Hanumantha vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 December, 2010

[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Hanumantha vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 December, 2010

Bench: Ravi Malimath

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,'C.. =-I" 
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA,C,C..__¢ 'V...'_:_C"I' 

ow THE W DAY OF DECEMBER_,"2§-1CVo,'  

BEFORVEE  A 3

THE HOINVBLE MR.3uSvTT:'C.E RAv:._M'AL"1=M;5;THVV'

CR1M1NALAEPE;§L   2007

BETWEEN: 

Hanumantha,

S/0 Amarappa,  «:~

Aged about 31fyéé:'"s,gf,

OCc:AgriCuituri'st, ._ -- 

Jail' Bench? viifageg .

Talzungasugur, L C  

Dist:RaE(:hur,_  "    :APPEi_LANT

(By;-f5.=:i_ Sa   ma r S, §5at'E--i-;AdvoCate)

AND; '=.   

 Sizaté aE':1<a

 Em-; State PUv§,§5§C'?'"r{}S€CUf€}¥';

A _ $4-§}EC~gfEf2_ 1359:: E: Bu%~¥d§:;:g,,

Bfa_":1§a:§Cé:'zss,   : R§§P§§§\EE?x§T

 :'Sr.%_S;_fT§3':"a'é":aE3&3a9§a é<R8ab3ET@ttyf HEQP}



This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 276 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure against the Judgment dated 6-
9-2007 In Spl.Appellate Ceurt.No.3/2006 on the'.f.E'le._of.._the
Additional Sessions {Atroc:ity)Judge, Raichuzg, '::o"ra-vi<:t'i:'*:g

the appellant/accused for the offence DUﬂiiF§_hEi'bl'vi§:'iii"?-fj_.ér'l_V
Section 325 of Indian Penal Code and "s_ent;en_cti:igi»__to 
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a perio--d.--._eff..18_rnonths=, 

for the offence punishable unde?' Section _.325'._ef'Indiao
Penal Code and shali also pay a, fli'iB,O_f Rs.3.,O'OO;*-'ii-sandsi

default of payment of fine he "'sho.ul'd uod_Ve:<g,Vo..r'l{;'o§0us

imprisonment for a furtherperiod e*f._si><: mo§':t.-  
This Crimiiial Appeal"ietominoll  fol; hearing
this day, the Court,(:ie_livere(;lo.t.he"fol'lo§Ning:4..._ 

by the 3udgi*ii'eVe«t_:too'vvi.et'iv~n_g* him for the offence punishable
under  3'25"'o'f th'e.i§"idian Penal Code and sentencing

himltoi..uiidvetgoV"i*igotoi:s imprisonment for a periee of E8

  pay a fliie of Rs,3,GOO;'~ and in oefatiilt of

 .;:;«:~=i_f;,:ifi":eoi:..,'oi'iV.l'fii:'i'e to undergo l"iQ{}i"Qi3S imoeisonmeiat fei a

ee€ioo..__'e'f' éfiiiontiisi



 

2. The case of the presetutien is that the

complainant and the accused are the reeédeets-V.VV0f

Eaiiiaehchi Viiiage, Léhgasugur Taiuka, 

C.W.1 is the complainant and C_Ws.s__2 ah'd"4".s0vh_s"."» 

C.W.3 is the wife of the compiaieahft'.t

sch of the complainant 'a_sé'd._a|i "of ther'hti_e1-en.g--~1 to 

Scheduied Tribe. The accuse_d":de_es_V_»hot.be!.evhgVAVf%p either to
a Scheduled Caste That on
9-11-2005 at'fF'uut.A"--s;:aC:  son of the
com owned by C.W.6
and     VAt that time C.W.7 who
is aisd  sa-'me véflage came and handed
over  him and gave it te C.W.2 to

gjt§fe"its.En his  At that time, the accused came and

 'sat  the'A'a.:;torikshaw to go te his véiiage. At about 6.08

 ._ ttréy reached their viﬁiage Eaﬁébeechi and when

theyv*--.:e'e';*e' Eh freht ef the grecery shee ef C,'2?\:'.Sg the

 as asggeuseid eéeked he a quartet with e.xaa2 aha asked him te

 ghze the meet :0 him; stating that it ieeiehgs te hire, Eh

r'*"°"°7

E Vrlfi/% 



the meanwhile C.W.8, the grandson of the complainant

informed C.W.1 and C.W.3 about the incident. Tjheifeeftver,

C.Ws. 1 and 3 rushed to the spot and tried te

Then the accused caught hold _of...t_he c;omp"ie'.Ejne'r'lt,4_'_elifrzedl'r 

him and threw him on the tar ro-ed;f_"w~l'lich=.w'ee'  

the shop of C.W.S. resu'l~t: of  the'

complainant sustained gréeyotijgv:__Er'aj..g'riee' head and
when C.W.3 intervened;theo.ef;:e.de'eVd':'ebtleed her by taking
the heme of f4}'l';~}-:'V'.CEflSte",' complainant
was; takegjyte.  lh the night. The
nextVvdeyt'Cemoleiinwant was taken to the
Govefnmenwt'l"i%.Qs:oitel"veto'---.Ll'hesugur and was admitted for
treatme":~"ztt::_'_tll  was recorded by the police.

Thereafter; theeedmediital officer hevieg treated the accesee

  e_v"'l?I.Le,4vA"eese, informed the Lingasegut Police Statlen,

 .'afl".h€3  there and teeereed the statement et the

£e'm§l-el.n'a"ht, Thereafter, a eaee ée Ceme §'alet2%"?;'2€;lQ5

V "wee tegéeteted fer the effehee eeeéeheeie under Seetlee

 324 of the Eneéen ,§eeeE Cede and eeeez' ﬁeetéeh

E
5.  is'-«V.

_____;H



 

11':

3(1)(><) of the Karnataka Scheduied Castes & Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, against the
accused" The investigation commenced and aijcharge

sheet was fiied against the accused fdr 

ptmishabie under Section 326 & 504 ef_th'e'~--I.nd.ii.ani.4_i4'ers--a_i[

Code and Section 3(:)(x) of :j;Hé'::;<'a.;--eata'i<--a:_':

Castes Si Scheduied Tr§bes{Preve'ntiio*n of £it.:'etc'iti'es}:,'.";i'«..<:t;~cg

1989. On triai, the accused""wﬁas convi'et_e'qejforzthewﬂoffence

punishabie under Secﬁtiogﬁ 3_2V§moVf*the»g.'I'ndtan iiienial Code and
sentenced to undergo r§'geroi3s for a period

of 18 month~s"a«nd' toioay  in default of

payrnent   -undergo rigorous imprisonment
for a gjeiriéed  The accused was acquitted of

theioifence ';3ai_nVishat=ie under Sectien 504 of Indian Pena:

 i.C'ode_:"'.iaiid"Section 3(1){><) at the Karnataka Schedeied

 ._§'as.tes:'arvs§dVﬁshedeied "§'ribes{Preventien ef Atteeities} Act,

3%?--89»-._"Hence, tne eresent aoaeai by the aeensed,



 

the death of the compéainaht. Under these circ:.:ms_tances,
he pieads that the appeal be dismissed by c0nf%';<nj':'rrg~~.the
order of conviction. ' V

5. Heard counseis and e:xar:if1'Et1*.ed the"FécQV'r5S--_°V_:

6. P.W.1 is the corhp-!g3inaIét~v§m9_ié.:t'h'e_:'vir:t!h1. He.'

has stated in his evidence th_z§tay_vhe:2 h.e"eh§i the accused
were returning, neatV:7th,e7.Lg:§0::e":'-it ehop of P.W.9, the
accused snatched the"mee't  beiohgs to him,

When theeQ4rr{§ja_ina'r':t_;seid.__«-that ittwtaseiohgs to P.W.4 he

pickedHL}'p'rAeiiv:m:e:Efr'ei  assttativiiltved the complainant. Then
C.WK.'VZ--.\}vh0V  incident went arse énfermed

P.Ws_. 1 e"nd '3,a';9ei;;vt the quarrei. The cempiainarzt P.W.3.

  e-e_E§~2eb_A..y§ea.r thewteceee and tréeé to pacify them; By this, the

v"a'_<:"::L:?5'e;éV'twas"-..en:ageé and aseeeited the cemeiaihentt

'T_téeree§te:?':;*tthe eeeesee Eifted the eemggéeéearﬁs 522$ threw

 ?"sEm"eri:. the tea' ?'€*3§t RWBE %$ the em ef E"3*.W.1, is me

V' ,$';?§"g'§€€?€@ he bee eeeeerted tee Cese ef the ereeeeutéee. éie

ftzas stated that tee amused Eiftee his father end threw him



on the tar road. P.W.3 is the wife of P.W.1 who has also
narrated the incident to the effect that the accused lifted

P.W.1 and threw him on the tar road. ?.\/V5.4 &4v6_:a4.;9e-._the

eye witnesses. The trial Court by placing reli-e'h'c4e"V-i3§'=:..:thel'r',

statements convicted the accused.... _On an"ex-eml'r':.avt'ion.c_Vof'. 

the statements made by the eye t:§ll'irth;esése's'~é:t' ie{V:e~véEde_ht

that the statements made bjythemlavre c0rrle:|':ld.ra«*:.i.ye.;3 

there is no serious cr0ss~eVxeVVh1:t_net_leh..b;r_l;'heH_tiefehce in
order to render theiVr""e3&ide--h.ce'eé"'--d'etl'bttful. The evidence
of the eye  one another,
the trial    accepted their
evidence - K the accused. Under these
 the trial Court is just and valid

acgd 'dees he't~ceVll' for any ihterferehce,
 1.

;-3?'. A. §3.W{§"'iS the Dectdr who examined the éhgidred. Dxséeeéhdi"certificate ereéuced by him xséde E><,?e2 ';.§§d§ceteet":t§'§et E?'£€§"8 wee e frectzsee in the heck ef the eight fee'%'ur_A'1~eed right; hip jeéht. That the §§":j§i§§'§§S eee grieveee Eh I L ; _,.

rt I €_} any interference, Hence, the Judgment of coevichtion stands; affirmed. So far as the sentence is c0ncernedV{"~.t}§~ev triai court has sentenced the accused, to _ imprisonment for a period of 18 meirgthe of Rs.3,000/-, in defauit of payment to undergo rigorous imggrisonnwem.forte-._;§Ver§Voci»df'eyégttgnithte for the offence punishabje the Indian PenaFCode. *.._A, ;'1'aqA'm

9. On considering:_the*--t-;jt'aigty'-«df_th_e prosecution case and the«§.t£d.gm§ent§b'_ef ~..C'o»:1j;,«_ig:ti(5;"2,'V Yam 0:' the consideiied~--v§ew"Vt?iat"thee'-sentence of imprisonment of the accused is'LimpvroVé;;ef'.*.."":*hAe_.'m~fine imeesed on the accused beie.g§;:.ir;iat'deqt.:e.te'--,.itegetres to be enhanced. Therefore; if':

exeteisevi BQW8%"S under Section 397 read with §eeté--0'evV.?;C%":._ the Cede ef Crimieei Procedure the

--V epee4i'§a5:it.Ay§a:§ put an eetéee with regatd te the ereeeeed "V.'m»eet:e.e<:emeet of ﬂeet "the eppeééeet was eeizee te make

-- we etsbmissiees with eegard te the eereet K} aggww 5 3 E i

10. The ieamed counse! appearing for the apoetiant on instructions oieads, that in tjtte:'j'«..;j%~.{en circumstances of the case, the impositiort'-ofhe[frs--ég'E*;-e'rr~.» sentence of fine is uncaHed for. _He .t_herefore"§.E;ea€is,:'t.ha'st_Va"r x ieniertt view may be taken so far':.as1'theV seI<ttetat:eAVof'h_t"f§nAet.:is concerned.

11. The appel'ieV:;'it_is. aged about 30 years. The wound show that he has suffejraecfihie right femur and the of the prosecution case, the piece as a provocation to the accusetilagé these circumstances, even th.<§ogE"e.the emsecutiiae has estabéished its Case beyond aﬁé '~reeso.Siéjé.J.t:!:e"'«tEVoubt for the offence etmishabie under Sectiett L-..

._s2_fE ¢;«;[t;¢e 'E:§":'é'.tan Penat Code Fem ef the eonsieeree View the eézpesétéoe of a sentence of E§"é'Ef3§'ES{)E'¥.%"E'}€E"é5C; wou¥o "V r rzet be eeeroeréate in the given facts and eérettrnstences ef '.t'r:e' ease. Yam ef the ttotzséeeree xzéezzas tbet En Etee of imprisonment, it would be just and reasonable to Empese a sentence of fine ef an additional sum of Rs.10,OOQ;'§m'..V For the aforesaid reasehs, the app_eé'E' aifowed. it 3

1) The Judgment .o'f-..__.con'{/'izjt'i'enV passed by the Additionai Judge, Raichur, in spmc Ne4_;_3«--'20't)655st1.C'e_;'a»fh*a'ned.

2) The se:"atence_s_"oft..V§§"e'pr§_se.rfi{ner2.t is set aside. H0we'Ve'f,"sf§':,e is'._'s'e'rttenCed to pay a fine of Rs.1CVi',.QC¥Q/4 guhishable under Section 325 of the Inﬁah' Pe;:a£A"VCt:ia"e. This amount ef fine shat: be in is thehhftt-2--e"emeent aiready Empeseé by the Ccsutt ' fh..:::§"efauEt of payment of fine the eppeéiaet is .'t:'tjd;erg;e"séﬁeie Emetisenment Eat a sewed ef 5 memes» 3} The féee ameeet shah be eats tie the ttéaé C§§§§"§,-- 'within eight weeks from the date et' receipt sf a see}! 9%"

2'.

E e 5

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court