.1 and though PW.6 is the supplier of the Bar and Restaurant, he speaks about the incident, wherein he categorically says that while he was bringing the food items, he noticed that accused and PW.1 were fighting with each other and he is also not aware of the genesis of the crime and he is only a chance witness. But the evidence of PW.1 to PW.4 is consistent with
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4607-DB CRL.A No. 819 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 1918 of 2017 CRL.A No. 818 of 2018 HC-KAR regard to the incident is concerned and the medical evidence of Doctor PW.9 is also very clear that PW.1 had sustained the injuries and all the injuries are simple in nature. Now, the question before this Court is with regard to the very contention of Additional SPP that the trial Court committed an error in not invoking Section 307 IPC. Having considered the oral and documentary evidence available on record, we find that there is no material to invoke Section 307 IPC and with regard to the intention to do away the life of PW.1, there is no material before the Court. But only PW.1 to PW.4 witnesses says that while leaving the place, the accused stated that they will not leave them. But there is no any material that to do away the life of PW1, they assaulted the injured PW1 and in the absence of the ingredients of intention to take away the life is concerned, question of invoking Section 307 IPC does not arise and hence, we do not find any force in the contention of the learned Addl. SPP appearing for the appellant/State that the trial Court committed an error in acquitting the accused Nos.1 and 3 for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. The trial Court has convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 504 IPC. On perusal of the evidence available on
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4607-DB CRL.A No. 819 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 1918 of 2017 CRL.A No. 818 of 2018 HC-KAR record with regard to the intentional insult against PW.1 is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that the same is also an omnibus statement that all the three accused persons abused in filthy language. But having considered this statement, an omnibus statement, the same cannot be accepted and that a specific insult made by any of the persons and all cannot make such abuse as filthy language and the trial Court committed an error in convicting the accused for the offence under Section 504 IPC and when there is no substantive material to invoke Sections 324 and 504 IPC, the trial Court committed an error in convicting the accused for the said offences.
11. So also, in respect of the offence under Section 3(1)
(x) of SC/ST (PoA) Act, 1989 of taking the caste name is concerned, except referring that PW.1 belongs to Dikka caste, it is not mentioned or spoken by any of the witnesses as to who made such caste abuse and the same is also an omnibus statement made by the prosecution witnesses and hence, the trial Court ought not to have invoked the Special Enactment under the Prevention of Atrocities Act. When there is no particular words used by a person with an intention to humiliate
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4607-DB CRL.A No. 819 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 1918 of 2017 CRL.A No. 818 of 2018 HC-KAR a person belonging to that particular caste and the very object of the Special Enactment is very clear that there must be consistent evidence and not an omnibus statement with regard to invoking of caste name and the trial Court lost sight of the same while convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 3(1) (x) of SC/ST (PoA) Act.
12. Now coming to the other contention of the learned Addl. SPP appearing for the State that though there was a common intention of accused Nos.1 and 3, the trial Court committed an error in acquitting accused Nos.1 and 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 506, 307 read with 149 IPC. The fact remains that the incident has taken place inside the Bar and Restaurant and there is no question of forming an unlawful assembly and the same was also taken note of by the trial Court while acquitting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 143 and other alleged offences of common intention and rioting, and there was no ingredients to invoke the said offences, as the incident has taken place in the Bar and Restaurant and PW.1 has witnessed the incident and the trial Court has rightly acquitted
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4607-DB CRL.A No. 819 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 1918 of 2017 CRL.A No. 818 of 2018 HC-KAR the accused. When such being the case, we do not find any error in the judgment of the trial Court in acquitting the accused for those offences also. Having reassessed all the material available on record, when the appeals are by accused Nos.1 and 3 and also the State with regard to inadequacy of sentence as well as acquittal and this Court having reassessed the material found that only offence under Section 323 IPC could be made out against accused No.1 since he has slapped PW.1 on its cheek and there is an injury and the same is not a bleeding injury and the bleeding injury on head of PW.1 was on account of assault made by accused No.2, however, accused No.2 was not subjected to trial. When such being the case, having taken note of the nature of the injury and as learned counsel appearing for the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 3 also would suggest that accused No.1 was already in judicial custody for about 9 days and taking note of the said fact into consideration also, it is appropriate to modify the sentence for an offence under 323 IPC without any punishment and having considered the nature of injury as well as the period of hospitalisation, it is appropriate to impose only a fine of
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4607-DB CRL.A No. 819 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 1918 of 2017 CRL.A No. 818 of 2018 HC-KAR ₹10,000/- as sentence instead of imprisonment and hence, we answered the points accordingly.
In view of the discussions made above, we pass the following:
ORDER
1. Crl.A.No.819/2018 and Crl.A.No.818/2018 filed by the appellant/State are dismissed.
2. Crl.A.No.1918/2017 filed by accused Nos.1 and 3 is allowed. The judgment dated 26.10.2017 passed in Spl.Case No.28/2010 against accused Nos.1 and 3 by learned II Addl. District & Sessions (Special) Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru is modified.
Accused No.3 is acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 324 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (PoA) Act, 1989. Insofar as accused No.1 is concerned, he is acquitted of the offence under Section 504 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (PoA) Act, 1989. However, the sentence imposed under Section 324
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4607-DB CRL.A No. 819 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 1918 of 2017 CRL.A No. 818 of 2018 HC-KAR r/w 34 IPC is modified to section 323 IPC and accused No.1 is imposed only with a fine of ₹10,000/-. On deposit of Rs.10,000/- by accused No.1, the same shall be payable to PW.1/victim on proper identification.
3. Bail bonds, if any, executed by accused Nos.1 and 3 stand cancelled.
4. It is made clear that, if accused No.1 fails to deposit the fine amount of ₹10,000/-, he shall undergo imprisonment for a period of three months.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE MN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18