Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Basavaraju on 28 January, 2009
Bench: S.R.Bannurmath, A.N.Venugopala Gowda
IN *1':-11: HIGH COURT 0? KARNATAKA AT =
DATED THIS THE 2s'rH rm? OF__-JANIIARYH
PRESENT Q V %
THE HOBPBLE MR. .:x;s'ric£+: a,1z. I
Arm
THE HOWBLE MR. wsrfis oowm
CRIMIPIAL 4
1. THE smTE"o'ii* " 1'
BY KORA FGLICE. 7'; _
(BY SI-'RI. A.V[ R,A;MA1{12xsP:§ia;_;"r§ <§G§5)
. "sic: RAYAXEFA
_ AG"«.1'.:2'Z_YF.ARS'--.
" . A'g3Rzc1IL';fUagzs°I'
RESIDE1~a"r':_o:"4' BONEMANAHALLI
':"UMK:*JR.'rALUK,
. RESPONDENT
ff * 's;~a,_s XVENKATAREDDY, ADVOCATE) _ 3 _ THIS CRLA. ES FILED U/S.377 CR.P.C BY THE S'f£J'E 1=-.r>. FOR THE S'I'A'I'E PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE comm 'M§aYV"'-- BE PLEASE!) TO MODIFY THE SENPENCE IMPOSED 13{Y""T§¥I'ie'....h 7 _ ADDL.CJ., (JR.DN.) & JMFQ, TUMKUR mo. ":33 T» CC.NO.1897/02, CONVICTING THE REsP0N9.Em;Adcué§fe:fiz§§1
4. FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 325 or }PC,:-A33) I HEM TO PAY FINE 01? RS.5,000/-- 11)., *ro"1;HDVERGO';~:g.:; MONTHS.
THIS APPEAL coming on F9E?:.i?§NAL Hsfifiiflejmxs DAY, BANNURMATH J., n.Ez.._I\fiER1i;D mxgnowina:
%:k;.,3 U IH.'§"ni:F;V"H"-.1' nmmma-mu-om.
This appcgz file; the ;';;adeqnacy_. } accused No.4 by the '~J}v£F' ('.{j in' C.C.No. 1897/ 2002 for the oflence IPC.
' '~ ., nccew for consideration of the as ffiallaws:
A persons were charge sheeting for the W Sccticans 323, 324 & 326 r/W Section 34 According to the prosecution, PW-1 -5- On appleciation of the entire evidence. ~ V. Court found that accused Nos.1 to 3 are ' K offence under Section 324 IPC, injury on PW.2 as grievous teflfieh was .9 % dangerous weapon, conyicted for the oflenm under hearing both the sides, a fine of Rs.2,000/---- 1,5oo/- for accused for the offence under accused No.4 to pay a fine 513* default sentence for the V - ofienoe Seeti0IZ___326 IPC.
by the aforesaid order passed by the ._ " the State has preferred this d _ :1 mad secem 377 Cr.P.C inter alia contending per Section 326 IPC, substantive sentence of Iiuimpfisonment is mandatory and hence, not awaniing 5* -5- the sentence of imprisonment by the trial C0131; uI:§e._ resulted in passing illegal order and liab1e;""ie.' _ interfered With.
4. At this stage, it is "I accused No.4 has not .
eenviction and infect, we are has paid the fine amount question that arise for the trial Court was in respect of the whether the failure oi; the Magistrate to five substantive ingmsonment is justifiable? the prevision of Section 326 "is that the punishment proposed for the 'offexloe Smtion 326 IPC is ranging arena 10 « ~ to" imprisonment and fine. The word used between the words "sentence" and "fine" Q/We -7- indicating that the awarding of substantive sent};-nceVVV "
imprisonment is mandatory. There is :19 3 discretion lefi to the Court, onoéiii accused has committed an offence IPC. He has to sentence of eiither of them, wouici begcixxg of the provision of SCIECECMS the appeal is to be aliowoii, '_ ~
6._. Atitliisi_stégé;"'"'iSri. s.1<.. venkam Roddy, for the respondent---aocused that taking into consideration, the facis of the case, resulting in the 'A to PW~2 and especially the fact that the A "--»{a"E,e,4" since were than __ six yeHi's,; this Court g/V W -9- responde:nt--aocused loniently, also especially reason that the trial was concluded in the and three years have already « " 'V proposing to sentence the aCC'35§'3 "
9. Taking an over all of justice would be met eseepondmt is sentenced to for a period of 153 amount of Eonly), in default to undergo = period of 15 days. If the fine the same shall he paid "a§'>_ under Section 357 Cr.P..C. A V 'is; accordingly.
V . .' veespondcntaccused is directed to before the jtnisdictional police within days from today. The jurisdictional Police is ..1{)-
directed to arrest the accused and implement Se-atazce imposed by this Court.
11. Itismade A fimvfitflnflnmmcaeahmflnvkwofm§paflEK fxuk facts and ci1'c-dmstarnm of the ewe ' treated as aprecedzznt in any other AV 12 Iegmnasmmmgnfifimgmégagg¢fm& .Judge Sdfl3 Judge