Loading...

State vs Sheenappa Gowda on 3 March, 2010

Karnataka High Court
State vs Sheenappa Gowda on 3 March, 2010
Author: V.G.Sabhahit & S.N.Satyanarayana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 3"" DAY or= MARCH 

PRESENT

THE HOWBLE MR. 3USTICE~V_'_.4G. $A}§"H}§.»H'iI'_'_:V_ 

AND 

THE HON' BLE MR. JusT':_c':*E_s.N'."-sVATyA..ggjA_§zA¥ANA = O'

CRIMINAL APPEAL..Nlc,_53_Q/iOC2__(A,§

BETWEEN:
STATE jg_ "" -;, . ,=
 '    C";,.....APPELLANT.

(By Sri £3.B.fP}iW'IN;"'S'jP'ié;~,f.   )

1; 's.HEEN'APPA GOWDA
-  aA,GE!,') ABOUT44 YEARS
 _SV/OSIODIYAPPA GOWDA
 E. V'R_{A.'M_I'3iHA MIJE MANE,
'5<A~;sa_w;0'oR, PUTTUR.

 i'---'V':l.J'i'"":rV'ANNA GOWDA (DEAD)
" VVAQED ABOUT 51 YEARS (Appeaf is abated
S/0 OF VODIYAPPA against respondent

A  GOWDA No.2 wide order dt.

R/AJVSITHA MIJE MANE, 19.09.2002)
KANIYOOR, PUTTUR.

3 KSSHALAPPA GOWDA
MAJOR



--: 3 I--
JUDGEMENT

This appeal is filed by the State being

aggrieved by the judgement of the Court o,:.f”‘»uthe

Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Man’g-a’lol_f’_e,»I’

Criminal Appeal No.170/1999 dated,.i,if4,,v0?ii;~2,oo’2,l_”=

wherein the learned Sessions has’:

the appeal in part and has’ confirlnaed

the trial Court that the acc’u1′;ed_Nos.~1’&to’V’3 and 5 are
guilty of having lipunishable
under Sections 143, 324 of the

Indiavnhllbeinlalv cede midget aside the finding of
the tzr’-iall«coufttiaat–._:the.~accused are guilty of the

offence l4bv:ny_nie.h’.abl’eSunder Section 326 of I.P.C.

F’ul’:th,e»r, the l’ea’i*’n’ed Sessions Judge has set aside

of imprisonment. and fine passed by

‘thue tvr.iaI”::.C£ourt and in lieu of the same, has

sentericed each of the appellants therein to pay a

of Rs.250/~– and in default of payment of fine,

to undergo imprisonment for 15 days for each of

the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147

gal.

I.P.C. The triai Court further ordered that all the

corpora! punishments shall run concurren.tly.44_”and

gave set off under Section 428

period of detention alreadymhunde.a”g’o’n’:§..gibi/’~.Vth.ce

accused. Being aggrieved

conviction and sentence} accused i’r*dos.=.1f”t.o’..3Vand

preferred criminal appeal____i§i’o:.1.T;j0/199$’on} the fiie
of the Sessions”<–_flJuci_ge:;' iiilaitslhina Kannada,

Mangalore. v_ A'
2.4 jl~.ve".=e.g;fn–ed==__Session.s"Judge, by judgement

dated Z!.4.{5i;.2i£i:C1l2;'"aconfirmed the judgement of
convictioanll paxssaéd the trial Court against the

accgused Nosfiito 3: and 5 in respect of the offences

.A 1p.t,lnis'Ai*tAa%i3ivAe*~–under Sections 143, 147, 148, 447 and

._3'i2_4 'e%""_z9'c:,_';"'"end set aside the finding of the trial

co'urt"-thatliithe accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5 are guilty of

if 'itixe offence punishabie under Section 326 of I.P.C.,

modified the sentence as already referred to

"above. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of the

iearned Sessions Judge in so far as it relates to the

'\w?:»

dated 22.10.2002 and wherefore, the appeal

survives only in respect of accused Nos.1 and

5. Having regard to the contentions”*:i:if«–g?ie!:l,

the points that arise for our determinatilonli:’i’i.§fthji’ie:.p2~

appeal are: j ‘

1. Whether the; finpdingi ‘Vof.__ ‘the ” A j
learned Sessions JLidgeia’h_o:i-ding
prosecution has fa’ii_e’t£._ to prove_
accused have comrriitted theilloffejnce

punishable un’i’cieA_r read Viivith

:.;SectilAo’i$.._–vV and the offence
com.mitted’t-he-».accused falis within the
amxbiti ofvsecijion,-7324 of I.P.C., is justified

or calls for interference in this appeal?

order ?

AAPointvv!silt>.1 : The finding of the appellate

1..vcou7rt is justified.

V. ….%§–“oint No.2: In View of our answer to point

No.1, the finding given by the learned Sessions

11»

Judge convicting the accused under Section 3.24 of

I.P.C., by modifying the finding of the tri_aVlVi_:’C_o~urt

that the accused have committed

punishable under Section 32t_3Mof I.9′.’c;;-.’:;§e’entitled it

to be confirmed. However, ‘the;”‘se;’nt’e.nce”‘irnfifiosed

for the offence punishabie__ under Sec;t’io}”;…_V3V2.4

I.P.C., is Eiable to be enhar3_ce.d as pet final order

for the foliowing: V

* ” Pubiic Prosecutor has
taken usthro’ug’h:’thVe”_.»e$;idence of Pws. 1 to 10 and

alsiotiae doicuthyentis got marked by the prosecution

.A :,:eur:£-;.~<s'.P1 to P8(a).

–~ we have scrutinized the evidence

adiduceffh ‘tgyfthe parties.

‘*8, ‘ Both the trial Court and the appeilate

‘tlourtiiihave concurrentiy accepted the evidence of

«K/L_,§

<16;

case, the defence taken by the accused is one of

denial. It is clear from the evidence of PW;w1:’j’t_h’at

he has given description of injury

examination of Pw.4 and__..ha_s co’ni”e:..’;»t’o’

conclusion that there was fracture’ of~.th.e

Phalanx. It is well”j._’v-‘?\e.t\t|ed”” ‘the * if

prosecution alleges that :g.ri:ev_ou_s been
caused, it is necessaryfoAry_’t3hAeh iéprfosjecution to prove
the same beyond irhe evidence
of PW.1 was injury as
describe-.ci’ certificate – Ex.P2. When
PW.1 it fracture, he ought to

hayyvgiehy i’referredVl_ the injured – PW.4 for taking

,’ ~A..i:-o”~–.confirm his finding that there is

fra–cltu”reR_”_~of”!’middle phalanx. It is now well

seitltledfi “that unless the prosecution produces

theax-ray for confirmation of fracture opined

the Doctor on medical examination

“clinically, it cannot be said that the accused have

K}

–: 17:

caused grievous injury of fracture. It is true that in

the cross-examination of PW.1, the learned _co_iu.n_s.ei

appearing for the accused has not

nature of injuries spoken to byMP\/_V.1._-“Hovv’e.ver,”the i”

same wouicl not dispense withiiéthe’ep§*od»uictionoi’-.the_:

X–ray by the prosec:u_t’i–o_n ‘ton proveifileywond

reasonable doubt that th_ei°:i.njurued.””ig.e§3. 5t§%stained
fracture of middle “<-.;;!":altaV_un:r*;p,' is an opinion
given by PW.1»-V Doct'or..c}nIv.Aoi,n examination
of PW.4, Ciear that the
holding that
the to prove that the accused
Nos.1 3 teed" committed the offence

punfiéiisihabie lfiection 326 of I.P.C. and the

i esiene'evi.ge;Fnm:tted by them fails within the ambit of

5e'e:ie'n5":sr.24~f,e§ mac. is justified.

* 12. However, so far as sentence for the

effehce punishabie under Section 324 of I.P.C. is

"concerned, in view of the fact that the offence

under Section 324 of I.P.C. is punishable with

\.~»'~

:18'

imprisonment of either description for a term

which, may extend to three years, or with

with both and having regard to the

incident Occurred on 30.04.1_.9.9,3 Vniyne

years had elapsed prior to

judgement of the learned Sessions ~i.e., 2 0'

24.01.2002, the learned rightiy
held that it was not"*proper the accused
to imprisonment at si?'uirther, as on
today, sinceijy:1a§¥¢"'éIapsed after the
incident, to sentence the
ment of imprisonment.

The appeiai fiagainst appellant No.2 —

Putitanria Giowda (accused No.2 before the triai

.A ‘i«as:”‘he died during the pendency of this

,,ai_%,p/yea’!riiiiiaradifappeai has been dismissed against

ap’gje|i’z¥§;$t”‘No.4 – Chidananda Gowda (accused No.5

‘beforeflithe triai Court). Therefore, sentence is to be

“passed oniy against respondents 1 and 3 herein (

it “appeiiants 1 and 3 before the Sessions Court and

accused Nc>s.1 and 3 before the triai Court ). The

\\_/x

.4; 39 :.

fine imposed by the learned Sessions Judge against

the respondents 1 and 3 herein for the_.vofferaVce

punishabie under Section 324 read

149 of 3:.:=>.c. is Rs.1,.000/- e_a.ch_ and”i’n’–i:de’fau’_itV V

payment of fine, to undergo;’~:.siijf:piie iimprisoninaoefit

for 45 days each. have .coinfAii=inv1-edthere

concurrent findings of boyt_hvv’:A”t:he.__VCourt:s:iiaeviféow that
PWs.3 and 4 had s’us”taAiiAied’inj’uri.es;.,,and conviction
of the respondents.-‘iviaindi the offence
punishame?/Iggigiéqpr is upheid.
of simpie injuries
susteinedi 4 ‘and the other facts of the
case andléthe upon the question of

set§iteri~ce, it”v…\:zvou«iVd be appropriate to sentence

,’ :respo:nAden’ts__1 and 3 ( Accused Nos.1 and 3 before

) to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/~– each

and ifiipdefiauit of payment of firae, to undergo simple

ciznnprivssonment for three months for the offence

“‘vpiuriishable under Section 324 of I.P.C. read with

it “Section 149 of I.P.C. Accordingly, we answer the

\,»

:21.

and remand respondent 5505.1 and 3 for
undergoing default sentence in accordance ._ with

law.

Out of the fine amount _deposit_e”d,” “‘

(Rupees Five Thousand on!y)v’»A;sha’la:..§3e’=p»a’id” t6v:P~W*.T13:

– Balakrishna Gowda’ ‘4-as C-anwperisadtjo-n fiand –. L’

Rs.10,0€)O/- (Rupees Ten___§’ie..<:)usVand.e.n:lV§/) vvshali be
paid to PW.4 – Smf.'u§L:sAh'ee§j_avva's.'¢~a'mpensation.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information