Karnataka High Court
Gududappa Megalamani vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8401
CRL.A No. 100082 of 2017
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100082 OF 2017 (C)
BETWEEN:
GUDUDAPPA MEGALAMANI
S/O. LATE MARIYAPPA,
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE WORK,
R/O. KOMBALI VILLAGE, HADAGALI,
NOW IN (J.C.), BALLARI DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. B.ANWAR BASHA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH OF HUVINAHADAGALI,
POLICE STATION, REP. BY ITS
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. M.B.GUNDAWADE, ADDL. SPP)
Digitally signed by
MOHANKUMAR B
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF
SHELAR
Location: HIGH CRPC SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS ON THE FILE OF III
COURT OF
KARNATKA
DHARWAD BENCH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BALLARI, SITTING AT
Date: 2025.07.16
14:39:54 +0530
HOSAPETE IN SC NO.5051 OF 2015 AND TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 12.08.2016 AND
19.08.2016 BY ACQUITTING THE APPELLANT FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 307, 504, 325, 34 OF IPC, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8401
CRL.A No. 100082 of 2017
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
The convict No.1 in S.C. No.5051/2015 on the file of the III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ballari (Sitting at Hosapete) (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court' for short) has filed this appeal challenging the judgment of conviction dated 12.08.2016 and order of sentence dated 19.08.2016 by which, he was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 307, 325, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and sentenced to imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs.1,000/- for offence punishable under Section 307, three years imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- for offence punishable under Section 325, one year imprisonment for offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC and one year imprisonment for offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution was that on 22.03.2015 at 12:00 noon the accused No.1 was summoned for a panchayath. One Mr.Anjappa questioned the accused No.1 as to why he had attempted to break open the lock of -3- NC: 2025:KHC-D:8401 CRL.A No. 100082 of 2017 HC-KAR his shop. At that juncture, the injured victim advised accused No.1 to give up such acts and lead a dignified life. The accused No.1 infuriated by this pinned the victim to the ground and squeezed his neck. People at the panchayath tried to pull away the accused No.1 but he tried to strangulate the victim and threatened the people there if they tried to intervene. The people assembled there apprehending that the accused No.1 might kill the victim, intervened and saved him. In the process, the accused No.1 bit the right hand of the victim and ran away. Thereafter, the people gathered there, chased him and caught him and produced him before the Huvinahadagali Police Station. CW.1 gave information in writing about the incident, consequent to which, the respondent-Police registered case in Crime No.18/2015 for offences punishable under Sections 506, 34, 504, 307 and 325 of IPC. The respondent-Police visited the spot of the crime, conducted Mahazar and recorded the statements of CW.15 and CW.16. The victim-CW.2 was sent for examination by a Doctor-CW.17. The statement of eyewitnesses namely CWs.1, 3, 4 and 6 were recorded. The -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:8401 CRL.A No. 100082 of 2017 HC-KAR statement of CW.14 who was the owner of the shop was also recorded. After collecting all the required documents and materials, the respondent-Police laid a charge sheet for offences punishable under Sections 307, 325, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. Copies of the charge sheet were furnished to the accused. After committal of the case, the trial Court perused the material on record, framed charges for offences punishable under Sections 307, 325, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. The accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried.
3. In support of the prosecution, they examined PW.1 to PW.11 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.6. The incriminating evidence found in the deposition of PWs.1 to 11 was read over to the accused as prescribed under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused denied the circumstance and the evidence against them. However, they did not lead any evidence on their behalf.
4. Based on the documentary and oral evidence, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution had -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:8401 CRL.A No. 100082 of 2017 HC-KAR proved the commission of the offences by the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and consequently, convicted the accused for offences punishable under Sections 307, 325, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced the accused as stated in the aforesaid paragraph.
5. Being aggrieved by the above, the accused No.1 is before this Court in this appeal.
6. Sri.B.Anwar Basha, learned counsel for the accused No.1 submitted that as per Ex.P.4-Wound Certificate, the injuries caused by the accused No.1 to CW.2 were tenderness over nape of neck and tenderness over right wrist which were simple in nature. He contends that the trial Court committed error in charging the accused No.1 for offences punishable under Sections 307 and 325 of IPC. He contends that for an offence punishable under Section 325 of IPC, the injuries caused must be grievous hurt as defined under Section 320 of IPC. He contends that since the injuries were simple in nature, it did not amount to a grievous hurt and therefore, the trial Court committed error in convicting -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:8401 CRL.A No. 100082 of 2017 HC-KAR accused No.1 for offence punishable under Section 325 of IPC. He also contends that for offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC, it is necessary that there should be an attempt to murder. He contends that admittedly, the accused No.1 did not carry any weapon with any intention to murder CW.2 and therefore, no offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC was made out. Besides this, he contends that the accused was arrested on 23.03.2015 and from the date of his arrest, he is in custody till date. He therefore contends that even as per this, the accused has suffered the sentence. Nonetheless, he contends that the prosecution of accused No.2 has to be decided in the light of the evidence adduced before the Court below. He therefore prays that the impugned judgment and order of conviction be set aside.
7. Per contra, Sri.M.B.Gundawade, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor submits that the accused No.1 attempted to strangulate CW.2 and CW.1, CW.3, CW.4 and CW.6 made brave efforts to get CW.2 released from the clutches of accused No.1. He contends that if CWs.1, 3, 4 and 6 had not intervened, the accused No.1 would have -7- NC: 2025:KHC-D:8401 CRL.A No. 100082 of 2017 HC-KAR strangulated CW.2 to death. He contends that it is not necessary that the act should fall within the meaning of the words 'grievous hurt' as defined under Section 320 of IPC. He contends that if the act the accused No.1 if allowed to continue was capable of resulting in death of the victim, the accused no.1 must be tried for office punishable under Section 307 of IPC. He therefore contends that the trial Court has rightly convicted the accused for offences punishable under Sections 307 and 325 of IPC. He also contends that PW.1 to PW.5 supported the case of the prosecution. PW.5 was the injured person who was examined by PW.7-Doctor who submitted his report at Ex.P.4 which showed that there was tenderness over nape of the neck and tenderness over the right wrist. He therefore submits that the trial Court rightly convicted the accused for the aforesaid offences and rightly sentenced accused No.1 for imprisonment. He therefore prays that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence be upheld.
8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused No.1 and learned Additional -8- NC: 2025:KHC-D:8401 CRL.A No. 100082 of 2017 HC-KAR State Public Prosecutor. I have also perused the records before the trial Court and its judgment of conviction and order of sentence.
9. The only point that arises is whether there was sufficient evidence before the trial Court to convict the accused No.1 for offences punishable under Sections 307, 325, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC? If not, whether the accused No.1 could be sentenced for a lesser offence?
10. A perusal of the information furnished by CW.1 to the respondent-Police shows that the accused No.1 had a past criminal history of misbehaving with woman in the village. It also shows that on 21.03.2015 there was a shandy in the village. PW.6 had locked his shop and reached the village. Later saw accused No.1 wandering near his shop and hence followed him and saw that accused No.1 was trying to break open the lock of the shop. The next day at 12:00 noon, he requested the elders in the village to intervene and advice accused No.1 not to indulge in such acts. Accordingly, a panchayath was convened where PW.6 questioned accused -9- NC: 2025:KHC-D:8401 CRL.A No. 100082 of 2017 HC-KAR No.1 as to why he tried to break the lock of the shop and at that point of time, PW.5 advised accused No.1 to give up such acts and lead a dignified life. It appears that the accused No.1 enraged by the same, caught hold of PW.5 and pinned him to the ground and caught him in a stranglehold. PWs.1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 who were present, tried to save PW.5 but they were threatened by accused No.1 of serious consequences. Nonetheless, when they apprehended that accused No.1 may murder the victim and they intervened and released PW.5 from the clutches of the accused No.1. In the process, the accused No.1 bit the right wrist of the victim. The injury suffered by injured (PW.5) is evident from Ex.P.4-Wound Certificate which is a report submitted by PW.7 which shows that injuries suffered by PW.5 were tenderness over the nape of the neck and tenderness over the right wrist. The act committed by the accused No.1 was corroborated by the evidence of the eyewitnesses namely PWs.1, 2, 3, 4 and 6. However, the report submitted by PW.7 shows that the injuries were simple in nature. The accused No.1 did not use any weapon for the crime.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8401 CRL.A No. 100082 of 2017 HC-KAR However, he tried to strangulate the victim by using his hands. There is nothing to show that the accused had any intent to murder PW.5 and the act alleged does not even fall within the meaning of the words 'grievous hurt' as defined under Section 320 of IPC. PW.5 who was examined by PW.7 on 22.03.2015 was of the opinion that injuries were simple in nature. There is no medical evidence on record to show that PW.5 has suffered any serious injuries to prosecute accused No.1 for offences punishable either under Section 307 or 325 of IPC. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the trial Court committed an error in framing charge for offences punishable under Sections 307 and 325 of IPC.
11. In view of the above finding, the next question would be whether there was ample evidence to punish accused No.1 for any lesser offence?
12. As stated above, the complainant who was examined as PW.1 supported the prosecution and the defence failed to establish any circumstance to disbelieve his evidence. Likewise, the eyewitnesses namely PWs.1, 2, 3
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8401 CRL.A No. 100082 of 2017 HC-KAR and 4 supported the prosecution and nothing is extracted from them to disbelieve their testimony. The injured himself was examined as PW.5 who also supported the case of the prosecution. Coupled with these, the injuries suffered by PW.5 are on his neck and right wrist. However, as stated above, these injuries were simple in nature and did not amount to grievous hurt as defined under Section 320 of IPC. Having regard to the injuries suffered by the injured- PW.5 and also having regard to the fact that the injuries were simple in nature, this Court in exercise of the power under Sections 374 and 386 of Cr.P.C., convicts the accused No.1 for offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC and sentence him to imprisonment for one year with Rs.1,000/- as fine. Since the accused No.1 has already undergone the sentence, he shall be released forthwith. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The appeal is allowed in part.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8401 CRL.A No. 100082 of 2017 HC-KAR Office is directed to communicate this order to the trial Court and to the jail authorities for release of accused No.1, forthwith.
Sd/-
(R.NATARAJ) JUDGE RH Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2