K.Ravichandra vs State Of Karnataka

NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 176 OF 2009

K.RAVICHANDRA & ORS. ...APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF KARNATAKA ...RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

R. BANUMATHI,J.

1. This appeal arises out of the judgment dated

02.07.2008 in Crl.A. No. 136 of 2002 passed by the High

Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in and by which the High

Court of Karnataka has reversed the order of acquittal and

convicted the appellants-accused under Section 304 (II),

IPC and also for other offences and sentenced them to

undergo imprisonment for three years.

2. Appellant No. 1 - accused no. 1 sent a Deepavali

greeting to PW-16 (daughter of PW-1) expressing his

passionate love for her and PW-16 showed the greetings to

her father. When appellant No. 1 visited the village, PW-

1 along with PW-7 (H.C. Jayaramegowda) went near the

canteen belonging to one Lingaraju to question accused no. Signature Not Verified 1 about his conduct. During the talks, appellant nos. 1 to Digitally signed by MADHU BALA Date: 2018.09.13 10:53:20 IST Reason: 4 wielded clubs and attacked PW-1, PW-3 and PW-17 and also

the deceased -Ramu. Deceased - Ramu sustained injuries on

his on his scalp, parietal bone, his right thumb and 2

forearm and also sustained injuries on the leg and

succumbed to injuries.

3. Upon consideration of the evidence, the Trial Court

acquitted all the appellants holding that the prosecution

has failed to prove the motive and also the intention of

the accused and that the prosecution has not

satisfactorily explained the injuries on the accused

persons. The trial court also held that the evidence of

PW-1 and other witnesses are inconsistent with each other

and that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of

accused beyond reasonable doubt. On those findings, the

trial Court acquitted all the appellants.

4. The High Court in appeal set aside the order of

acquittal and convicted all the appellants as aforesaid

under Section 304 II IPC read with Section 149.

5. We have heard Mr. Mahesh Thakur, learned counsel

appearing for the appellants as well as Mr. V. N.

Raghupathy, learned counsel appearing for the State of

Karnataka and perused the impugned judgment and materials

on record.

6. The evidence of injured witnesses PW-1 –

complainant, PW-3 (wife of the deceased) and PW-18

(brother of PW-1) is consistent and corroborating each

other on various aspects like……., (1) which accused

assaulted whom (2) the weapon wielded by the accused and

(3) on which part of the body of the witnesses the 3

injuries were caused. The evidence of these injured

witnesses and also eye witness PW-7 is corroborated by the

medical evidence also. The prosecution established that

the appellants are responsible for causing injuries to the

witnesses and the death of the deceased - Ramu.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that

admittedly witnesses PW-1 and PW-7 went to one Lingaraju’s

canteen for panchayat to enquire the first accused

regarding his conduct for sending the letter to PW-16.

Drawing our attention to the injuries sustained by the

accused, learned counsel submitted that the prosecution

has not explained the injuries on the person of the

accused and the trial Court had rightly held that the

complainant party are the aggressors and rightly acquitted

the accused and the High Court erred in reversing the

same.

8. Admittedly the accused persons also sustained

injuries as seen from the evidence adduced by the accused

party (Exs. D-8 to D-10). It is fairly well settled that

it is not always incumbent upon the prosecution to explain

the injuries of the accused persons. The prosecution is

obligated to explain the injuries of the accused persons

only if the injuries sustained by the accused are grievous

in nature. In the present case, there is no evidence to

show that the injuries on the accused persons are grievous

in nature. As pointed out earlier, the complainant party 4

went near the canteen of one Lingaraju only for panchayat

and they were unarmed. That being so, during the talks

there was no reason for the accused party to wield clubs

and attack the complainant party, on whose side at least

three of them were injured apart from the death of

deceased - Ramu. When appreciation of evidence by the

trial court suffered from perversity, the High Court being

the Appellate Court rightly reversed the order of

acquittal and convicted the appellants under Section 304

(II) IPC and also for other offence for the death of

deceased. The High Court, in our view, has shown leniency

to the appellants by sentencing them to undergo

imprisonment only for a period of three years. In view of

above, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned

order.

9. The appeal is dismissed.

10. The appellants shall surrender within a period of

four weeks from today to serve out the remaining sentence

failing which they shall be taken into custody.

….......................J. [R. BANUMATHI]

…......................J. [INDIRA BANERJEE] NEW DELHI 6TH SEPTEMBER, 2018