Karnataka High Court
James Vinod vs State Of Karnataka By Sho on 9 January, 2023
Author: B.Veerappa
Bench: B.Veerappa
-1-
CRL.A No. 644 of 2017
C/W CRL.A Nos. 496/2017,
2186/2017 & 2187/2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.644 OF 2017
C/W
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.496 OF 2017
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2186 OF 2017
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2187 OF 2017
IN CRL. A. No.644 OF 2017:
BETWEEN:
KIRAN SHETTY
S/O. RAMESH SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
R/AT KOPPALA MANE,
Digitally signedPADUMARNADU VILLAGE & POST,
by SHYAMALA MANGALORE TALUK AND DISTRICT
PIN - 574 213. ... APPELLANT
Location: HIGH
COURT OF (BY SRI HASHMATH PASHA, SENIOR COUNSEL
KARNATAKA A/W SRI KARIAPPA N.A., ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE BY MUDABIDRI POLICE
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDITIONAL SPP)
-2-
CRL.A No. 644 of 2017
C/W CRL.A Nos. 496/2017,
2186/2017 & 2187/2017
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
374(2) OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
DATED 21.02.2017 AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND
SENTENCE DATED 23.02.2017 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALORE IN
S.C.NO.18/2014 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED
FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 341,326 AND 307 OF IPC.
IN CRL. A. No.496 OF 2017:
BETWEEN:
JAMES VINOD,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
S/O. JOHN AMMANNA,
R/AT AMMANNNA COTTAGE,
BASAVANAKAJE,
PADUMARNAD VILLAGE AND POST,
MOODABIDRI, MANGALORE TALUK,
D.K. DISTRICT - 574 227. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI NISHIT KUMAR SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SHO,
MOODABIDRI POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE - 560 001. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDITIONAL SPP)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
374(2) OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN
S.C.NO.89/2013 ON THE FILE OF COURT OF 1ST ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT & SESSIONS, D.K. DISTRICT, MANGALORE AND SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED
-3-
CRL.A No. 644 of 2017
C/W CRL.A Nos. 496/2017,
2186/2017 & 2187/2017
21/02/2017 AND SENTENCE DATED 23/02/2017 MADE IN
S.C.NO.89/2013 BY THE COURT OF 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS D.K, MANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 341, 326 READ WITH 511 OF
IPC AND ACQUIT HIM FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 341, 326 READ WITH 511 OF IPC.
IN CRL. A. No.2186 OF 2017:
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR
MOODABIDRI POLICE STATION
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 01. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDITIONAL SPP)
AND:
JAMES VINOD
S/O. JOHNE
AGED 27 YEARS,
R/O. BASAVANAKAJE,
PADUMARNADU POST,
MOODABIDRI - 574 227. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI D. NAGARAJA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 377
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL BY
MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 21.02.2017
PASSED BY THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, D.K.,
MANGALURU IN S.C.NO.89/2013 IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO
IMPOSING INADEQUATE SENTENCE ON THE RESPONDENT FOR
THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 326 AND 341
R/W 511 OF IPC.
-4-
CRL.A No. 644 of 2017
C/W CRL.A Nos. 496/2017,
2186/2017 & 2187/2017
IN CRL. A. No.2187 OF 2017:
BETWEEN:
THE STATE - THROUGH
POLICE SUB INSPECTOR
MOODABIDRI POLICE STATION
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 01. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDITIONAL SPP)
AND:
JAMES VINOD
S/O. JOHNE
AGED 27 YEARS,
R/O. BASAVANAKAJE
PADUMARNADU POST,
MOODABIDRI - 574 227. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI D.NAGARAJA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
378(1) AND (3) OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO A) GRANT LEAVE TO
APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL
DATED 21.02.2017 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALURU IN S.C.NO.89/2013,
ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT OF THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTION 307 IPC; B) SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 21.02.2017 PASSED BY THE I
ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALURU IN
S.C.NO.89/2013, ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT OF THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 307 IPC; C) CONVICT
THE RESPONDENT ABOVE NAMED FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 307 IPC.
THESE CRIMINAL APPEALS COMING ON FOR FINAL
HEARING, THIS DAY, B.VEERAPPA J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
-5-
CRL.A No. 644 of 2017
C/W CRL.A Nos. 496/2017,
2186/2017 & 2187/2017
JUDGMENT
(i) Crl.A.No.644 of 2017 is filed by the accused No.1 to set aside the conviction imposed on him under the provisions of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, IPC);
(ii) Crl.A.No.496 of 2017 is filed accused No.2 to aside the conviction imposed on him under the provisions of Section 341 of the IPC;
(iii) Crl.A.No.2186/2017 is filed by the State/ Complainant for enhancement of sentence in respect of accused No.2 under the provisions of Section 326 of IPC and
(iv) Crl.A.No.2187 of 2017 is filed by the State/ Complainant challenging the judgment and order of acquittal of accused No.2 under the provisions of Section 307 IPC.
2. All these four criminal appeals filed by accused Nos.1 and 2 and the State against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.02.2017 made in S.C.No.89 of 2013 and 18/2014 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru convicting the accused No.1-Kiran Shetty to undergo -6- CRL.A No. 644 of 2017 C/W CRL.A Nos. 496/2017, 2186/2017 & 2187/2017 imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under the provisions of Section 307 of IPC with a default clause; seven years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 326 of IPC with a fine of Rs.10,000/- with a default clause; and is also sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 341 of IPC with a fine of Rs.500/- with a default clause.
3. Accused No.2 James Vinod is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 326 r/w 511 of IPC with a fine of Rs.5,000/- with a default clause; imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 341 of IPC with a fine of Rs.500/- with a default clause. Hence, these appeals are filed by the accused and the State for the reliefs stated supra.
4. It is the case of the prosecution that on 25.12.2012, PW-1 lodged a complaint before the PSI with regard teasing of his daughter. Accordingly, the PSI directed to register NCR Case No.422/2012 and sent notice to accused No.1 and thereafter, a petty case was filed against accused -7- CRL.A No. 644 of 2017 C/W CRL.A Nos. 496/2017, 2186/2017 & 2187/2017 No.1 as per Exs.P6 to P9. It is the further case of the prosecution that on the basis of previous complaint, on 14.01.2013 at about 5.15 p.m., when the complainant was riding his scooter from Beluvai towards his house at Basavanakaje, when he reached his house near Anganawadi, three persons asked him to stop by waylaying his scooter and accused No.1-Kiran Shetty kicked the scooter, as a result of which, the complainant fell down to the road. Thereafter, the said Kiran Shetty trampled upon the complainant on his chest and took out a Talwar-sickle/MO2 and alleging that the complainant would not be spared with life, tried to hit the complainant and the complainant blocked the same by holding his hand and then again, he tramped the complainant and took out MO-2 Talwar-sickle and hit near the left foot and then, he tried to hit on the head, but the complainant escaped. There was an injury on the right hand and also on the trunk. The complainant screamed and hearing the scream, his friend Mr.Simon Mascarenhas/PW-2 who had come to his house, came to the spot. It is further stated that the person who had assaulted the complainant was Kiran Shetty accompanied by -8- CRL.A No. 644 of 2017 C/W CRL.A Nos. 496/2017, 2186/2017 & 2187/2017 one Vinod and another, whose name is not known to the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant's wife and other people who had gathered at the spot shifted the complainant to the Alva's Hospital, where first aid was given and then shifted to A.J.Hospital, Mangalore in an Ambulance. Therefore, a complaint was filed before the jurisdictional Police as per Ex.P1. Based on the aforesaid complaint, at 10.00 p.m., the jurisdictional police registered Crime No.11/2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 326, 307 r/w 34 of IPC. After the investigation, the jurisdictional police filed the charge-sheet against the accused.
5. Since the case is triable by the learned Sessions Judge, the jurisdictional Court committed the matter to the Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Judge secured the presence of accused Nos.1 and 2 on 11.08.2014 and framed separate charges and read out the charges in the language known to them. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
-9-CRL.A No. 644 of 2017
C/W CRL.A Nos. 496/2017, 2186/2017 & 2187/2017
6. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined in all 14 witnesses, PWs-1 to 14 and material documents, Exs.P1 to P19 and material objects, MO-1 to MO-5. After completion of evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the statement of the accused persons as contemplated under the provisions of Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. The accused No.2 sought to examine defence witnesses as DWs-1 to 4 and got marked Exs.D1 and D2.
7. Based on the aforesaid pleadings, the learned Sessions Judge framed the following points for consideration:
1. Whether the prosecution proves that the A1 and A2 had previous enmity with PW.1 due to his filing complaint against A1 for teasing and troubling the PW.4?
2. Whether the prosecution proves that the A1 and A2 had common intention to commit murder of PW.1 and waylaid the PW.1 on 15.1.2013 near Basavanakaje of Amanottu on public road and assaulted him?
3. Whether the prosecution proves that in furtherance of the common intention the
- 10 -CRL.A No. 644 of 2017
C/W CRL.A Nos. 496/2017, 2186/2017 & 2187/2017 accused trampled on PW.1 by pushing him from the scooter caused simple as well as grievous injures with the machete?
8. Considering both oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge recorded a finding that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused Nos.1 and 2 had previous enmity with PW-1 due to his filing complaint against accused No.1 for teasing and troubling his daughter - PW-4 and the prosecution proved that accused Nos.1 and 2 had a common intention to commit the murder of PW-1 and waylaid PW-1 on 14.01.2013 near Basavanakaje Amanottu-Shirthday Road and assaulted him. Thereby, the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt, in further common intention, the accused trampled PW-1 by pushing him from his scooter and caused simple as well as grievous injuries with MO-2. Accordingly, the learned Sessions Judge by the impugned order convicted the accused No.1 to undergo imprisonment for life for the offences punishable under the provisions of Section 307 IPC with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and seven years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 326 of IPC and also sentenced to
- 11 -
CRL.A No. 644 of 2017
C/W CRL.A Nos. 496/2017, 2186/2017 & 2187/2017 undergo imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 341 of IPC with a fine of Rs.500/-.
9. Accused No.2 James Vinod was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 326 r/w 511 of IPC with a fine of Rs.5,000/- with a default clause; imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 341 of IPC with a fine of Rs.500/- with a default clause. Hence, the present appeals are filed by the accused No.1 and accused No.2 for setting aside the order of conviction and the State has filed two appeals; one for enhancement of sentence under Section 326 of IPC against accused No.2 and another appeal challenging order of acquittal, acquitting accused No.2 under Section 307 of IPC in respect of accused No.2.
10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
11. Sri Hashmath Pasha, learned senior counsel for accused No.1 in Crl.A.No.644/2017 contended that the impugned judgment and order of the Sessions Court convicting the accused under the provisions of Section 307 of IPC is
- 12 -
CRL.A No. 644 of 2017
C/W CRL.A Nos. 496/2017, 2186/2017 & 2187/2017 erroneous and contrary to the material on record and the same cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be set aside. He would further contend that the learned Sessions Judge failed to consider the material evidence on record and the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused No.1 beyond reasonable doubt. The alleged spot of the offence itself is not fixed and the FIR of the alleged incident spot is maintained near Anganawadi at Basavanakaje. But the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, including PW-1 depicts that it is some other place, the alleged incident occurred in front of a shop. Thereby, the prosecution failed to prove the very incident itself and the learned Sessions Judge was not justified in convicting the accused under the provisions of Section 307 of IPC.
12. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that the learned Sessions Judge failed to consider the relevant material that there was inordinate delay in producing the FIR to the Court. The evidence depicts that the FIR was registered by PW- 14 at 10.45 p.m. on 14.01.2013, but reached the Court only on the next day, i.e., on 15.01.2013 at 10.30 a.m. There was sufficient time for the police for concoction and deliberation and
- 13 -
CRL.A No. 644 of 2017
C/W CRL.A Nos. 496/2017, 2186/2017 & 2187/2017 thereby, the FIR is an outcome of manipulation. He further contended that there was recovery of sickle-MO2 at the instance of PW-1 is doubtful for the reason that the same was recovered at the instance of accused No.1 after ten months of the date of the incident. Nobody can believe that the sickle was in the same place for a period of ten months as stated by the police. The evidence of PW-3 and PW-4 is that they do not know that they have visited the spot and there was no reason for them to reach the spot when the incident was happening. The evidence of PW-2 and PW-4 are contradictory of the eye- witnesses which take away the foundation of the case of the prosecution.
13. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that for the same act, no person can be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once as contemplated under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India and the provisions of Section 218 of Cr.P.C. that every distinct offence of which, any person is accused, there shall be a separate charge and every such charge shall be tried separately. Thereby, the learned Sessions Judge was not justified in convicting the accused,
- 14 -
CRL.A No. 644 of 2017
C/W CRL.A Nos. 496/2017, 2186/2017 & 2187/2017 simultaneously under the provisions of Section 326 of IPC and 307 of IPC for the same act and the same is defined under the provisions of Section 33 of the IPC, the word "act" denotes as well as series of acts as a single act. The word "omission" denotes as well a series of omissions as a single omission. Thereby, the learned Sessions Judge was not justified convicting the accused twice for the same act either under the provisions of Section 326 or 307 of IPC, which is impermissible.
14. The learned Senior Counsel further contended that the learned Sessions Judge failed to consider the evidence of the defence witnesses, DWs-1 to 4, a strong doubt creates about the truthfulness of the version of PWs-1 to 4 before the Court. Thereby, the learned Judge ought to have given benefit of doubt to the accused when the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. He further contended that the evidence of the Medical Officer PW-6, Dr.Jayaprakash is not sufficient to invoke the provisions of Section 307 of IPC nor the wound certificate, Ex.P10 does not attract the provisions of Section 307 of IPC, thereby, the learned Sessions Judge was not justified in convicting the
- 15 -
CRL.A No. 644 of 2017
C/W CRL.A Nos. 496/2017, 2186/2017 & 2187/2017 accused by imposing life imprisonment, which is totally arbitrary and contrary to the material on record, which cannot be sustained and therefore, sought to allow the appeal filed by accuse No.1.
15. Shri Nishith Kumar Shetty, learned counsel for accused No.2 in Crl.A.No.406/2017 would contend that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge convicting the accused No.2 by imposing the sentence for two years under the provision of Section 326 of IPC is erroneous and contrary to the material on record, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. He further contended that the learned Sessions Judge committed series of material irregularities in appreciating the evidence available on record and there was no overt-act against the accused No.2 in the complaint. The only allegation is that, he is standing nearby accused No.1 when he was assaulting the complainant. The complainant allegedly was injured due to the assault by accused No.1 and there is no recovery of incriminating material from accused No.2. This itself clearly depicts that accused No.2 is not having any role in the assault. Without looking into the
- 16 -
CRL.A No. 644 of 2017
C/W CRL.A Nos. 496/2017, 2186/2017 & 2187/2017 material on record, the learned Sessions Judge proceeded to convict the accused under the provisions of Section 326 of IPC cannot be sustained. Merely because there is enmity between accused No.1 and PW-1 as stated in the complaint, since accused No.2 is a close friend of accused No.1, and only because he was with accused No.1 has been falsely implicated. Absolutely, there is no material evidence to hold that accused No.2 has assaulted PW-1 so as to commit his murder.
16. He further contended that, merely because accused-James Vinod is a close friend of accused-Kiran Shetty, and only because his name has been included in the complaint, the learned Sessions Judge cannot convict James Vinod, In the absence of any cogent and reliable evidence to hold that accused-James Vinod assaulted P.W.1, ought to have been acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge.
17. Learned counsel further contended that the independent material witnesses have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. There is no corroboration to the version of P.W.1 and thereby, prosecution failed to prove its case beyond
- 17 -
CRL.A No. 644 of 2017
C/W CRL.A Nos. 496/2017, 2186/2017 & 2187/2017 reasonable doubt. Therefore, sought to allow the Criminal Appeal.
18. Per contra, Sri Vijaykumar Majage, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor, while justifying the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, contended that the punishment imposed on accused-James Vinod to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in default, to undergo further imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Sections 326 r/w Section 511 of the Indian penal Code and to undergo imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo further imprisonment for a period of fifteen days, for the offence punishable under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code, is inadequate and is liable to be enhanced. He further contended that the learned Sessions Judge has come to a wrong conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the common intention on the part of the accused-James Vinod. There is vital importance so far as the role attributed and overt act alleged against the accused in the FIR and evidence of
- 18 -
CRL.A No. 644 of 2017
C/W CRL.A Nos. 496/2017, 2186/2017 & 2187/2017 prosecution witnesses and corroboration by other witnesses. He further contended that the learned Sessions Judge failed to appreciate that in order to seek the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, it is not necessary that individual act of accused persons has to be proved by the prosecution by direct evidence. Common intention has to be inferred in the peculiar facts and circumstances of a case. Once there exists common intention, mere presence of accused person along with assailant would be sufficient to prove his participation in the offence.
19. Learned Additional SPP further contended that the learned Sessions Judge failed to notice that detailed description of the incident need not be stated in the FIR. The overt acts of the accused persons is clearly stated by P.W.1 in the evidence and the same has been corroborated by the evidence of other witnesses. As such, the accused ought to have been convicted under the provisions of Section 307 of the Indian penal Code, instead of convicting accused-Kiran Shetty alone. He further contended that the learned Sessions Judge failed to notice that accused-James Vinod had common intention and injured has
- 19 -
CRL.A No. 644 of 2017
C/W CRL.A Nos. 496/2017, 2186/2017 & 2187/2017 suffered amputation of his leg and as evident from per Ex.P.11- opinion of the doctor, the injury is grievous and complainant was inpatient for more than a month and taking into consideration the gravity of the offence, the learned Sessions Judge ought to have convicted accused-James Vinod for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereby, he sought to dismiss the Appeals filed by the accused and sought to allow the Appeals filed by State.
20. In view of the aforesaid rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties, the points that would arise for our consideration are:
(i) Whether accused-Kiran Shetty, appellant in Criminal Appeal No.644/2017 has made out a case to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 326 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code?
(ii) Whether accused-James Vinod, appellant in Criminal Appeal No.496/2017 has made out a case to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, convicting him for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 326 r/w Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code?
- 20 -
CRL.A No. 644 of 2017
C/W CRL.A Nos. 496/2017, 2186/2017 & 2187/2017
(iii) Whether the State has made out a case to enhance the sentence in respect of accused- James Vinod for the offence punishable under Sections 326, 341 r/w Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code?
(iv) Whether the State has made out a case to interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal acquitting the accused-James Vinod for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, in the facts and circumstances of the present case?
21. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the Sri Hashmath Pasha, learned Senior counsel for accused-Kiran Shetty and, Sri Nishith Kumar Shetty, learned counsel for accused-James Vinod and Sri Vijay Kumar Majage, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the entire material on record including original records, carefully.
22. This Court being the appellate Court, in order to re- appreciate the oral and documentary evidence on record, it is relevant to reconsider the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the documents produced by them.
- 21 -
CRL.A No. 644 of 2017
C/W CRL.A Nos. 496/2017, 2186/2017 & 2187/2017
(i) P.W.1-Rathnakar Maben-injured complainant/ victim deposed that he knows accused Kiran Shetty. During the year 2011 and 2012, Kiran Shetty used to tease his daughter Renita. Therefore, he had lodged a complaint to the police against said Kiran Shetty on 25.12.2012. The same ended in NCR No.422/2012. Thereafter, a petty case was registered against said Kiran Shetty. Thereby, accused-Kiran Shetty had developed enmity against the complainant. On 14.01.2013, at 5.30 pm, when he was returning towards his house, at a junction, five to six persons were standing and they shown hand to stop his scooter. Out of them, one person came and kicked his scooter due to which, he lost balance and fell down with scooter. Accused-Kiran Shetty who has having talwar, hit him on his head. Since he was wearing helment, nothing happened. Then again he hit on his legs. Then another accused-James Vinod and one more person started to kick him. When he screamed for help, people came and the assailants went away. Thereafter, he was taken to Alvas Hospital where he given first aid. Then he was shifted to A.J.Hospital, Mangaluru, for further treatment. While he was taking treatment in the said hospital, police came and recorded his statement as per Ex.P.1. That is the basis for complaint.
- 22 -
CRL.A No. 644 of 2017
C/W CRL.A Nos. 496/2017, 2186/2017 & 2187/2017
(ii) P.W.2 - Simon Mascreane, deposed that P.W.1's wife-Rose Moben is working as a teacher in their school. 14.01.2013 being holiday, during evening hours, he had come to the house of P.W.1. Since P.W.1 was not in the house, he had talks with wife and daughter of P.W.1 and while returning, he heard noise at a distance and saw that 2 to 3 persons were assaulting P.W.1. when he reached near the spot, the assailants ran away. P.W.1 had sustained injuries. Immediately, he took P.W.1 in a van to Alvas Hospital for treatment. After First Aid, brought him to A.J. Hospital, Mangaluru, and got him admitted. Next day morning at 10.00 am, police came to the spot and drew spot mahazar as per Ex.P.3 and seized blood stains and sample mud marked as M.Os.4 and 5. On 16.01.2013, at 8.00 am, he produced the blood stained clothes of P.W.1, his scooter and the helmet. Police seized them under mahazar-Ex.P.4. On 25.11.2013, at 5.00 pm, police called him to the police station, where, accused-Kiran Shetty was present. Then they took him to the scene of occurrence and at a distance one sword (talwar) was seized which was shown by the accused. Sword was marked as M.O.2 under mahazar Ex.P.5. Accordingly, supported the case of the prosecution.
- 23 -
CRL.A No. 644 of 2017
C/W CRL.A Nos. 496/2017, 2186/2017 & 2187/2017
(iii) P.W.3-Rose Moben, wife of P.W.1 deposed that, on 25.12.2012, herself, P.W.1 and C.W.4 had been to the Church. While returning, Kiran Shetty teased her daughter. Therefore they had lodged a police complaint. On 14.01.2013, at 5.00 pm, P.W.2 had come to their house. After some time, when he went to the car to return to his house, at that time, at a distance of 50 meters, they heard the voice of P.W.1. Then she saw three persons assaulting P.W.1. When she rushed to the spot, saw that Kiran Shetty and Vinod were the assailants. Another person ran away. She saw her husband fallen down on the ground and had sustained injuries. Then P.W.2 took her husband to Alvas Hospital for treatment. After the first aid, he was taken to A.J.Hospital, Mangaluru, for further treatment and later, he was discharged. The witness supported the case of the prosecution.
(iv) P.W.4-Renita Moben, daughter of P.W.1 and P.W.3, deposed on par with P.W.3 and supported the case of the prosecution.
(v) P.W.5-H.Shivaprakash, Assistant Sub Inspector, Moodabidire Police Station, deposed that on 25.12.2012, P.W.1 had lodged a complaint stating that his daughter was teased. The PSI directed
- 24 -
CRL.A No. 644 of 2017
C/W CRL.A Nos. 496/2017, 2186/2017 & 2187/2017 P.W.5 to register NCR case and he registered NCR No.422/2012 and sent notice to accused No.1. Thereafter, a petty case was filed against accused. The copies of the complaint-NCR and notice were marked as Exs.P.6 to 9 in the evidence of P.W.5. The witness supported the case of the prosecution.
(vi) P.W.6-Dr.Jayaprakash, deposed that on 14.01.2013, at 6.45 pm, P.W.1 came along with his wife with the history of assault at 5.30 pm by Kiran Shetty and others. On examination, he found seven injuries. P.W.1 was admitted and treated. He issued the wound certificate as per Ex.P.10. Later orthopaedic surgeon Dr.Sudarshan operated and Dr.Dinesh Kadam fixed the partially amputed leg. Opinion regarding weapon was marked as per Ex.P.11, and supported the case of the prosecution.
(vii) P.W.7-Rajesh D'Souza, eye witness to the Incident, turned hostile.
(viii) P.W.8-Sathish, eye witness to the incident turned hostile.
(ix) P.W.9-Danial Prabhakar, deposed that on 14.01.2013 at 5.30 pm, P.W.2 informed through phone that P.W.1 has been asssaulted by Kiran Shetty and others. Immediately, he came to the
- 25 -
CRL.A No. 644 of 2017
C/W CRL.A Nos. 496/2017, 2186/2017 & 2187/2017 spot and saw that P.W.1 was assaulted. P.W.1 was shifted to the hospital by P.W.2 in his car.
(x) P.W.10-Abdul Gaffar, panch witness to spot mahazar Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4 deposed that about three years back, P.W.2 informed him that P.W.2 has been assaulted and requested to come to Alvas Hospital. He went to Alvas Hospital and saw P.W.1 had sustained injury. He was shifted to A.J.Hospital, Mangaluru in Ambulance. On the next day, police called him to act as panch for scene of occurrence. Police collected the blood stained mud and sample mud under Ex.P.3, marked as M.Os.4 and 5. On 16.01.2013, P.W.9 produced blood stained clothes of P.W.1 and his scooter and they were seized under Ex.P.4-mahazar. The witness supported the case of the prosecution.
(xi) P.W.11-Ashish Kiran, PC-344, deposed that on 14.01.2013 at 10.30 pm FIR was handed over to him to deliver the same to the Magistrate and accordingly, he delivered it on 15.01.2013 at 10.30 am. The witness supported the case of the prosecution.
(xii) P.W.12-Rajesh Pooja, panch witness to recovery of talwar, deposed that in the year 2013, police called him to Basavanakaje junction. At the spot, police
- 26 -
CRL.A No. 644 of 2017
C/W CRL.A Nos. 496/2017, 2186/2017 & 2187/2017 and Kiran Shetty were present. Kiran Shetty produced one sword from bush and it was seized under Ex.P.5-mahazar. Sword was marked as M.O.2. The witness supported the case of the prosecution.
(xiii) P.W.13-Manjappa, Head Constable deposed that on 14.01.2013, at 7.00 pm, PSI deputed him to record the statement of P.W.1 at A.J.Hospital, Mangaluru. Accordingly, at 8.00 pm, he went to A.J.Hospital, recorded the statement of the injured as per Ex.P.1 and produced the same before the PSI at 10.15 pm.
(xiv) P.W.14-Ramesh Kumar, PSI, Moodabidire Police Station, deposed that on 14.01.2013, at 5.30 pm, he received information that P.W.1 had sustained serious injuries due to assault and taken to Alvas Hospital. He went to said Hospital and saw the injured. The injured was referred to A.J.Hospital, Mangaluru, and thereafter, he deputed P.W.13 to record statement of P.W.1. He recorded the statement of the injured at Mangaluru as per Ex.P.1. On the basis of Ex.P.1, he registered FIR in Crime No.11/2013 as per Ex.P.14. He conducted the Investigation and filed the charge sheet and supported the case of the prosecution.
- 27 -
CRL.A No. 644 of 2017
C/W CRL.A Nos. 496/2017, 2186/2017 & 2187/2017 Based on the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge proceeded to pass the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.
23. A careful perusal of the material on record depicts that, Ex.P.1-complaint dated 14.01.2013 was lodged against accused for assaulting the complainant and the reason for assault on complainant was the complaint lodged by PW.1 against accused at Ex.P7 dated 25.12.2012. It is the specific case of the prosecution that on 14.01.2013, at about 5.15 pm, the complainant was going to Basavanakaje from Beluvai, on his scooter. When he was about to reach his house, three persons who were standing near Anganawadi, stopped his scooter. Among them, Kiran Shetty trampled on the scooter. The complainant fell down on the road. Kiran Shetty trampled on the chest of the complainant and brandishing the sword, told that, "I will finish you today". When Kiran Shetty tried to assault with the said sword, the complainant caught hold of the hand of Kiran Shetty. Immediately, Kiran Shetty dragged the sword and assaulted on the left feet of the complainant. Again he tried to assault on the head. The complainant escaped.
- 28 -
CRL.A No. 644 of 2017
C/W CRL.A Nos. 496/2017, 2186/2017 & 2187/2017 Thereby, received blow on the right arm and waist. No where in the complaint it is stated that James Vinod assaulted the complainant. It is only stated that Vinod and another person were present at the spot along with Kiran Shetty. The name of the other person is not mentioned in the complaint. Though it is stated that three persons were present at the spot, very curiously, in the evidence, complainant has deposed that there were five persons. It is deposed that, out of them, one person was holding sword and another was holding the complainant and another person kicked him. After the assault, the friend, wife and the public took the complainant to Alwas Hospital and after First Aid, he was shifted to A.J.Hospital, Mangaluru. The complainant has not disclosed the role of other two persons in the incident. He has stated that he does not know their names.
24. A careful perusal of the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 3, and 4 depicts that they have deposed only against accused- Kiran Shetty and there is no whisper regarding the role played by James Vinod in the assault. So also, the circumstance depicting the enmity between complainant and accused-James Vinod is not forthcoming. The material on record clearly
- 29 -
CRL.A No. 644 of 2017
C/W CRL.A Nos. 496/2017, 2186/2017 & 2187/2017 depicts that accused-Kiran Shetty wrongfully restrained P.W.1 and assaulted him. It is relevant to consider whether the assault was on the vital part of the body to come to the conclusion as to whether the offence falls under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code or under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, it is relevant to consider the evidence of P.W.6-Dr.Jayaprakash, who, deposed that he was working as Professor and HOD, Forensic Medicine, AJ Hospital, Mangaluru. On 14.01.2013, at about 6.45 pm, complainant-Rathnakar Maben, aged about 59 years was brought to the hospital by his wife Mrs. Rose Maben, with the history of assault at Basavanakaje, Padumarnadu village on the same day at about 5.30 pm. The injured was assaulted by a group of about 5 to 6 people namely Kiran Shetty and others. He examined the injured at 6.45 pm and found five simple injuries and two grievous injuries and all the injuries were fresh. He further deposed that, on examination of the weapons used in the offence, he was of the opinion that injury Nos.3, 4, 5 and 6 mentioned in wound certificate could have been caused by the said weapon.
- 30 -
CRL.A No. 644 of 2017
C/W CRL.A Nos. 496/2017, 2186/2017 & 2187/2017
25. The witness further deposed that injury Nos.1, 2 and 7 may be caused by pushing a person forcibly to the ground and trampling upon him. The report of the doctor was marked as Ex.P.11 and the weapon was marked as M.O.2. The wound certificate-Ex.P.10 issued by the doctor-P.W.6, reads as under:
"1. Abrasion, 4 cm x 3 cm, over right lower cheek.
2. Abrasion, 3 cm x 2 cm, over front aspect of right knee.
3. Incised wound, 4 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep, over outer back aspect of right arm, 3 cm above the elbow.
4. Superficial incised wound, 7 cm x 0.2 cm, over front aspect of left forearm, 5 cm below the elbow.
5. Incised wound, 5 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep, over left flank.
6. Multiple chop wounds over an area of 15 cm x 5 cm x bone deep (the wounds are merged together) over front, inner and outer aspect of left leg, just above the ankle joint with soft tissue loss exposing the transected extensor tendors, vessels and fractured shafts of both
- 31 -CRL.A No. 644 of 2017
C/W CRL.A Nos. 496/2017, 2186/2017 & 2187/2017 tibia and fibula giving rise to about 60% circumstantial amputation.
7. Contusion, 6 cm x 5 cm, over left lower back, 45 cm below the root of the neck and just away from midline with underlying fracture of left sided transverse processes of 2nd, 3rd and 4th lumbar vertebrae and left adrenal haematoma (CT scan of whole abdomen No.32428)."
"Operation: Wound debridement, distal fibular plating and external fixator for left tibia done by Dr. Sudarshan Bhandary and repair of transected structures done by Dr.Dinesh Kadam on 17.01.13. Reconstruction with microvascular anterlo-lateral thigh flap done on 23.01.13 by Dr.Dinesh Kadam.
I am of the opinion that, Injuries No.1 to 5 are simple and injuries No.6 and 7 are grievous in nature. All injuries were fresh. Injuries No.1, 2 and 7 were caused by blunt force and injuries No.3 to 6 were caused by sharp force."
26. As already stated supra, injury Nos.1 to 5 are simple in nature and injury Nos.6 and 7 are grievous in nature. As stated by the doctor, injury No.7 may also be caused if a person is pushed forcibly on the ground and trampling upon
- 32 -
CRL.A No. 644 of 2017
C/W CRL.A Nos. 496/2017, 2186/2017 & 2187/2017 him. This clearly depicts that accused-Kiran Shetty, had the motive to assault P.W.1, in view of the earlier complaint dated 25.12.2012-Ex.P.7, which ended in NCR No.422/2012. In view of the assault made by Kiran Shetty, P.W.1 sustained multiple chop wounds over an area of 15 cm x 5 cm x bone deep (the wounds are merged together) over front, inner and outer aspect of left leg, just above the ankle joint with soft tissue loss exposing the transected extensor tendors, vessels and fractured shafts of both tibia and fibula giving rise to about 60% circumstantial amputation, which is grievous in nature. Thereby, the offence falls under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. Admittedly, accused-Kiran Shetty has assaulted P.W.1 with M.O.2 and thereby caused grievous injury as stated supra, and there cannot be two charges for a single act, in view of the provisions of Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India r/w Section 218 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 33 of the Indian Penal Code.
27. Admittedly, entire evidence of prosecution witnesses, especially evidence of P.W.6-Doctor, does not depict the assault on the vital part of the body. In the absence of
- 33 -
CRL.A No. 644 of 2017
C/W CRL.A Nos. 496/2017, 2186/2017 & 2187/2017 any injury on the vital part of the body, there cannot be one more Charge when Charge No.2 already covers Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code for which punishment has been imposed by the learned Sessions Judge sentencing to undergo imprisonment for seven years with fine of Rs.10,000/- and admittedly, State has not filed any Appeal for enhancement of sentence awarded to the accused-Kiran Shetty for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and the accused-Kiran Shetty has already undergone imprisonment of more than 9 years for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code.
28. In order to punish the accused under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution has to prove the ingredients as contemplated under the said Section, which reads as under:
307. Attempt to murder: Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be
- 34 -CRL.A No. 644 of 2017
C/W CRL.A Nos. 496/2017, 2186/2017 & 2187/2017 liable to fine, and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.
29. A careful reading of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code clearly indicates that, whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is mentioned in the provision.
"Attempt" means an endeavour to commit crime or unlawful act. In every crime, there are three stages:
a) Intention;
b) Preparation; and
c) Attempt In 3rd stage i.e., if the attempt is successful, the crime is complete.
- 35 -
CRL.A No. 644 of 2017
C/W CRL.A Nos. 496/2017, 2186/2017 & 2187/2017
30. In the present case, the motive is proved by the evidence of P.W.1 and Ex.P.1-complaint. The evidence of prosecution witnesses including the evidence of P.W.6-Doctor, clearly depicts that P.W.1 sustained grievous injuries on his left leg, as stated supra. The doctor opined that injury No.6 is grievous in nature and thereby, it clearly attracts Section 326 and not Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.
31. Though learned Additional SPP contended that, in the complaint-Ex.P.1 lodged by P.W.1 and evidence of P.W.1 depicts that the accused-Kiran Shetty assaulted P.W.1 with M.O.2 on the head, P.W.1 escaped. That is not a ground to convict the accused-Kiran Shetty under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. P.W.1 is interested injured witness and his statement is not final. The doctor who examined P.W.1 has not deposed either in his evidence or in the cross-examination or in Ex.P.10-wound certificate regarding assault on any of the vital part of the body of P.W.1 except stating that injury No.6 is grievous in nature.
- 36 -
CRL.A No. 644 of 2017
C/W CRL.A Nos. 496/2017, 2186/2017 & 2187/2017
32. Thus, intention of accused-Kiran Shetty has to be gathered from the injuries found on the body chosen for assault. If contention of learned Addl. SPP is accepted, there is gap of 20 days between the first complaint dated 25.12.2012 and the subsequent complaint dated 14.01.2013. Admittedly, the complainant had come from Australia and his wife P.W.3 was working as teacher. If really accused-Kiran Shetty had any motive, he would have assaulted either the wife or daughter of P.W.1. But no such incident has happened as is evident from the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Thereby, the contention of the learned Addl. SPP cannot be accepted. The said material evidence has not been considered by the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge proceeded to frame two charges. Already punishment has been imposed for the act done by accused-Kiran Shetty for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code with imprisonment for seven years with fine. Admittedly, State has not filed any appeal for enhancement. In the absence of the same, there cannot be any further punishment for the same and as contemplated under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India,
- 37 -
CRL.A No. 644 of 2017
C/W CRL.A Nos. 496/2017, 2186/2017 & 2187/2017 Section 33 of the Indian Penal Code r/w Section 218 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thereby, prosecution has not made out any prima facie case beyond reasonable doubt to implicate accused-Kiran Shetty under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereby, the impugned judgment of conviction in so far as convicting the accused-Kiran Shetty with imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained.
33. In so far as accused-James Vinod is concerned, as already stated supra, neither the complaint-Ex.P.1 nor in the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and 4, depicts any overt-act against accused No.2. So also the medical evidence i.e., evidence of the Doctor-P.W.6 does not depict the involvement of accused No.2 in the offence.
34. In the complaint, P.W.1-complainant states that there were three persons during the assault, and very strangely in the cross-examination states that there were five persons. Admittedly, the names of three persons is not disclosed in the complaint. Merely because accused-James Vinod was standing
- 38 -
CRL.A No. 644 of 2017
C/W CRL.A Nos. 496/2017, 2186/2017 & 2187/2017 near accused-Kiran Shetty, it cannot be a ground to convict accused-James Vinod under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. Merely because James Vinod is close friend of Kiran Shetty, he cannot be impleaded, who is no way connected with the offence. The learned Sessions Judge proceeded to convict accused-James Vinod mainly on the ground that he was spectator while accused-Kiran Shetty was assaulting the P.W.1. There is no whisper either in the complaint or in the evidence about the role of accused-James Vinod in the offence. Thereby, learned Sessions Judge is not justified in convicting accused- James Vinod for the offences punishable under Sections 326 r/w 511 and Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereby, the prosecution failed to prove the involvement of accused- James Vinod beyond reasonable doubt.
35. In the absence of any material on record, question of enhancing the punishment in respect of accused No.2 would not arise and the learned Sessions Judge rightly acquitted the accused for the offence u/S 307 of the Indian Penal Code. When this Court already held in respect of accused No.1, that the ingredients of Section 307 are not proved by the
- 39 -
CRL.A No. 644 of 2017
C/W CRL.A Nos. 496/2017, 2186/2017 & 2187/2017 prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, thereby acquittal made against accused No.2 is just and proper and the prosecution has not made out a case to interfere with the acquittal of accused No.2 under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code in exercise of appellate powers of this Court under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
36. For the reasons stated above, the first point raised for considertion is answered partly in the affirmative holding that accused-Kiran Shetty, appellant in Criminal Appeal No.644/2017 has made out a case to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and has not made out any case to interfere for the offence punishable under Sections 341 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code.
37. The second point is answered in the affirmative holding that accused-James Vinod, appellant in Criminal Appeal No.496/2017 has made out a case to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence,
- 40 -
CRL.A No. 644 of 2017
C/W CRL.A Nos. 496/2017, 2186/2017 & 2187/2017 convicting him for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 326 r/w Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code.
38. Accordingly, point Nos.3 and 4 are answered in the negative holding that the State has not made out any case to enhance the sentence in respect of accused-James Vinod for the offence punishable under Sections 326, 341 r/w Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, and the State has not made out a case to interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal acquitting the accused-James Vinod for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
39. In view of the above, we pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Criminal Appeal No.644/2017 filed by appellant/accused-Kiran Shetty is allowed in-
part.
(ii) The impugned judgment of conviction dated 21.02.2017 and order of sentence dated
- 41 -
CRL.A No. 644 of 2017
C/W CRL.A Nos. 496/2017, 2186/2017 & 2187/2017 23.02.2017 passed in Sessions Case No.18/2014 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru, sentencing the appellant/accused- Kiran Shetty, to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo further imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, is hereby set-aside.
(iii) The appellant/accused- Kiran Shetty in Criminal Appeal No.644/2017 is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence in so far as convicting the appellant/accused- Kiran Shetty in Criminal Appeal No.644/2017 and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years
- 42 -
CRL.A No. 644 of 2017
C/W CRL.A Nos. 496/2017, 2186/2017 & 2187/2017 and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo further imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code; and, sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for one month and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo further imprisonment for a period of fifteen days for the offence punishable under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code, is hereby confirmed.
(v) Since it is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel on instructions from the instructing counsel that the appellant/accused is in judicial custody for more than nine years, the concerned jail authorities are hereby directed to release the appellant/accused-Kiran Shetty in Criminal Appeal No.644/2017, forthwith, if he is not required in any other case.
- 43 -
CRL.A No. 644 of 2017
C/W CRL.A Nos. 496/2017, 2186/2017 & 2187/2017
(vi) Criminal Appeal No.496/2017 filed by the appellant/accused-James Vinod, is hereby allowed.
(vii) The impugned judgment of conviction dated 21.02.2017 and order of sentence dated 23.02.2017 passed in Sessions Case No.89/2013 sentencing the appellant/ accused- James Vinod to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo further imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 326 r/w Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code; and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo further imprisonment for a period of fifteen days, for the offence punishable under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby set- aside.
- 44 -
CRL.A No. 644 of 2017
C/W CRL.A Nos. 496/2017, 2186/2017 & 2187/2017
(viii) The Appellant/accused-James Vinod in Criminal Appeal No.496/2017 is acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 326 r/w Section 511 and Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code.
(ix) Criminal Appeal No.2186/2017 filed by the State challenging the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed in Sessions Case No.89/2013 on the ground that the sentence imposed on the respondent/ accused-James Vinod for the offences punishable under Section 326 r/w Section 511 and Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code is inadequate, is hereby dismissed.
(x) Criminal Appeal No.2187/2017 filed by the State challenging the impugned judgment of acquittal passed in Sessions Case No.89/2013 acquitting the respondent/ accused-James Vinod for the offence punishable under Section
- 45 -
CRL.A No. 644 of 2017
C/W CRL.A Nos. 496/2017, 2186/2017 & 2187/2017 307 of the Indian Penal Code and praying to convict the accused for the said offence, is hereby dismissed.
(xi) Taking into consideration the young age of the appellants/accused viz., Kiran Shetty and James Vinod, they are hereby warned not to indulge in criminal activities in future and we hope and trust that they lead a happy life and become the good citizens of this great country.
(xii) Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records, forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE paragraphs 1 to 15 ... DH 16 to end ...kcm