Karnataka High Court
Jagadish Chidanand Kore vs Staate Of Karnataka on 26 July, 2011
A,
iN I 1:F. i!i!: i. ''' Ri Qi- K RN '.1 Ak 'i
UIRUt Ii H1-5U11 AT 1111 \RW U)
4
D:\ lit!) III! Z 1 III• 2" DVi OF .11. 1_\ _'fl 11
P bsE\ I
H i II' )\ ':41 F. ?I R .J t STIC F. H I$1LLAPF'A
THE II()VI3LE IR IL TICE .RALI NM; RA.1
CRI1INA[. '\PFKAL I\O 282h
C' W.
CE L. A Sos. laa4 is - XX) OF 1010
Cf L. .$).JS.HJf)U'
BETk EEN
JACx\I)JSII C illlfl\ 'l) KC)RF'
..
(iCC' 131 SINrSS
R 0. NKMI.
FQ C lIlKk0l)l
i)ISI:13E1 (tM.
APPELlANT
(13 sR RV, is \AIF Si 4D\OC ATL (Oh R ' M
SHEEL\ 'i\l i
'4TATF.. sF
PF'IiY 1' 1' ri 't (IC.
Pk)'h( '1 11.
ii(;li C U' R r Or i\R\ \i \k
CIRt' I' [\c Ij
I--
a
DRARWAD.
RESPONDENT
(BY SRI H.S. CHANDRAMOULI. S.P.Pj
THIS APPEAL IS FILED U/S 374(2) CR.P.C BY THE
ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT SEEKING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS AND ALLOW THE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE
JUDGEMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 29/30-
10-2009 PASSED BY THE PRINCiPAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
BELGAUM AT BELGAUM IN S.C.NO.52/2007.
CRL.A. NO. 2554L2010:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH DEPUTY SUPERINTEDENT
OF POLICE, CHIKODI P.S.
APPELLANT
(BY SRI H.S. CHANDRAMOULI, S.P.P.)
AND
I. RAJENDRA(JRAJU
Sb. GOPALARAO ASHWATHPUR
AGED ABoUT 40 YEARS,
RIO. OLD COURT GALLI,
CHIKODI TALUK,
CHIKODI.
2. THE SRINIVAS P.
S/O. PUTFAYYA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
R/O. 12A. 6TH CROSS.
MYSORE, NOW AT NO.36E,
2ND CROSS.
SANMAN COLONY,
HUBLI. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI./SMT: SHIVARAJ P MUDHOL, ADVOCATE)
S
I HIS (R MIN U. PPb\L IS i'ILM) I. S US(I) \\b iJ) OI
CR.P.C. SEEKING ro SET ASlI)F. TIlE .ILDGEMKTN AND
ORDER OF :\('QUIV[AL DUEl) " 'U. '00" P4SSEI) IN
S C.NO 2 100 O\ hilt FILE 01 PRL SESSIONS Jl DOE.
BEIA,Al M fOR lifE Oi'FENUK Pt'MSIflBLL I'SDkR SETI(PN
25i Aa N \ SF( fk;N \ uP [IlK l\l)iTiN ARMS N W .11 1PU
\NI) FClk)\ _''j Uj N % FCTlo\ 7 oF [lilt fli)1 \\ ARMS
4(1 R W 3j( 110% flOP ilk
CRLA. NO. 2551 JOB'
S\if OF KRNAIAK\
IFIROL..'(sii DEPt IN I'ItRiN[b.NDENT
1)1: Ik)L1CE.
CIIIKODI I' S
APPELlANT
iBY SRI 14.5. C144%I)RAMOL LI. S.P.P.g
AND
J.GA[fls1 I t I iII):NANL) bc )RE
bi) \13 )I I S'i N lt.\RS
1
(
R () \K.
(.'1IIKKODI 1\j
BELG\1 '1 L)lTNJCT
RI' t'PONDENTS
Tills RIM:;.\i. .WI'I .\L !S i•lLt.i ) U S .;. )F c R.P C
.rc) Mnw; iIi' SF:N1E>aF lVIuSFD 4\ rifE
I) PR!
4
LI'4RNF . lt)\S JUIX
F
2 Blat (3At'I IN IFS
JUDGEMEVI DAIFI) 2". 0._GO" 1% (' NC) j) 20(7 AND
IMPOSE M4XlMLM SF.NTENt ES PRECRIBEI) FOR THF
OFFFNCF PV'\IS1i4L3LI- L NIWR SFCTlo\ .Y)7 of IPU IN
CtORDPftF 'II I W 1% liii CI ".1)
CIR( MS 4% l's h lilt 4 F. 4 D LSO r() 1'. ' SICK
ci [I lEN ( )RDI-.W ( 'N C 'RiMtRS AS ri Its 1k iN JILk tot Ni I )E[.\IS
91 r Till' I 4c1S \\l.i (IRCI. M.tT4' (, (if nil' ( V F
I
4
4
ITIESIt \PPh\LS H.\IM SKEN RESEREI) ON
21.07.2011 AF1ER HEARING. TIllS DAY SRI H. BILL\PR\
J.. 4
DE
I \EREI I) TIlE FOLLOWING
COMMON JUDGMENT
Ii ese tnt t jspe us t LIII ( fled clUclil St 1 hi. 'idgnient anti order. dated L) U. ,(iLl j);1SSi'Li b the Pri Scssn,ius .iu IUL , lh'iJctLifll 1 1 S.c Nc . a 200.
2 Bt the impugned judgment and c)rd( 1 . the
intrtwd Sessi;,i. .J I i'ItW li:ts em: i' i ed the .ipjwI'a lit an
('ri A.No 2828 .20t)° I a thc. offi. nets punishabk Li idet
St t I ions 5.?. 4
j (I• W7. of I.P C and st ci ion J
t u ic I ti lij I Itsi cm I LU ' IJ St o I
, r . St ii fl;j 3.11 of I ml itt ii Arms .\ 1 . I .1
8cc t c)n ) 1 Jfl4j At rim 1° ,Q rhi. 1
I ai'
has h r!' --
e
1 9 1a r. ' 'i'1' 12'' I •L''r'•Ias innr'' :.i'teI.
for i iicd o tj c c id ti ptl a i
ai'ct ii: 'ft f.imt' Is, iiid''z 'c' I? I f.r • rerit..1 ,:
s • r r tS I .t ft C LI 51 I ii I (Ct ;i
.4) ('j 1.P.('. IIJ 'silt JILL Dli I
1 %L.I,fl 'ifcttr Sn ''.I)
1 (1 ( fl) sa , t " S IC 1 (
.4
undergo R.l. for a period of three years' and to pay a fine of Z50.000 / -- and in default to undergo RI. for a period of six months: for the offence punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C. the appellant has been sentenced to undergo R.l. for a period of 12 vears and to pay a fine of 5.00,000/- and in default to undergo R.l. for a period of two years; for the offence punishable under section 506 of l.P.C. the appellant has been sentenced to undergo R.l. for a period of three years'; for the offence punishable under Section 3 nw. Section 25 (1- B) of Indian Arms Act, 1959 the appellant has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of three years' and to pay a fine of ?50,000/- and in default to undergo R.l. for a period of six months: for the offence punishable under Section 7 r/w. Section 25 (1-A) of Indian Arms Act, 1959 the appellant has been sentenced to undergo R.l. for a period of 8 years' and to pay a fine of Z2,00,000/- and in default to undergo RI. for a period of one year; for the offence punishable under Section 27 of Indian Arms Act, 1959 the (1 tlpiR Ihint 'las be C' M fiLl, ed i'' indert' R I. Icr p I hut i." 3 . u ii s anti I'' Pa' t ''i'r ''I 't1 QUIt aiid I'. default to urnh r'c R I. I r a period of sn mor t ns.
1 L Aggi td In tlic c. )fl%)(IQJ and sci tencc the c*1)I)L'lhIfllH Accust'cl No 1 has prcferrnl Crl.A. No 28)8 ?00° -1. Thu .i ppullant St€i a has I lied Ct l.A. r\ 2 0 .,4 2007 bath iiging the aequittal of accused No. ' &tti'I . 5. Cr1. A. No .2335 2010 has but-n filed 1w the Statc sC . kinc' C ha' cinc tt of thc en U n '( inp sed on 'lb . l)lIeiI ii.: ::. 1.. I N J4_'s 2i",' n Sri Ra I 13 1 k. N tilt' it urnc'(l ef. tr C t,Ut.SCl IC' 'It' ipjN ,: ,1 I. I A \ Ih)S '11)9 su liz ttud hat tie' ' ,.I tlc! ,i. I ! .' ..- $ti..I' ', 's ':tt .,tl rt-tar'i ) titi. SC1I lit ti )tl ' •I • c at 'IS bec led •la ti'.:. , :t. %: fih is' ' 11 %:,''yp'':et! lat I' 'I t 7% ii te ' IC l• 'rc nc !.' .. .Ji: .L' •r'- • t'- ir'-u:. , •I, •' i e f -- Prabhakz' hot t ii c t e el iclre i Ci ida anda Kore, U iaht i ol A : ii S iflhii'ttt (1 Ifl it 'I 1 t 'titcitre ' s run in partnvrshap and tii share 'as denied. Fut thur lit i 1 •%t( tecbi-n l tht .i"i;;.ii anti his t !atdren rre tiISC'k iiniilii €'Lt ci tn 1 rimi i l n s€s ;i"d I lie eh!ldren .t the peiIui I w err I hrcnrn (jlj' of I he C. oilegt at t hi inst UIIC(' Lf P . 4 F iii t hrr 1i stitinji V ec! ' hat lie 1 nat Cow t hac rr. d ' hilt sen tern in 1.' icustd to unilt rgo R.i for a iniod ol 1? c'ars for tilt oflenc e punishabh indt - cec't or 07 of I P t . lit' dISC) subinitwd that t his Cow t t ide ordet dated 0 08.2010 had permitted thc ippeli tilt to ste his ift in thc 1 hos t aip it i,is • di (I ii c4 lIt Ii tilt 'S li C ' ted t , depnsit a suns ul 2i.UUo Losurcfs I j)I st s anti the appellaiit u :is not .i b1 ; deposit ' he artu,U r' and si e i'is 1' u.n he tiiu;iiI I. d iii.e V. Ii in sein ' nee tile C', in sItu' tgl t onsiciei I e eir' Li ilist in v ale ii iht • ii' • lid S I 'Veil t flhl.Ili I I tC . tici i • fl • •(i e I.. I ie p i ! ' ' •. .c t:( . I. i' •:' it '" ofl tI't 'it cti ! V liii IiqC' K a hizjil; d:spr p•' ta'•'i.zt :i:t! iii' r'. t.''t !ired 'a) I I ott hs 4 n t ii,siii l ilaccd nod I'd si 'I reliance on 1 ht ta':al iilt LiLe.s1'Iis: I,, c)q q(( ' ) pacc l(' ill ..(Jn( St.'c ji' 3')(i I Ac tiaiii st this tiu lear nc d S P P suhrn 'tcd that there are no mit nzat ing eirc Llmstanees to rediac
the punishment and on thcAhund the sentence needs to be enhanced. Further h submitted hat thrt t shots Were fired at P.k . I arid if lhc re Was (IL :a in trea?mt nt. tin. injurc d would I ate succ urnbed to the injurics md tint. isullt't s: .:; ni:..tt:s ': 11W ittlalt iii .
i 1 e ruiii;s:c part of the lncr. I-Ic also submitted that tht c eus ci Ftis attenipic ci on liii' I fr of P.\ .4 witI- all pr:'p rat n a and t heretorr. till ''tiiL • et in w t sliai n nc1 i ht €'nt t rice iccdstc , e i Plcint' tt!. atU e 'ii !;:t 'IL' isi('i ' !!i1 l;L'tl),'t LY nc Cc rt 2005 Supreme Court Cases (Cri 1329 .t••i AIR 2000 SC page 3467, I '1 le.itntcl S P P si.il ii tIled Ii e I tin c l)Jfl Ji %c ttfl( e is to pro! ci I hi Siw r 1 ' '. a nil dii'' e: Liii criminal. linpositig of meuiru scnteiii'r on account uf 1apc ' t inn is not pc'r i ssible "c n nc I o ild be onirnens it tc will the gri yin ol i lie offenc e IIa tug rc ga nil to I he circumstances a tid 11.11 tire of ullence. the %ent 'nm' needs to bt enha inc d 9 Placing reliance on the decision of the Hon 'We Supreme Cour' reported in (2006) 1 SCC (Cr1.) page 629, the learned S P P. submitted that knienet cannot be shown hating rc'garcl to the circumstances of the II) Vc I a c c areful1 c on stilt :c d iii sul,nii ,sn'its math bt thc 1 rn ci tinsc 1 tot thc tppc H ii t C rI.
'\o. .)"2S 20' •
hi It ci ' hi . a rnrd S F' 1'
I In Bhagirath and others vs. State of
Haryana. c i 1996 Supremc Court Cases
(Cr1.) page 1014, ' I l'' •r Suj • C ;nc C .tnt h s 1
l
c lcI
1i.it ::'' !.;r!' • • I''' •'
,
1
r
%t)d • : ,'• ii--,
L
ii,
scn'n Fit at st h. t btct to iiii , iIt of 'he
offenc c s u tush ib r undc i St c 110 1 ,(" C)! I. P.C md
Section 2, r. w . Set Iioi nil) ul TAD: Act. tI$3 The
seiltt ni' .,I . .,rs N has nnn atI'! r.rd h\ the.
Hon 'ble Supreinc Coin I
12. In Sachin Jana and Another vs. State of West Bengal. iepc't leil in (2008) 3 Supreme Court cases page 390, hit Ilnai'blr Supreme Court has reduced the st ntenc e sears horn 10 seai s' R I and the appellants hat C ix C Ti chirec ted to pat tine of Z2:3 000 each for the oftent e pUfllshdblr tinder J07 r . c' •'n 24 [P C. 13 In State of M.P. vs. Saleem Alias Chamaru and another, c p rtc I in 2005 Supreme Court Cases (Cr1) 1329, a H 11111 Sat ream ( o'.iI I s rihs a tha a he objet t o' S. 1i fl beiiit 'n pa 'it ret : '. S''ie'.
and dru r the r--i,in,aI. s , al 'iis' •' 'i alit. ra .iIat c ml
I 'C a '1
)I)si C. (il'S 1 i'po (' lert C IC r.i C
•i. ',',.! : . .::
II
4'.
14. In Kishore and Others vs. State of
Maharashtra, reported in (2006)1 Supreme Court
Cases (Cr1) 629, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that plea of iCfliCflC5 is not acceptable. That was a case under TADA Act.
15. In KaramJit Singh vs. State (Delhi Admit.,), reported in AIR 2000 Supreme Court 3467, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has modified the life imprisonment for a period already undergone i.e., about 13 years 7 months.
16. From the above decisions it is clear that the object of sentence is to proteet the Society and deter the criminal. The Court must keep in mind the rights of the victim and the Society at large. It is well settled that before imposing fine, the Court must consider whether the sentence of fine is called for and, if so, what is proper and adequate fine to impose in the circumstances of the case. It is necessary to consider whether the sentence of fine is called for, particularly, when the offendcr is sen tented to undergo 12 imprisonmen I for a long period. The Ii iw must be reasonable. The circumstances like motive, gravity of offence, the peeuniar gain the offender would have made by committing the offence and the means to pay the fine are relevant factors to be considered. Nodoubt in the present case the appellant i.e.. the accused No.1 has caused serious injuries to P.W.4 which are fatal. The circumstances in which the incident has occurred is long standing property dispute and implication of the accused and his children in criminal cases. From the record it appears that the accused was permitted to see his wife in the hospital under police escort and the accused was directed to deposit a sum of flO,000/- towards the expenses and the accused was not able to deposit the amount and see his wife. The evidence on record shows that three shots were fired on P.W.4 and one bullet is still in the body and it is not removed. In these circumstances, in our considered view, sentence of 10 .nu.s R.1 . for the offence punishable under Sect ion 307 of I .P.C. would be reasonable.
I' I' 9 Inso' ar as i.tw 's ''flt't In Li I cflhI t r tinrd t(g the L tIC titliSt ci tiCC% of I lie C gist' i!id thi Iii'' IllS Iii ,)fl . U L ei)nslcler ii proper iii impnse hilt ''! i (H III for each cif 04 t tilleilt I k'LtIli%llcII)!C aai'lc r Si o.s 3 '. 40 'if I.P.C. itid S''i ion 3 r u . Sectinn 25( 1 13) and sect ion 27 of the 1 ml Ian •r'Ias •t I For the cilleije.' pit iii sit., b'e tinder Sect ion .507 of I. P.C a line iii t I .(lu.000 U ould be reusona bie. 1' or the oflent r p11 n ish.ibli' under Sect ion 7 r Sc ctin Jnl 1 Ai '.1 indian \rIns A t a fine of ?40.t)Ou u oulci he reasonable
17. An ordinglv. c modift thc sc ntence as I ilk U C ri. A No. 2628 '009 is ahlutcd in part and the sc.ntCi ' in posccl Ut d \ 1' I PC 1 in u rc in i C . N 0 ) c 1 Ci d as I )11 S I the o:ient e put s ', Con 13? oh I P C. iN' .t[f)'ii..iflt shall tiflct K 'or a pi rind oh tt.sL t %(S.il % .ii.'l f)rt .' :.t.' ? ' lii (Ir'i,Ii!j 'at 14 0 payment of line. thc nppcllant shall undergo R.I. for a penod of one month.
For the offence punishable under Section 450 of I.P.C. the appellant shall undergo R.l. for a period of three years' and pay a fine of flO,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo R.l. for a period of one month.
For the offence punishable under Section 307 of l.P.C. the appellant shall undergo R.l. for a period of 10 tears' and pay a fine of Z1 ,00,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo R. I. for a period of six months.
For the offence punishable under Section 3 r/w. Section 25(1-B) of Indian Arms Act, 1959 the appellant shall undergo R.T. for a period of three years' and pay a fine of ?10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo R.I. for a period of one month.
For the offence punishable under Section 7 nw. Section 25(1 -A) of Indian Arms Act, 1959 the appellant Ii S S sliM indrco RI fn i pcnol of 8 wars and pas a fine of 140,000 In defau.t of pament of fine, the appellant shall undergo Ri. for a period of thrcc monO s For the offence punishable under Section 27 of Indian Arms Ac t, 1959 the appc llant shall undergo R.I. for a period of a years' and pa a fine of 110,000 . In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo R.l for a period of one month.
The sentence imposed by the Trial Court for the offence punishable under Scetion 306 of I P C remains undisturbc d All thc substantivc scntenccs shall run corn tirrentl) Th perod of detention undcrgcnr bi the appellant shIl lx jncn Mt off t Mu Se t on 428 )f CrP( Cr1 A. No. 2555 201 uhi ed by the S,cu' c.nhancernent. ol. sente nec is hi. rehy d.ismis.'eci.
in solar as C rI A No 2 554 / .2 C) 1 0 is eon cern ccl, i.he H i 50 1 ii iOJD t oCnino (QUJuC uI acruecl No. 2 onci 3. The Triul Court Sos ucquitted the oe(.:usec No. 2 OflCi S br oonI 01 v\lctenco. mo appellunt-Stoto \V05 Ct ablo to point OUt any infirmity in the judgment and it does not call br interference. Therefore, Cr1 A No. 2554/2010 is hereby dis missed.
Ii Sd/ JUDGE sal 3UDGE 1 n nc . -