Karnataka High Court
Gangadar S/O. Suresh Terdal vs State Of Karnataka on 16 July, 2025
-1-
CRL.A No.100054 OF 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100054 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
GANGADAR S/O. SURESH TERDAL,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
OCC. COOLIE, R/O. AKKI-ALUR,
HANGAL, TQ. HANGAL, DIST. HAVERI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VIDYASHANKAR G. DALWAI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
R/BY. ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
Digitally signed
HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD,
by
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR
Location: HIGH
THROUGH HANGAL POLICE STATION,
YASHAVANT
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
NARAYANKAR DHARWAD
BENCH
TQ. HANGAL, DIST. HAVERI.
...RESPONDENT
DHARWAD
Date:
2025.07.17
10:45:23
+0530
(BY SRI. A.M. GUNDAWADE, ADDITIONAL SPP)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2)
OF CR.P.C 1973., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCED DATED 13.12.2022
PASSED BY THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND
SPL. JUDGE, HAVERI IN SC NO.04/2017 FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 307, 324, 326
AND 302 307 R/W. SECTION 34 OF IPC AND ACQUIT THE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.2.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT
COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUSTICE RAJESH
RAI K., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
CRL.A No.100054 OF 2024
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K)
This appeal by the convicted accused No.2, is directed
against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
13.12.2022 in S.C.No.4/2017 by the I Additional District and
Sessions Judge and Special Judge at Haveri (hereinafter
referred to as ‘the learned Sessions Judge’) whereby the
learned Sessions Judge convicted accused Nos.1 to 4 for the
offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 326,
307 and 302 r/w 34 of IPC and sentenced this
appellant/accused No.2 to undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of six months and to pay to fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default
of payment of fine, directed to undergo simple imprisonment
for a period of one month for the offence punishable under
Section 143 r/w Section 34 of IPC. Further, sentenced him to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to
pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, directed
to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for
the offence punishable under Section 147 r/w Section 34 of
IPC. He further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for
-3-
CRL.A No.100054 OF 2024
a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default
of payment of fine, directed to undergo simple imprisonment
for a period of one month for the offence punishable under
Section 148 r/w Section 34 of IPC. The accused No.2 also
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten
years and to pay fine of Rs.15,000/-, in default of payment of
fine, directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of
three months for the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w
Section 34 IPC. Further, the accused sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-, in
default of payment of fine, directed to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence
punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC. All the
sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution was as
follows:
The complainant PW1-Ningappa Basavaneppa Hanegal is
the father of PW.4-Vijayakumar and relative of PWs.5, 6 and
the deceased-Devaraj Kaler. Before 26.06.2016, there was a
quarrel between PWs.4 to 6, the deceased and the accused
persons in a local festival over consumption of gutka. On
26.06.2016 at about 08:30 p.m., one Malathesh
-4-
CRL.A No.100054 OF 2024Karabannanavar i.e., PW.7 informed PW.1-complainant that
PWs.4 to 6, deceased and accused were quarreling with each
other in front of the house of one Bhasha Sab Badagi and that
the accused had inflicted severe injuries on his son-PW.4,
PWs.5, 6 and deceased-Devaraj Kaler. Immediately, the
complainant rushed to the spot and saw his son and others had
sustained severe injuries. Thereafter, the villagers came to the
spot and shifted all the injured to KIMS Hospital, Hubbali. The
complainant-PW.1 therefore informed the respondent-Police in
writing about the incident on 27.06.2016 at about 02:30 a.m.
as per Ex.P1. Based on the infirmation, FIR was registered
against this appellant and others for the offences punishable
under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 307, 504 and 506 r/w
149 of IPC in Crime No.188/2016. This appellant was arraigned
as accused No.2 as per Ex.P2. Later, during the course of
treatment, the injured-Devaraj Kaler succumbed to the injuries
in the Hospital at about 01:45 a.m. on 28.06.2016. Hence, the
Investigation Officer-PW.17 incorporated an offence punishable
under Section 302 of IPC in Crime No.188/2016.
3. Subsequent thereto, PWs.17, 23 and 24 conducted
the investigation by drawing relevant mahazars, recording the
statement of witnesses and after obtaining necessary
-5-
CRL.A No.100054 OF 2024
documents from the concerned authorities, laid charge sheet
against 10 accused persons by arraying this appellant as
accused No.2 for the offences punishable under Sections 143,
147, 148, 323, 324, 326, 307, 302, 504 and 506 r/w 149 of
IPC before the committal Court.
4. Post committal of case before the Sessions Court,
the learned Sessions Judge framed charges against accused for
the aforementioned offences and read over the same to the
accused. The accused denied the charges and claimed to be
tried.
5. In order to prove the charges leveled against the
accused, the prosecution examined 24 witnesses as PW.1 to
PW.24 and marked 33 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P33 and
identified 9 material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.9.
6. On completion of the prosecution evidence, the
learned Sessions Judge read over the incriminating evidence of
material witnesses to the accused as stipulated in Section 313
of Cr.P.C. However, they refuted the same and claimed that
they were falsely implicated.
7. After assessing the oral and documentary evidence,
the learned Sessions Judge convicted this appellant for the
-6-
CRL.A No.100054 OF 2024
charges leveled against him and sentenced him as stated
supra. The learned Sessions Judge also convicted accused
Nos.1 to 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147,
148 and 307 of IPC. Further, learned Sessions Judge convicted
accused Nos.1 and 4 for the offence punishable under Section
324 r/w Section 34 of IPC and convicted accused No.3 for the
offence punishable under Section 326 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
Further, learned Sessions Judge convicted accused No.2 for the
offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Though the other
accused approached this Court by filing appeals, they withdrew
the said appeals subsequently.
8. We have heard the learned counsel
Sri. Vidyashankar G. Dalwai for the appellant so also the
learned Addl. SPP Sri. A.M.Gundawade for the respondent-
State.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant primarily
contended that the judgment under this appeal suffers from
perversity and illegality since the learned Sessions Judge failed
to appreciate the evidence on record in a right perspective. He
contended that, PW1-complainant is a hearsay witness and he
was informed by PW.7-Malthesh who was an eyewitness to the
incident. Whereas, PW.7-Malthesh turned hostile to the
-7-
CRL.A No.100054 OF 2024
prosecution case. As far as the evidence of injured
eyewitnesses i.e., PWs.4 to 6 and PW.9-eyewitness to the
incident, there were serious contradictions and omissions
forthcoming in their evidence. Their statement was recorded on
28.06.2016 i.e., two days after the incident. Moreover, these
witnesses have not identified the weapon used by this appellant
for committing the crime i.e., M.O.7-sewing awl. According to
the learned counsel, the crime was committed in the night
hours i.e., 08:00 to 08:30 p.m. near the house of one Bhasha
Sab. However, the said Bhasha Sab is neither cited as a witness
in the charge-sheet nor examined before the Court. There is no
evidence forthcoming on record as to how PWs.4 to 6 identified
the accused and their specific overt acts in the night hours i.e.,
08:00 to 08:30 p.m. He contended that, as such, no credence
can be given to the evidence of injured witnesses-PWs.4 to 6
and the eyewitness PW.9. He also contended that the
prosecution failed to prove the motive for the alleged incident
and the recovery of weapons used for commission of crime.
Hence, he prays to allow the appeal by setting aside the
impugned judgment passed by the trial Court.
10. Alternatively, the learned counsel contended that
the death of the deceased-Devaraj Kaler was caused in a free
-8-
CRL.A No.100054 OF 2024
fight between two groups i.e., accused and PWs.4 to 6.
According to the evidence of PW.4, the deceased-Devaraj Kaler
was in no way connected to the incident but was injured when
he intervened to pacify the two groups, which resulted in his
death. Hence, he contended that there was no premeditative
motive on the part of the appellant to commit the murder of
deceased-Devaraj Kaler. Hence, he contended that the alleged
act of the accused squarely falls under Exception 4 to Section
300 of IPC which is punishable under Section 304 Part I or II of
IPC. Accordingly, he prays to modify the sentence.
11. Refuting the above submission, the learned Addl.
SPP vehemently contended that the judgment under this appeal
does not suffer from any perversity or illegality, since the
learned Sessions Judge after meticulously examining the
evidence on record, passed a well reasoned judgment which
does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. He
contended that the evidence of PWs.4 to 6-the injured
eyewitnesses and PW.9-the eyewitness to the incident have
categorically stated in their evidence that on the fateful day,
the accused due to previous ill-will, quarreled with them and
assaulted them with deadly weapons i.e., M.Os.1 to 9.
According to PWs.4 to 6, the appellant/accused No.2 assaulted
-9-
CRL.A No.100054 OF 2024
the deceased with M.O.7-sewing awl and caused grievous
injuries, which resulted in his death. The learned Addl. SPP also
contended that the recovery of M.Os.1 to 9 under Ex.P3 have
been proved in the evidence of PWs.1 and 2. Further, the
prosecution also proved the motive for the alleged incident.
PWs.4 to 6 the injured eyewitnesses have stated that the
accused was grinding ill-will against them in connection with a
previous tiff 2-3 years before the incident regarding
consumption of gutka. Hence, he submitted that the
prosecution successfully proved the guilt of appellant/accused
No.2 beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, he prays to
dismiss the appeal.
12. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective
parties and on perusal of the entire evidence and documents on
record, the points that arise for our consideration are:
(i) Whether the judgment under this appeal suffers
from perversity or illegality?
(ii) Whether the learned Sessions Judge is justified
in convicting the appellant/accused No.2 for the
offences punishable under Sections 143, 147,
148, 307 and 302 of IPC?
– 10 –
CRL.A No.100054 OF 2024
13. In order to prove the homicidal death of deceased-
Devaraj Kaler, the prosecution predominantly relied on the
evidence of PW14-Doctor who conducted autopsy on the body
of the deceased and issued post-mortem report as per Ex.P12.
On careful reading of Ex.P12, it discloses that the cause of
death was due to “hemorrhage and shock as a result of injury
sustained”. The Doctor who was examined as PW.14 stated that
injuries sustained by the deceased were ante-mortem in
nature. This evidence of PW.14 corroborates the contents of
Ex.P7-Inquest Panchanama drawn by PW.23-Investigation
Officer. PW.3 and CW.4 are the panch witnesses for Ex.P7.
PW.3 has deposed that, he identified the injuries on the body of
the deceased. Hence, on a collective reading of Exs.P7 and P12
along with evidence of PWs.3 and 14, in our considered view,
the prosecution has proved the homicidal death of deceased
beyond reasonable doubt.
14. In order to connect the accused with the homicidal
death of deceased, the prosecution predominantly relied on the
evidence of PWs.4 to 6-injured witnesses and PW.9-eyewitness
to the incident. On a careful scrutiny of the evidence of PWs.4
to 6, they have stated that due to the previous animosity, the
appellant and other accused formed an unlawful assembly on
– 11 –
CRL.A No.100054 OF 2024
26.06.2016 at about 08:30 p.m., near the house of one Bhasha
Sab and assaulted them with deadly weapons-M.Os.1 to 9 and
caused injuries to them and the deceased-Devaraj Kaler.
Thereafter, all the injured were shifted to KIMS Hospital,
Hubballi and during the course of treatment, the deceased-
Devaraj Kaler succumbed to the injuries. They further deposed
that, accused No.2 i.e., the appellant assaulted the deceased-
Devaraj Kaler with M.O.7. The credibility of these witnesses is
not shaken by the defence in the cross-examination, except
suggesting to the witnesses that they did not commit the
crime. Further, Exs.P13 to 15-the wound certificates, X-ray
reports-Exs.P19 to P24 coupled with other case summary
sheets pertaining to PWs.4 to 6 establishes that the injured
were treated for the injuries they sustained in the crime
committed on 26.06.2016. Admittedly, the deceased-Devaraj
Kaler also sustained injuries in the said incident and succumbed
to the same. PW9-eyewitness to the incident also supported the
case of prosecution and stated that, the appellant and other
accused assaulted the deceased and PWs.4 to 6 at the time of
incident. He also identified MO.7-sewing awl i.e., the weapon
used by the appellant for commission of crime. Further, the
evidence of PWs.4 to 6 and 7, corroborates the testimony of
– 12 –
CRL.A No.100054 OF 2024
PW14-Doctor who conducted the autopsy and the Doctor-
PW.15 who initially examined the injured i.e., PW4 to 6 and
issued MLC report as per Ex.P23. Additionally, PW1-the father
of PW.4 who set the criminal law into motion by lodging Ex.P1-
complaint, reiterated the assertion made in the complaint, in
his evidence before the Court. It was vehemently contended by
the learned counsel for the accused that PW.1 is a hearsay
witness and the person who informed him about the incident
i.e., PW.7 turned hostile to the prosecution case. As such, the
evidence of PW.1 cannot be relied for any purpose; and non
lodging of complaint by PWs.4 to 6 creates doubt about the
genesis of the incident. However, on perusal of the evidence of
PWs.4 to 6 and Doctor-PW.15, clearly established that PWs.4 to
6 were severely injured and were under treatment. Therefore,
PW.1 had lodged the complaint. This itself cannot be a ground
to discard the case of prosecution. As rightly contended by the
learned Addl. SPP, the recovery of M.O.7 at the instance of the
appellant under Ex.P3 is proved in the evidence of PWs.1 and
2. Both these witnesses have stated that the accused showed
the place of incident and weapon-M.O.7 was recovered at his
instance along with other accused. Further, PW.22-the Doctor
who examined the deceased-Devaraj Kaler gave an opinion that
– 13 –
CRL.A No.100054 OF 2024
the injuries suffered by the deceased-Devaraj Kaler could be
caused by M.Os.7 to 9. In such circumstance, the recovery of
M.O.7 at the instance of this appellant and the assault by him
on the deceased with the said object was also proved by the
prosecution. Hence, on an overall analysis of the evidence of
material witness, we are of the considered view that the
prosecution has proved the involvement of appellant in the
crime and he is solely responsible for the homicidal death of
deceased.
15. As far as the alternative contention of the learned
counsel for the appellant that the appellant had no
premeditative motive to commit the murder of deceased and as
such, the act of accused may be excepted under Exception 4 to
Section 300 of IPC which is punishable under Section 304 Part I
and II of IPC is concerned, we have carefully analyzed the facts
and circumstances of the case coupled with the evidence of
injured and other eyewitnesses. We can see from their
evidence that, on the fateful day, an unfortunate incident
happened in a sudden fight between two groups i.e., accused
and deceased without any formidable reasons/motive. Though
the prosecution claimed that the motive for the incident was
previous animosity in connection with the consumption of
– 14 –
CRL.A No.100054 OF 2024
gutka, but, PWs.5 and 6 have failed to state the year and date
when the two groups quarreled. According to PW.4, the two
groups quarreled in the year 2015 but PW.6 deposed that it
was three years prior to the date of the fateful incident. Hence,
it is clear that, the incident in question was caused in the heat
of moment in a sudden quarrel. Moreover, according to PW.4,
the deceased intervened to pacify the accused and PWs.4 to 6.
During the said course, the appellant assaulted him.
Additionally, in the complaint-Ex.P1 it is stated by PW.1 that
the appellant assaulted the deceased with broken beer bottle,
but according to PWs.4 to 6, the appellant assaulted deceased
with M.O.7-sewing awl. The Investigating Officer failed to place
any materials on record to establish that the accused had
plotted or hatched a conspiracy either on the date of incident or
prior to that, to eliminate the deceased or PWs.4 to 6. As per
the prosecution case, the accused used a cobbler’s tool and
assaulted the deceased during a sudden fight between two
groups. In such circumstance, no intention or motive can be
attributed to the appellant to commit the murder of deceased.
In such circumstance, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of
Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC. It is pertinent to mention at
this juncture, that when the deceased was assaulted, the
– 15 –
CRL.A No.100054 OF 2024
appellant did not chose a vital part of the body of the deceased
and the deceased did not die instantaneously. Per contra, he
was shifted to Hospital and on the second day of the incident
he succumbed to the injuries in the Hospital. Hence, we are of
the opinion that the appellant did not have any premeditative
motive to murder the deceased.
16. In similar circumstances, the Hon’ble Apex Court in
the case of Rambir Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported
in 2019 (6) SCC 122, held that, in a sudden fight, in absence
of premeditative motive, when an act is committed in a heat of
passion, if the offender has not taken undue advantage or
acted in a cruel/unusual manner, the conviction can be
converted from Section 302 to Section 304 Part I or Part II of
IPC. In Paragraph No.18 of the above judgment, the Hon’ble
Apex Court held as under:
“18. Having regard to the evidence on
record, we are of the view that the case of
the appellant falls within Exception 4 to
Section 300 IPC. Further, the judgment in
Surinder Kumar v. State (UT of
Chandigarh) also supports the case of the
appellant. In the aforesaid case, the knife
blows were inflicted in the heat of the
moment, one of which caused death of the
deceased; this Court has held that the
accused is entitled to the benefit of
Exception 4. In the aforesaid judgment, this
Court further held that in a sudden quarrel,
– 16 –
CRL.A No.100054 OF 2024
if a person, in the heat of the moment,
picks up a weapon which is handy and
causes injuries one of which proves fatal,
the accused would be entitled to the benefit
of Exception 4. We are of the view that the
said judgment supports the case of the
appellant and further having regard to the
evidence on record we are of the view that
all the four ingredients which are required
to extend the benefit of Exception 4 to
Section 300 IPC, apply to the facts of the
case on hand. Since the occurrence was in
sudden quarrel and there was no
premeditation, the act of the appellant-
accused would fall under Exception 4 to
Section 300 IPC. As such, the conviction
recorded against the appellant under
Section 302 IPC is liable to be set aside and
is accordingly set aside and the conviction
of the appellant-accused under Section 302
IPC is modified, as the one under Section
304 Part II IPC and we impose a sentence
of 10 years’ simple imprisonment on the
accused.”
17. Though the learned Addl. SPP vehemently
contended that the accused has inflicted multiple blows on the
deceased and thereby acted in a cruel manner and his act may
not fall under Exception 4 of Section 300 of IPC, in the case of
Surinder Kumar vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh
reported in 1989 (2) SCC 217 the Hon’ble Apex Court held
that, even three injuries inflicted on the deceased by the
accused is insufficient to establish that the accused acted in a
cruel manner. When, in a sudden quarrel, a person in the heat
of moment, picks up a handy weapon thereby causing injuries,
– 17 –
CRL.A No.100054 OF 2024
one of which proves fatal, he would be entitled to the benefit as
stipulated in Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC. The number of
wounds inflicted during the altercation is not a decisive factor.
18. Applying the principles enumerated in the above
judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court to the facts and
circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that the act
committed by the accused was without any premeditative
motive but was in a sudden fight. In such circumstance, the act
of the accused is excepted under Exception 4 to Section 300 of
IPC. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered view
that the accused is liable to be punished under Section 304 Part
I of IPC instead Section 302 of IPC. However, insofar as the
remaining offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148
and 307 r/w Section 34 of IPC the prosecution has proved the
guilt of accused and the same do not call for any interference.
19. The learned counsel for the accused submits that
the accused is incarcerated for a period of 9 years. Though
punishment prescribed for the offence punishable under Section
304 Part I of IPC is imprisonment for life or imprisonment for
10 years and fine, by considering the fact and circumstance of
the case we are of the view that, imposing 10 years sentence
would be sufficient for the offence punishable under Section
– 18 –
CRL.A No.100054 OF 2024
304 Part I of IPC with fine. Accordingly, we answer Point No.1
in the negative and Point No.2 in partly affirmative and proceed
to pass the following:
ORDER
i. Crl.A.No.100054/2024 is allowed in part.
ii. The conviction and sentence imposed by
the learned Sessions Judge in
S.C.No.4/2017 dated 13.12.2022 by the I
Additional District and Sessions Judge at
Haveri is modified in respect of offence
punishable under Section 302 of IPC.
iii. The appellant-accused No.2 is sentenced
for the offence punishable under Section
304 Part I of IPC instead Section 302 of
IPC. He is sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for a period of 10 years and
shall pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in
default of payment of fine, he shall under
go simple imprisonment for a period of two
months for the offence punishable under
Section 304 Part I of IPC.
iv. The conviction and sentence imposed by
the learned Sessions Judge for the offences
punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148
and 307 r/w 34 of IPC against appellant-
accused No.2 are kept intact.
– 19 –
CRL.A No.100054 OF 2024
v. All the substantive sentences shall run
concurrently and the accused is entitled for
the set off for the period he has undergone
in judicial custody under Section 428 of
Cr.P.C.
vi. Registry is directed to send back the trial
Court records along with copy of this
judgment to the trial Court, forthwith.
SD/-
(R.NATARAJ)
JUDGE
SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
HKV
CT:PA
[ad_1]
Source link