Karnataka High Court
Nallachandra Nanjappa @ Manu vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 July, 2023
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K.Somashekar
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:24127-DB
CRL.A No. 1894 of 2016
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1894 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
NALLACHANDRA NANJAPPA @MANU,
S/O LATE THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
RESIDING AT
NALAVTHOKLU VILLAGE,
VIRAJPET TALUK,
KODAGU DISTRICT.
PIN CODE-571 201.
Digitally signed NOW RESIDING AT
by VINUTHA M KEDAMALLUR VILLAGE,
Location: HIGH VIRAJPET TALUK,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA KODAGU DISTRICT.
PIN CODE-571 201.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. N.RAVINDRANATH KAMATH, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. H.G. DAWOOD KAHN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:24127-DB
CRL.A No. 1894 of 2016
THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
VIRAJPET RURAL POLICE STATION,
VIRAJPET TALUK,
KODAGU DISTRICT.
PIN CODE-571 201.
REPRESENTED BY
ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGLAURU-560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, SPP-II)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 07.09.2016
PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DIST. AND S.J., KODAGU-MADIKERI,
SITTING AT VIRAJPET IN S.C.NO.40/2002 - CONVICTING THE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
302,307,201,279,337 OF IPC AND SEC. 25(1)(a)(b) AND 6 R/W
27 OF INDIAN ARMS ACT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS,
THIS DAY, RAJESH RAI.K, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal by the convicted accused is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.09.2016 passed in S.C. No.40/2002 by the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu-Madikeri, Sitting at Virajpet, wherein the accused/appellant convicted for the offences -3- NC: 2023:KHC:24127-DB CRL.A No. 1894 of 2016 punishable under Sections 302, 307, 201, 279, 337 of IPC r/w Section 25(1)(a)(b) r/w 6 and 27 of Indian Arms Act and the accused directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs.50,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he further directed to undergo 1 year simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. The accused further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and also to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he further directed to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. The accused also directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 7 years and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he directed to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC. The accused further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine directed to undergo 1 month simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC. The accused also directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. In -4- NC: 2023:KHC:24127-DB CRL.A No. 1894 of 2016 default of payment of fine, he further directed to undergo 10 days simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 337 of IPC. The accused also directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 7 years and also to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he further directed to undergo 1 year simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 25(1)(a)(b) of Indian Arms Act. The accused further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 7 years and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he further directed to undergo 1 month simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 6 r/w Section 27 of Indian Arms Act. It is further ordered that all the above sentence shall run concurrently.
2. The factual matrix of the prosecution case is that:-
On 25.12.1999 at about 4:30 p.m. in Nalvathoklu Village in the land bearing Sy.No.237/4, due to property dispute, when the accused/appellant, who is one of the brother of the deceased Kuttappa, PWs.1 and 3, picking coffee along with his labours, the deceased Kuttappa, PW.1 and PW.3 came to the above said land and asked the accused not to pick coffee.-5-
NC: 2023:KHC:24127-DB CRL.A No. 1894 of 2016 Thereby, verbal exchange taken place between the accused and his brothers, at that time, accused brought the gun and fired at Kuttappa and caused the death of Kuttappa. Further, PW.1 gone near the accused to prevent him from further fire, at that time, the accused assaulted PW.1 with kathi/chopper with an intention to commit the murder of PW.1 and thereby PW.1 sustained severe injuries on his head. Later, PW.2 and 3 intervened, the accused made alarm towards PW.2 and PW.3 with the dire consequences. After committing such incident, the accused escaped from the scene of occurrence in the jeep bearing No. KA-12/M-6626 in rash and negligent manner and thereby hit/dash to one P.Beebi-PW.14 and caused simple injury to her. Further, the accused shot with SBBL gun without having a valid licence and the said gun belongs to his uncle.
Hence, the criminal law set into motion by PW.1-injured brother of the deceased by lodging the complaint as per Ex.P1 on 25.12.1999 at about 6:30 p.m. The said complaint was registered by PW.25-Investigation Officer as per Ex.P15 in Crime No.170/1999 dated 25.12.1999 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of IPC. Later the Investigation Officer conducted the investigation panchanama -6- NC: 2023:KHC:24127-DB CRL.A No. 1894 of 2016 and inquest panchanama over the dead body and thereafter arrested the accused. Based on his voluntary statement, the recoveries has been made and after recording the statement of all the witnesses and also obtaining the documents to that effect, the Investigation Officer laid the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 506, 201, 279, 337 of IPC r/w Section 25(1)(a)(b) r/w Section 6 and 27 of Indian Arms Act, before the committal Court.
3. On committal of the case before the Court of Sessions, the learned Sessions Judge framed the charges against the accused for the aforesaid offences and read over the same to the accused and the accused denied the charges and claims to be tried.
4. In order to prove the guilt of the accused for the charges leveled against him, before the trial Court, the prosecution in all examined 26 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.26, so also marked 31 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P31 and also produced 15 material objects i.e., MO.1 to MO.15. After completion of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge read over -7- NC: 2023:KHC:24127-DB CRL.A No. 1894 of 2016 the incriminating portions of the evidence of the witnesses to the accused as contemplated under the provisions of Section 313 of Cr.P.C. However, the accused denied the same. The accused not examined any witness on his behalf, however, marked 5 documents as per Ex.D1 to D5 i.e., portions of the statements of PWs.2, 14 and 18.
5. On assessment of the oral and documentary evidence placed before the Sessions Court so also after hearing the learned counsel for the accused and the learned Public Prosecutor, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused for the charges leveled against him for the aforesaid offences. The said judgment challenged by the accused under this appeal.
6. We have heard the learned Senior counsel Sri.N Ravindranath Kamath for the appellant so also Sri.Vijaykumar Majage learned SPP-II for State.
7. The learned Senior counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the judgment under this appeal suffers from infirmity and perversity. The learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant without appreciating the -8- NC: 2023:KHC:24127-DB CRL.A No. 1894 of 2016 evidence available on record and based on the assumption and presumption convicted this appeal. As such, the impugned judgment under this appeal is not sustainable and liable to be set-aside. He would further contend that the prosecution much relied upon the evidence of PWs.1, 3, 7 and 8 who are the alleged eyewitnesses to the incident, but on careful perusal of their evidence, there are much contradictions and omissions in their evidence and the same are not trustworthy to convict the accused for the charges leveled against him. He also contended that PWs.1 and 3 are the brothers and PW.2 is the mother of the deceased and they are interested witnesses in this case. As such, their version cannot be taken into consideration to convict the accused. The remaining eyewitnesses PWs.7 and 8 have not clearly deposed in respect of the incident and they have to be treated as chance witnesses to the incident. As such, their version also cannot be relied to convict the accused. The learned Senior counsel would further contend that there was a long standing civil dispute pending between the accused and deceased who are the brothers and 7 days prior to the incident, the accused obtained an injunction order against the deceased in respect of the ancestral property -9- NC: 2023:KHC:24127-DB CRL.A No. 1894 of 2016 in O.S. No.85/1996. As such, the version of PWs.1 and 3 the brothers of the deceased cannot be believed for the reason that, since there was a civil dispute, in order to give some criminal colour to civil dispute, they falsely made allegation against the accused. As such, the entire evidence available on record, do not prove against the accused in respect of the alleged incident. Learned Senior counsel would further contend that according to the evidence of PWs.1 and 3, the accused was holding MO.1 i.e., gun and MO.2 i.e., chopper/kathi in both the hands and thereby, shot the deceased in the gun and simultaneously caused the injuries to PW.1 with the kathi/chopper. As such, the said aspect of the matter creates doubt in the version of PWs.1 and PW.3. Further, the expert opinion in respect of the gun is concerned, that cannot be relied for the reason because the Scientific Officer categorically stated in his report that firing pin marks on the cartridge case in Article No.2 are not tallying with that of 1st cartridge which are used to fire the SBBL gun in article No.1 i.e., MO.1. Such being the case, the prosecution totally failed to prove that the accused fired from MO.1 to the deceased and thereby, committed his murder. He would also contend that the motive
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:24127-DB CRL.A No. 1894 of 2016 for the alleged incident is also not proved by the prosecution by leading cogent evidence, except the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, who are the most interested witnesses in this case. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal.
8. The learned Senior counsel alternatively contended that, even if the case of the prosecution admitting for the sake of argument, by perusal of the entire evidence available on record, this case does not come under the purview of Section 302 of IPC, instead this case, squarely falls on Exception 1 of 300 IPC which is punishable under the provisions of Section 304 Part 1 of IPC. By perusal of the evidence of PWs.1 and 3 the brothers so also the other eyewitnesses, they categorically deposed that the entire incident happened on a spur of moment in a grave and sudden provocation. Since deceased and PW.1 and PW.3 trespassed into the property of the accused when there was a temporary injunction order against them, in such an eventuality, the verbal altercation took place between accused and deceased and also PWs.1 and 3, at that time, the accused all of a sudden with a grave provocation made by the deceased, committed the incident by firing with MO.1 and due to the said provocation, he might have assaulted PW.1 with
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:24127-DB CRL.A No. 1894 of 2016 MO.2. In such eventuality, this case falls under the purview of Exception 1 of Section 300 of IPC. He also produced the injunction order obtained in O.S. No.85/1996 by the accused against the deceased just before 7 days, prior to this incident. Hence, the learned Senior counsel prays to allow the appeal or alternatively to modify the sentence from Section 302 of IPC to Section 304 Part 1 of IPC.
9. Per contra, Sri Vijaykumar Majage learned SPP-II vehemently contended that the judgment under appeal does not suffer from any perversity or illegality and the same is based on the evidence available on record. According to the Learned SPP II, the Sessions Judge after carefully going through the evidence adduced by the witnesses so also the documents produced by the prosecution, convicted the accused for the charges leveled against him. Further, he would contend that the evidence of PWs.1, 3, 7 and 8-eyewitnesses to the incident, categorically deposed about the commission of the crime by accused that, on the fateful day, the accused with an intention to eliminate the deceased, fired with MO.1 to the deceased so also he assaulted PW.1 on his head and thereby, caused grievous injuries with an intention to go away his life
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC:24127-DB CRL.A No. 1894 of 2016 also. To that effect, the evidence of the injured witness PW.1 and other eyewitnesses PWs.3, 7 and 8 are very much available on record. PWs.1 and 3 are none other than the brothers of the deceased and they have categorically deposed against the accused as such there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PWs.1 and 3 and also PWs.7 and 8 i.e., independent eyewitnesses to the incident. In such circumstances, the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. He would further contend that, the prosecution also proved the motive for the alleged incident. By perusal of the evidence of PWs.1 and 3, they have clearly stated that there is a long standing civil dispute between accused and deceased in respect of ancestral property and as such, the accused in order to eliminate the deceased committed his murder by shooting him from MO.1. When PW.1 questioned the same, the accused also assaulted PW.1 from MO.2. Hence, the prosecution also proved the motive for the incident. He would further contend that since the case is based on eyewitnesses, though the motive does not play vital role to prove the guilt of the accused, but in this case the prosecution proved the motive for the commission of the crime. He further contend that the
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC:24127-DB CRL.A No. 1894 of 2016 ocular evidence of the eyewitnesses clearly corroborates with the medical evidence adduced by the prosecution i.e., the evidence of PW.12 who conducted autopsy over the dead body as per Ex.P11 and further, coupled with the evidence of PW.22- Scientific Officer who gave the opinion in respect of the firing condition of the gun MO.1 as per Ex.P16-the report and Ex.P17- the opinion. He would also contend that with regard to injury sustained by PW.1, he was treated before PW.11-Doctor and he issued the Wound Certificate as per Ex.P7. The Wound Certificate clearly stated that the injury sustained by PW.1 is due to the assault made by the accused. To that effect, the FSL report as per Ex.P21 was placed by PW.23. The Learned SPP II would further contend that the evidence of PW.14, who is also injured witness, i.e., the accused after commission of the crime while escaping from the spot in his jeep drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, and dashed to PW.14 and caused injuries to her, she was also treated and the Wound certificate is marked at Ex.P8. Hence, the learned SPP would submit that in such circumstances the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The learned SPP would further contend that the sanction letter to prosecute the accused under
- 14 -
NC: 2023:KHC:24127-DB CRL.A No. 1894 of 2016 the provisions of Arms Act is granted as per Ex.P27 and the same was marked through the Investigation Officer-PW.26 and as such recovery of MOs.1 and 2 also proved by the evidence of PW.20-panch witness i.e., under Ex.P14 the mahazar.
10. The learned SPP-II would further contend, as far as the alternative submission made by the learned Senior counsel for the appellant that, the offence does not falls under the purview of Section 302 of IPC instead the same comes under the Exception 1 of Section 300 of IPC and punishable under the provisions of Section 304 Part 1 of IPC is concerned, by perusal of the evidence available on record and also the manner in which the accused committed the incident, this case does not fall under the provisions of Exception 1 of Section 300 of IPC and it squarely comes within the purview of Section 302 of IPC and thereby, the learned Sessions Judge rightly convicted the accused for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. The accused with a preparation and with an intention to do away the life of the deceased committed the incident by holding MO.1-gun and MO.2-chopper and thereby, committed the murder of the deceased so also assaulted PW.1 and caused grievous injuries to him. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the
- 15 -
NC: 2023:KHC:24127-DB CRL.A No. 1894 of 2016 incident caused in a grave and sudden provocation on a spur of moment. Hence, according to the learned SPP-II, the alternative argument of the learned Senior counsel has to be rejected and accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal.
11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the documents, the points that would arise for our consideration are:-
1. Whether the judgment under this appeal suffers from any perversity or illegality?
2. Whether the learned Sessions Judge is justified in convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 201, 279, 337 of IPC r/w Section 25(1)(a)(b) r/w Sections 6 and 27 of Indian Arms Act?
12. We have bestowed our anxious consideration on the submission made by both the learned counsel and also the evidence available on record including the trial Court record. This Court being the Appellate Court, re-appreciation of the entire evidence is very much required.
(i) PW.1-Thammaiah is an injured eyewitness to the incident, who is none other than the brother of the deceased and also the brother of the accused. This witness deposed
- 16 -
NC: 2023:KHC:24127-DB CRL.A No. 1894 of 2016 before the Court that on 25.12.1999, the accused brought some labours for picking coffee in the land, at that time, his brother PW.3 and the deceased Kuttappa together questioned the accused while he was picking the coffee crop. At that time suddenly the accused took 12 bore gun and shot against his brother Kuttappa. When he made an attempt to rescue his brother, at that time, the accused assaulted him with the chopper, at that time, he fell down at the place of occurrence and became unconscious. Thereafter, he was taken to hospital for treatment. Later, he lodged a complaint about the incident as per Ex.P1 before the Police. He identified his complaint as per Ex.P1. He also identified MO.1-gun and MO.2-chopper and also the blood stained clothes of deceased i.e., MO.3 to MO.6. In the cross examination, he has admitted that there is a civil dispute pending between accused and deceased.
(ii) PW.2-Seethavva is the mother of deceased and the accused. She deposed that, incident has taken place for picking the coffee from the land and accused at that time, her other sons objected for picking coffee, on that regard, some quarrel ensured between her children. She reached the spot after the gun shot sound and at that time her son Kuttappa was
- 17 -
NC: 2023:KHC:24127-DB CRL.A No. 1894 of 2016 lying in the gun shot injury. Though she has been projected as eyewitness to the prosecution case, however, she turned hostile to the prosecution case in respect of her statement.
(iii) PW.3-Achappa N.T. who is the brother of deceased and PW.1 and also an eyewitness to the incident. He reiterated the version of PW.1 and stated that, on 25.12.1999 in the evening hours, when he visited the land belonging to their family, at that time, the accused shot his brother deceased Kuttappa so also he assaulted PW.1 with MO.2-chopper on his head. Thereafter, he intervened in the galata and they shifted PW.1 the injured to the hospital and thereafter, PW.1 lodged the complaint as per Ex.P1. He also identified MO.1 and MO.2. In the cross examination, he also admitted that there is a civil dispute pending between accused and deceased.
(iv) PW.4-C.D. Karumbaiah is also a witness to the alleged incident and he also deposed similarly as that of PW.1 and PW.3. He has identified his signature on Ex.P2-inquest mahazar and identified the injuries on the dead body of the deceased. He also supported the mahazar-Ex.P3, wherein the clothes of the deceased recovered as per MO.2 to MO.6.
- 18 -
NC: 2023:KHC:24127-DB CRL.A No. 1894 of 2016
(v) PW.5-V.A. Haneef is a panch witness for Exs.P4 and P.5 However, he has turned hostile to the prosecution case.
(vi) PW.6-Balakrishna is also panch witness for Exs.P4 and P.5. However, he has turned hostile to the prosecution case.
(vii) PW.7-Prakash is an independent eyewitness to the incident and deposed that 25.12.1999, he has seen, accused Nanjappa was holding gun and kathi in his hands and standing in his land. There was a quarrel between the brothers about the coffee cutting and thereby, the accused shot against deceased Kuttappa with his gun and caused bullet injury and he also assaulted PW.1 with MO.2 kathi.
(viii) PW.8-N. Shankari is also an independent eyewitness to the incident. She deposed similar to that of PW.7 and stated that accused shot against the deceased Kuttappa and caused bullet injuries to him and also assaulted PW.1 with MO.2 kathi on his head.
(ix) PW.9-K.Prakash deposed that, immediately after the incident, he reached the spot and at that time, the dead body of Kuttappa was lying on Bachetti road and PW.1-Thammaiah
- 19 -
NC: 2023:KHC:24127-DB CRL.A No. 1894 of 2016 was lying with bleeding injury over his head in his coffee land, accused was standing in the said coffee land by holding gun and chopper in his hand.
(x) PW.10-Ashoka is a circumstantial witness. However, he turned hostile to the prosecution case.
(xi) PW.11-Dr.Kishore Kumtakar, who examined the injured PW.1-Thammaiah and issued Ex.P7-Wound Certificate and opined that the injuries sustained by PW.1 is grievance in nature.
(xii) PW.12-Dr.P Gopinath, who conducted the autopsy over the dead body of deceased Kuttappa and issued the post- mortem report as per Ex.P11. He gave his opinion that the cause of death is due to hemorrhage and shock as a result of injury to vital organs like lung, heart, liver, spleen and fracture of grips left side by gunshot injury.
(xiii) PW.13-S.Sathyanarayana Rao is an Assistant Engineer, PWD, issued the spot sketch as per Ex.P12.
(xiv) PW.14-Smt.P.Beebi who deposed that on the date of incident after hearing the galata, she was proceeded towards
- 20 -
NC: 2023:KHC:24127-DB CRL.A No. 1894 of 2016 the place of occurrence, at that time, deceased dead body was lying being shot. After seeing the same, she was returning to home, at that time, the accused came by driving the jeep and dashed against her and thereby, she sustained injuries over her shoulder and she took treatment at Virajpet hospital.
(xv) PW.15-Stagon is the photographer, who took the photographs of dead body of deceased Kuttappa. (xvi) PW.16-Chengappa @ Praveen is the owner of the jeep in which accused came on that day to the place of incident and thereafter returned from there. However, he has partly turned hostile to the prosecution case.
(xvii) PW.17-Ramanna is the witness for Ex.P14-seizure of MO.1-gun and MO.2-kathi/chopper. However, he has turned hostile to the prosecution case.
(xviii) PW.18-A.V Kiran is a Police Constable. He guarded the dead body and after conducting the post-mortem, handed over the same to the relatives of the deceased. (xix) PW.19-Mohan Sukumar, Head Constable, is a formal witness, who carried the FIR to the Magistrate on 25.12.1999.
- 21 -
NC: 2023:KHC:24127-DB CRL.A No. 1894 of 2016 (xx) PW.20-C.K. Bheemaiah is a panch witness to the seizure of MO.1 and MO.2 and mahazar-Ex.P14. He has supported the case of the prosecution.
(xxi) PW.21-Nagaraj.E is an ASI. He is a formal witness, who carried the FSL items.
(xxii) PW.22-N.G. Prabhkar who is an Assistant Director of FSL, Bangalore. He examined the blood stained clothes of deceased so also MO.1-SBBL gun which is said to have been used by the accused for commission of the crime by firing the deceased. He examined the said MO.1 and issued his report as per Ex.P17 and also he enclosed the photograph of firing pin of SBBL gun in Article No.1 as per Ex.P20.
(xxiii) PW.23-Suresh Gaonkar is in-charge Assistant Director of RSSL, Gulbarga. He examined the blood stained clothes and MO.2-chopper and issued his report as per Ex.P23 that, the blood stains found on the clothes and MO.2-chopper is of human origin.
(xxiv) PW.24-P.Puttabasavaiah is a Scientific Officer, who received the articles from the Police personnel.
- 22 -
NC: 2023:KHC:24127-DB CRL.A No. 1894 of 2016 (xxv) PW.25-Rangaraju, Police Officer. He recorded the statement of PW.1 in the hospital as per Ex.P1 and thereafter registered the FIR as per Ex.P15 and later, handed over the investigation to the Police Inspector.
(xxvi) PW.26-M.M. Desai, CPI of Virajpet, is the Investigation Officer. He conducted the investigation by drawing the spot mahazar, inquest panchanama and also recorded the statements of all the witnesses and thereafter obtained the necessary documents from the concerned authority and laid the charge sheet against accused for the aforesaid offences.
13. On careful perusal of the above evidence, as far as the homicidal death of deceased Kuttappa is concerned, the prosecution relied on the evidence of PW.12-Doctor, who conducted the autopsy over the dead body as per Ex.P11 and gave his opinion in respect of the cause of death that "I am of the opinion that the cause of death is due to hemorrhage and shock, as a result of injury to vital organs like lung, liver, spleen in fracture of grips, left side by gunshot injury". The death might have been caused before 12 hours of post-mortem
- 23 -
NC: 2023:KHC:24127-DB CRL.A No. 1894 of 2016 examination. The said opinion of the Doctor, coupled with the inquest panchanama conducted by the Investigation Officer as per Ex.P2 and PW.4-witness for the same clearly deposed that he found gunshot injuries over the dead body of deceased and so also eyewitnesses to the incident, i.e. PWs.1, 3, 7 and 8 categorically stated that the accused fired with MO.1 to deceased Kuttappa. Moreover, PW.22-Scientific Officer issued the report as per Ex.P16 wherein, he categorically stated that the pellets which were seized at the time of post-mortem report by Doctor-PW.12 are discharged from MO.1-SBBL gun and to that effect, he also issued report i.e., Ex.P.17. Hence, a conjoint reading of the evidence of PW.12-Doctor and PW.22- Scientific Officer coupled with the documentary evidence of Ex.P11-post-mortem report and Ex.P16 and Ex.P17-reports issued by the FSL Officer so also the inquest report as per Ex.P2, we are of the considered view that the prosecution proved the homicidal death of the deceased beyond all reasonable doubt.
14. Once the prosecution proved the homicidal death of the deceased, the next question arise for our consideration is whether accused is responsible for the same. By careful
- 24 -
NC: 2023:KHC:24127-DB CRL.A No. 1894 of 2016 perusal of the evidence of eyewitness to the incident i.e., PW.1- injured witness so also the evidence of PWs.3, 7 and 8, categorically deposed that on the date of incident, the accused came to the disputed property and when PW.1 and 3 questioned the same, at that time, the accused shot deceased Kuttappa with MO.1-SBBL gun. When PW.1 made an attempt to pacify the quarrel, at that time, the accused assaulted PW.1 with MO.2-kathi/chopper on his head. PW.1 immediately shifted to Virajpet Government Hospital and criminal law was set into motion by lodging the complaint as per Ex.P1.
15. The evidence of PW.1 corroborates with the complaint lodged as per Ex.P1 at the earliest point of time. PW.1 categorically deposed before the Court that accused shot deceased Kuttappa with MO.1 and thereafter, he tried to pacify the quarrel, at that time, the accused assaulted him with MO.2- kathi/chopper. This version of PW.1 also depicts in the complaint lodged by him as per Ex.P1. Hence, on careful reading of Ex.P1 and the evidence of PW.1 before the Court, the consistent version of PW.1 in respect of alleged incident caused by the accused is forthcoming. Even the evidence of PW.1, supported with the evidence of PW.3 i.e., another
- 25 -
NC: 2023:KHC:24127-DB CRL.A No. 1894 of 2016 brother of PW.1 and also eyewitness to the incident. PW.3 categorically deposed before the Court that accused shot the deceased in the gun i.e., MO.1 and also assaulted to PW.1 with MO.2 kathi/chopper.
16. Further, PW.7 and PW.8-independent eyewitnesses to the incident deposed before the Court that, on the fateful day, when they arrived to the place of incident, after hearing hue and cry, they found that accused and deceased were quarrelling and thereafter, accused shot the deceased with the gun and also assaulted PW.1. Thereafter, accused was standing alone in the spot by holding MO.1-gun and MO.2- kathi. Though the learned Senior counsel argued that the evidence of PW.7 and PW.8 cannot be considered for the reason that they are the chance witnesses to the incident, but on careful perusal of their evidence, they categorically deposed that, on the day of incident, they were very much present in the scene of occurrence. Further, they also identified MO.1-gun and MO.2-kathi. They narrated the incident in a very clear manner and their evidence corroborates to the evidence of PW.1 and PW.3. Such being the case, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW.7 and PW.8 nor they can termed
- 26 -
NC: 2023:KHC:24127-DB CRL.A No. 1894 of 2016 as chance witnesses to the incident. Hence, on meticulous examination of PWs.1, 3, 7 and 8-eyewitnesses to the incident and more so their ocular evidence corroborates with the medical evidence i.e., post-mortem report conducted by PW.12-Doctor and the post-mortem examination report as per Ex.P11. On careful perusal of Ex.P11 clearly depicts in the information column that those injuries are caused by accused on the date of incident. Wherein, the Doctor clearly opined the cause of death is due to gunshot injuries. Moreover, PW.22- Scientific Officer also clearly opined that the pellets which he examined are discharged from MO.1-gun and those pellets were found in the body of the deceased while conducting the post-mortem examination by PW.12-Doctor. Moreover, the Scientific Officer issued the report to that effect as per Ex.P16 and gave his opinion as per Ex.P17.
17. It is also pertinent to note at this juncture that the injuries sustained by PW.1 were treated by PW.11-Doctor and he issued the Wound Certificate as per Ex.P7. Nevertheless, the evidence of PW.14 i.e., one more injured in this case, also deposed in respect of injuries sustained by her. She also took treatment and the Doctor claimed her, issued Wound Certificate
- 27 -
NC: 2023:KHC:24127-DB CRL.A No. 1894 of 2016 as per Ex.P8. PW.14 is an independent witness. She has categorically deposed that after the commission of crime, accused drove the jeep in a rash and negligent manner and dashed her and caused injuries to her. Hence, by considering the evidence of eyewitnesses coupled with the medical evidence of PW.1 as per Ex.P7 and also the evidence of PW.6 to PW.9 and PW.14, the prosecution categorically proved the incident that accused committed the murder of deceased Kuttappa by shooting at him with MO.1 gun and he caused grievous injuries on the head of PW.1.
18. It is vehemently contended by the learned Senior counsel for the appellant that PW.2-mother of deceased turned hostile to the prosecution and some other witnesses have also turned hostile to the prosecution case i.e., in respect of recovery mahazar. But the consistent evidence of PWs.3, 7, and 8 and also the fact that there is no infirmities in their evidence, in our considered view there is no reason to discard the evidence of these witnesses. The Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgments held that, mere fact that some of the witness to the events prior or leading to the incident did not support to the prosecution would not mean that the testimonies
- 28 -
NC: 2023:KHC:24127-DB CRL.A No. 1894 of 2016 of other eyewitnesses would automatically stand discarded and even otherwise, the Hon'ble Apex Court discussed the evidentiary value of the hostile witnesses in the case of NEERAJ DUTTA vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) (2023) reported in 4 SCC 731 at paragraph No.87.
19. Further, the prosecution proved the recovery of MO.1 and MO.2 at the instance of accused by the evidence of Investigation Officer-PW.26 and PW.20, who is the panch witness to the seizure, mahazar who supported the case of the prosecution. As such, it is suffice to hold that even the prosecution proved the evidence of Scientific Officer available on record that the gun shot injuries caused by MO.1.
20. As far as, motive for the alleged incident is, as admitted by accused that there was a long standing civil dispute pending between accused and deceased, the prosecution produced proved the documents to that effect as per Ex.P31 i.e., order sheet in O.S. No.219/1999. Since accused obtained a temporary injunction order 7 days prior to the date of incident and thereafter the deceased trespassed the said property as such, the accused committed the incident. In
- 29 -
NC: 2023:KHC:24127-DB CRL.A No. 1894 of 2016 such circumstances, inference can be drawn that civil dispute is motive for the commission of the incident by accused. Nevertheless, when the case is based on evidence of eyewitnesses, the motive does not play any vital role, in spite of that. In our considered view, the prosecution also proved the motive for the commission of the incident in this case.
21. The general principles appreciating the evidence of witnesses are that, to seek corroboration of evidence at least two or more witnesses to be available as a measure of caution. In this case, the prosecution examined PWs.1, 3, 7 and 8- eyewitnesses to the incident. In the case of MRINAL DAS vs. STATE OF TRIPURA (2011) 9 SCC 479, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that if the corroboration of witnesses at least two or more witnesses are available on record, then inference can be drawn against accused.
22. In respect of omissions and deficiencies in the evidence of the witnesses, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of RAVASAHEB @ RAVASAHEBGOUDA AND OTHERS vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA (2023) 5 SCC 391 held as under:
- 30 -
NC: 2023:KHC:24127-DB CRL.A No. 1894 of 2016
23. The evidence examined as a whole, must reflect/ring of truth. The court must not give undue importance to omissions and discrepancies which do not shake the foundations of the prosecution's case. [Rohtash Kumar v. State of Haryana [Rohtash Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2013) 14 SCC 434 : (2014) 4 SCC (Cri) 238] ; Bhagwan Jagannath Markad v. State of Maharashtra [Bhagwan Jagannath Markad v. State of Maharashtra, (2016) 10 SCC 537 : (2017) 1 SCC (Cri) 189] and Karan Singh v. State of U.P. [Karan Singh v. State of U.P., (2022) 6 SCC 52 : (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 479] ] The Hon'ble Apex Court in the said judgment also held in respect of testimony of close relative, which is as under:
"25. A witness being a close relative is not a ground enough to reject his testimony. Mechanical rejection of an even "partisan" or "interested"
witness may lead to failure of justice. The principle of "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" is not one of general application."
23. As far as the minor contradictions and omissions in the evidence of eyewitness are concerned, it is settled position of law that the examination of the witness before the Court is not to test his/her memory power and minor discrepancy occurs due to long lapse of time and sub-strum of the evidence will have to be looked into and this aspect is considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgments.
- 31 -
NC: 2023:KHC:24127-DB CRL.A No. 1894 of 2016
24. In the case on hand, as stated supra, PW.1- complaianant-injured eyewitness, PW.3-brother of accused and PWs.7 and 8-independent eyewitnesses to the incident. By perusal of their evidence, it clearly depicts that accused has committed the murder of his brother deceased Kuttappa and assaulted PW.1.
25. Thus, keeping in view the principles initiated in the aforesaid decisions and by perusal of the evidence of eyewitnesses, PWs.1, 3, 7 and 8 coupled with the evidence of PW.14, have categorically deposed about the incident and the manner in which accused committed the murder of his own brother deceased Kuttappa. The ocular evidence of these witnesses clearly corroborates with the medical witness of the Doctor and Scientific Officer as stated supra. Such being the case, the prosecution also proved the weapons which is used for the commission of the crime and seized at the instance of accused. In the circumstances as we have already observed and discussed supra, we found no reason to disbelieve the versions of PWs.1, 3, 7 and 8 and thereby, we are in agreement with the learned Sessions Judge in respect of conviction for the commission of crime by the accused i.e.,
- 32 -
NC: 2023:KHC:24127-DB CRL.A No. 1894 of 2016 accused alone is responsible for the homicidal death of the deceased and he is the perpetrator of the crime. Hence, the learned Sessions Judge rightly convicted the accused.
26. As far as an alternative contention raised by the learned Senior counsel in respect of sentence that, this case does not falls under the purview of Section 302 of IPC and at the most, it may fall under the provisions to Exception 1 of Section 300 of IPC which is punishable under Section 304 Part 1 of IPC is concerned, on careful perusal of the evidence of PW.1 and PW.3 who are none other than brothers of deceased, in their chief-examination, they both categorically deposed that on 25.12.1999, accused brought some labours for picking coffee in the land, PW.1 his brother Achappa and Kuttappa together went to question the accused while he picking the coffee crop when they have questioned the accused, the accused "suddenly took 12 bore gun and shot against deceased Kuttappa" thereby deceased Kuttappa sustained gunshot injuries. The evidence of PW.1 and PW.3 corroborates to the evidence of PW.7 and PW.8, as such, as deposed by the eyewitnesses, the incident caused suddenly on a spur of moment. The reason behind the commission of the crime was
- 33 -
NC: 2023:KHC:24127-DB CRL.A No. 1894 of 2016 that there was a civil case pending between accused and deceased in Original Suit and the said aspect was proved by perusal of the documents as per Ex.P31. Moreover, the learned Senior Counsel also produced the judgment dated 21.12.2002 passed in O.S. No.85/1996 so also the temporary injunction order passed in O.S. No.219/1999 dated 17.12.1999. Hence, on careful perusal of these documents, as on the date of incident, there was a temporary injunction order against deceased and PW.1, obtained by accused not to trespass into the property of accused and in spite of that, the deceased and PW.1 and PW.3 went inside the property and questioned the accused, at that time, on a sudden provocation some altercation took place between accused and deceased. Further, as far as the holding of MO.1 and MO.2 by accused is concerned, admittedly, the place of incident was at Kodagu District in a coffee plantation. At Kodagu District, the coffee plantation owners workers generally use the weapons like kovi/gun and also weapons like kathi/chopper while they visit the coffee plantation. Hence, holding of the weapon by accused itself cannot be said or an inference can be drawn that accused had such preparation/intention/motive to commit the murder of
- 34 -
NC: 2023:KHC:24127-DB CRL.A No. 1894 of 2016 deceased. Admittedly due to the civil dispute the verbal altercation took place between accused and deceased and provoked by the same, all of a sudden, accused might have caused the incident by shooting the deceased Kuttappa with MO.1 and when PW.1 made an attempt to hold him, the accused also assaulted PW.1 with MO.2. Nevertheless, the relationship between accused and deceased has to be considered in this case. The deceased and the injured PW.1 are none other than the own brothers of accused, as such, it cannot be held that accused had an intention to take away the life of his own brother i.e., deceased as also PW.1. Moreover, the place of incident was at in the coffee plantation, the deceased and PW.1 themselves went there, at that time, the incident was caused. Hence, as far as the aggression theory i.e., whether deceased and PW.1 are aggressors and thereby, they provoked accused to commit the crime and that cannot be ruled out in this case.
27. Hence, on careful perusal of all the above circumstances, we are of the considered view that though the accused is a perpetrator of the crime, the case on hand falls under Exception 1 of Section 300 of IPC and the accused is
- 35 -
NC: 2023:KHC:24127-DB CRL.A No. 1894 of 2016 liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part 1 of IPC, instead of Section 302 of IPC.
28. While interpreting Exception 1 to Section 300 of IPC, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of DAUVARAM NIRMALKAR vs. STATE OF CHHATISGARH reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 955 held at paragraph Nos.8, 9, 10, 12 and 13 as under.
"8. However, in our opinion, this case will fall under Exception 1 to Section 300 of the IPC8. Bhagwati Prasad Nirmalkar (PW-3), the younger brother of the appellant and the deceased, had deposed that the deceased used to frequently drink alcohol, barely interacted with the family, and used to debate and quarrel with the appellant. Nakul Ram Sahu (PW-4), the neighbour of the appellant, had similarly testified that the deceased was addicted to alcohol and his wife had left him. Dashrath Nirmalkar's addiction to alcohol, and that he was extremely abusive and ill-tempered is the common narration by Geeta Bai (PW-8), wife of Bhagwati Prasad Nirmalkar (PW-3), and Kumari Shanti Nirmalkar (PW-9), and Kumari Madhu Nirmalkar (PW-10), nieces of the appellant and Dashrath Nirmalkar. The prosecution does not dispute this position and in fact, has relied upon these facts to show motive.
9. Exception 1 differs from Exception 4 of Section 300 of the IPC9. Exception 1 applies when due to grave and sudden provocation, the offender, deprived of the power of self-control, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation. Exception 1 also applies when the offender, on
- 36 -
NC: 2023:KHC:24127-DB CRL.A No. 1894 of 2016 account of loss of self-control due to grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident. Exception 4 applies when an offence is committed without premeditation, in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and the offender commits culpable homicide without having taken undue advantage of acting in a cruel and unusual manner. The Explanation to Exception 4 states that in such cases it is immaterial which party gives the provocation or commits the first assault.
10. Interpreting Exception 1 to the Section 300 in K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra,10 this Court has held that the conditions which have to be satisfied for the exception to be invoked are (a) the deceased must have given provocation to the accused; (b) the provocation must be grave; (c) the provocation must be sudden; (d) the offender, by the reason of the said provocation, should have been deprived of his power of self-control; (e) the offender should have killed the deceased during the continuance of the deprivation of power of self- control; and (f) the offender must have caused the death of the person who gave the provocation or the death of any other person by mistake or accident. For determining whether or not the provocation had temporarily deprived the offender from the power of self-control, the test to be applied is that of a reasonable man and not that of an unusually excitable and pugnacious individual. Further, it must be considered whether there was sufficient interval and time to allow the passion to cool. K.M. Nanavati (supra) succinctly observes:
"84. Is there any standard of a reasonable man for the application of the doctrine of "grave and sudden"
provocation? No abstract standard of reasonableness can be laid down. What a reasonable man will do in certain
- 37 -
NC: 2023:KHC:24127-DB
CRL.A No. 1894 of 2016
circumstances depends upon the
customs, manners, way of life,
traditional values etc.; in short, the
cultural, social and emotional
background of the society to which an
accused belongs. In our vast country
there are social groups ranging from the lowest to the highest state of civilization. It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any standard with precision : it is for the court to decide in each case, having regard to the relevant circumstances. It is not necessary in this case to ascertain whether a reasonable man placed in the position of the accused would have lost his self-control momentarily or even temporarily when his wife confessed to him of her illicit intimacy with another, for we are satisfied on the evidence that the accused regained his self-control and killed Ahuja deliberately.
85. The Indian law, relevant to the present enquiry, may be stated thus :
(1) The test of "grave and sudden"
provocation is whether a reasonable man, belonging to the same class of society as the accused, placed in the situation in which the accused was placed would be so provoked as to lose his self-control. (2) In India, words and gestures may also, under certain circumstances, cause grave and sudden provocation to an accused so as to bring his act within the First Exception to Section 300 of the Penal Code, 1860. (3) The mental background created by the previous act of the victim may be taken into consideration in ascertaining whether the subsequent act caused
- 38 -
NC: 2023:KHC:24127-DB CRL.A No. 1894 of 2016 grave and sudden provocation for committing the offence. (4) The fatal blow should be clearly traced to the influence of passion arising from that provocation and not after the passion had cooled down by lapse of time, or otherwise giving room and scope for premeditation and calculation."
12. The question of loss of self-control by grave and sudden provocation is a question of fact. Act of provocation and loss of self-control, must be actual and reasonable. The law attaches great importance to two things when defence of provocation is taken under Exception 1 to Section 300 of the IPC. First, whether there was an intervening period for the passion to cool and for the accused to regain dominance and control over his mind. Secondly, the mode of resentment should bear some relationship to the sort of provocation that has been given. The retaliation should be proportionate to the provocation.12 The first part lays emphasis on whether the accused acting as a reasonable man had time to reflect and cool down. The offender is presumed to possess the general power of self-control of an ordinary or reasonable man, belonging to the same class of society as the accused, placed in the same situation in which the accused is placed, to temporarily lose the power of self-control. The second part emphasises that the offender's reaction to the provocation is to be judged on the basis of whether the provocation was sufficient to bring about a loss of self-control in the fact situation. Here again, the court would have to apply the test of a reasonable person in the circumstances. While examining these questions, we should not be short-sighted, and must take into account the whole of the events, including the events on the day of the fatality, as these are relevant for deciding whether the accused was acting under the cumulative and continuing stress
- 39 -
NC: 2023:KHC:24127-DB CRL.A No. 1894 of 2016 of provocation. Gravity of provocation turns upon the whole of the victim's abusive behaviour towards the accused. Gravity does not hinge upon a single or last act of provocation deemed sufficient by itself to trigger the punitive action. Last provocation has to be considered in light of the previous provocative acts or words, serious enough to cause the accused to lose his self-control. The cumulative or sustained provocation test would be satisfied when the accused's retaliation was immediately preceded and precipitated by some sort of provocative conduct, which would satisfy the requirement of sudden or immediate provocation.
13. Thus, the gravity of the provocation can be assessed by taking into account the history of the abuse and need not be confined to the gravity of the final provocative act in the form of acts, words or gestures. The final wrongdoing, triggering off the accused's reaction, should be identified to show that there was temporary loss of self-control and the accused had acted without planning and premeditation. This has been aptly summarised by Ashworth13 in the following words:
"[T]he significance of the
deceased's final act should be
considered by reference to the previous relations between the parties, taking into account any previous incidents which add colour to the final act. This is not to argue that the basic distinction between sudden provoked killings and revenge killings should be blurred, for the lapse of time between the deceased's final act and the accused's retaliation should continue to tell against him. The point is that the significance of the deceased's final act and its effect upon the accused - and indeed the relation of the retaliation to that act - can be neither understood nor
- 40 -
NC: 2023:KHC:24127-DB CRL.A No. 1894 of 2016 evaluated without reference to previous dealings between the parties."
29. In the said case, the Hon'ble Apex Court held for clarity that it must be stated that the prosecution must prove the guilt of accused, i.e., it must establish all the ingredients of the offence with which the accused is charged, but this burden should not mixed with the burden of the accused for providing that the case falls within an Exception. However, to discharge his burden, the accused may rely upon the case of the prosecution and the evidence adduced by the prosecution in the Court. It is in this context we would refer to the case of the prosecution. In the case on hand as discussed supra, by perusal of the evidence of PWs.1, 3, 7 and 8, eyewitnesses have clearly deposed that the incident caused suddenly on a spur of moment and there was a civil dispute pending in respect of the ancestral property of accused and deceased. In such circumstances, appellant/accused committed the incident due to sudden loss of self-control on account of a "slow burn reaction followed by the final and immediate provocation". Therefore, we hold that acts of provocation on the basis of which appellant caused the death of his own brother Kuttappa
- 41 -
NC: 2023:KHC:24127-DB CRL.A No. 1894 of 2016 is in sudden and grave provocation and there was loss of self- control. Applying the provocation Exception, we would convert the conviction of appellant from Section 302 to Section 304 Part 1 of IPC.
30. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradhesh vs. Rayavarapu Punnayya and Another reported in AIR (1977) SC 45 held that in clause (3) of Section 300, instead of the words "likely to cause death"
occurring in the corresponding clause (b) of Section 299, the words "sufficient in the ordinary course of nature" have been used. Obviously, the distinction lies between a bodily injury likely to cause death and a bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The distinction is fine but real, and, if overlooked, may result in miscarriage of justice. The difference between clause (b) of Section 299 and clause (3) of Section 300 is one of the degree of probability of death resulting from the intended bodily injury. To put it more broadly, it is the degree of probability of death which determines whether a culpable homicide is of the gravest, medium or the lowest degree. The word "likely" in clause (b) of Section 299 conveys the sense of "probable" as distinguished
- 42 -
NC: 2023:KHC:24127-DB CRL.A No. 1894 of 2016 from a mere possibility. The words "bodily injury ... sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death" mean that death will be the "most probable" result of the injury, having regard to the ordinary course of nature.
31. However, in the instant case, by considering the facts and circumstances of the case, accused committed murder on a sudden provocation due to loss of self-control, shot the deceased with a gun without any intention or any preparation as such to take away the life of deceased and also he was not under the impression in respect of an injury that has caused the death of deceased in the ordinary course of nature. Further, admittedly, there was a civil dispute pending between accused and deceased and also temporary injunction order obtained by the accused not to trespass his land and in spite of that, the deceased, PW.1 and PW.3 trespassed to the coffee plantation and at that time, the incident caused with a grave and sudden provocation. As discussed supra, it is difficult to find out, whether accused is the aggressor, or the deceased and PWs.1 and 3 are the aggressors in the instant case. Hence, by considering over all circumstances of the case and also evidence adduced by the prosecution, we are of the
- 43 -
NC: 2023:KHC:24127-DB CRL.A No. 1894 of 2016 considered opinion that this case squarely falls within the ambit of Exception 1 of Section 300 of IPC which is punishable under Section 304 Part 1 of IPC, instead of Section 302 of IPC.
Accordingly, we answered the points raised above and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The criminal appeal is allowed-in-part.
ii) The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed in S.C.No.40/2002 dated 07.09.2016 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu-Madikeri sitting at Virajpet is hereby modified in respect of offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. The offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC is converted to Exception 1 of Section 300 of IPC. Accordingly, he is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 part I of IPC. As far the sentence in respect of other offences imposed by the trial Court are concerned, the same are kept intact.
iii. On the question of sentence, the appellant/accused is sentenced for the period, which he has already undergone incarceration i.e., 07 years, 08 months and 11 days and he shall pay a fine of Rs.3,00,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 304 part I of IPC and in default, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years.
iv. In exercise of powers under Section 357 r/w Section 357(A) of Cr.P.C., we direct the
- 44 -
NC: 2023:KHC:24127-DB CRL.A No. 1894 of 2016 learned Sessions Judge, out of the fine amount of Rs.3,00,000/- including a sum of Rs.66,500/- awarded for the other offences i.e., in total a sum of Rs.3,66,500/-, a sum of Rs.1,66,500/- shall be paid to PW.1- Nallachanda Thammaiah i.e., the injured and remaining sum of Rs.2,00,000/- shall be paid to PW.2-Nallachanda Seethavva i.e., the mother of the deceased on proper identification.
v. On payment of fine, the Jail Authorities, Mysuru are directed to release the appellant/accused, if he is not required in any other case.
However, all the sentences shall run
concurrently.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
HKV
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6