Supreme Court – Daily Orders
State Of Karnataka vs Raju on 27 February, 2025
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 892 OF 2015
STATE OF KARNATAKA APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
RAJU & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
1) The present appeal by the State of Karnataka calls in question
the correctness of the judgment dated 30.10.2013 in Criminal Appeal
No. 859 of 2006 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru.
By the said judgment, the High Court while setting aside the
conviction of the respondents under Section 307 IPC and acquitting
them for the said offence, maintained their conviction under
Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC and confirmed the sentence
imposed by the Trial Court. The sentence imposed for the offence
under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC was three years
imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default to undergo
imprisonment for six months. Originally, eight accused including
the three respondents stood for trial for offences punishable under
Section 143, 144, 147, 148, 114, 341, 324, 326 and 307 read with
Section 149 of IPC. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted accused
no. 1, accused no. 5 to 8 for offences punishable under Section
143, 144, 147, 148, 114, 341, 326 and 307 read with Section 149 of
IPC. The learned Sessions Judge convicted respondents herein
(accused no. 2 to 4) for offences punishable under Section 326 and
Signature Not Verified
307 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of five
Digitally signed by
NITIN TALREJA
Date: 2025.03.06
10:51:56 IST
years and a fine of Rs. 3,000/- for Section 307 and for three years
Reason:
1
with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- for Section 326 IPC. Respondent Nos. 1
to 3 herein who were accused no. 2 to 4 were also acquitted for
offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341 read with
Section 149 IPC. The case against respondents is that they along
with other accused persons caused grievous injuries to PW-1
Basavaiah and PW-16 Mantaiah. The High Court marshalled the
evidence of the injured witnesses PW-1 Basavaiah and PW-16 Mantaiah
as well as the evidence of the PW-6 Dr. Shivaramu Mallegowda and
considered the injuries suffered by PW-1 and PW-16 and recorded the
following findings.
“24. The learned trial judge has disbelieved the evidence
adduced by the prosecution to prove that accused Nos. 2
to 4 and accused Nos. 1, 5 to 8 were the members of
unlawful assembly and the common object of which was to
commit the murder of P.W-1 and P.W-16. The learned trial
judge has disbelieved the evidence of prosecution that
these accused are guilty of rioting and all the accused
were armed with deadly weapons. P.W-6 Dr. Shivaramu
Mallegowda has not deposed that injuries suffered by
P.W-1 and P.W-16 are sufficient to cause death in the
ordinary course of life. During the course evidence, P.W-
6 has deposed that injuries suffered by P.W-1 and P.W-16
were grievous in nature and they had suffered fractures.
It is not clear from the evidence on record that accused
Nos. 2 to 4 had assaulted P.W-1 and P.W-16 with such
intention and knowledge and by such assault, if they had
caused the death of P.W-1 or P.W-16 they would have been
held guilty of an offence punishable under Section 302
IPC. The prosecution has not proved that injuries
suffered by P.W-1 and P.W-16 are sufficient to cause
death in the ordinary course of life. The learned trial
judge has not invoked section 149 or Section 34 IPC.
xx xx xx
26. The learned trial judge, without noticing these
aspects, convicted accused Nos. 2 to 4 for an offence
punishable under section 307 IPC. Thus, on re-
2
appreciation of evidence, I find that the prosecution has
proved accused Nos. 2 to 4 had assaulted P.W-1 and P.W-16
with deadly weapons, caused grievous injuries to them and
committed an offence punishable under Section 326 IPC.
Therefore, I hold that accused Nos.2 to 4 are guilty of
an offence punishable under section 326 IPC. The acts
committed by each of the accused were in agreement with
each other. They had shared common intention.”
2) In this appeal, the State of Karnataka challenges the
acquittal of the respondents for the offence under Section 307 IPC.
Learned counsel for the respondents (accused) while defending the
judgment fairly points out that the Special Leave Petition filed by
the respondents challenging the conviction under Section 326 IPC
stood dismissed as early as on 09.03.2015.
3) We are satisfied that the reasons adduced by the High Court
for acquitting the respondents for offence under Section 307 IPC
are cogent. The material evidence as well as nature of injuries has
been taken into account. The High Court has particularly relied on
the statement of Doctor (PW-6). Applying the parameters of appeal
against acquittal, we do not find that it is a fit case which
warrants an interference with the judgment acquitting the
respondents under Section 307 IPC. In view of the same, we find no
merit in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed.
……………………..J.
(K.V. VISWANATHAN)
……………………..J.
(NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH)
NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 27, 2025.
3
ITEM NO.105 COURT NO.3 SECTION II-C
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Criminal Appeal No(s). 892/2015
STATE OF KARNATAKA Appellant(s)
VERSUS
RAJU & ORS. Respondent(s)
Date : 27-02-2025 This appeal was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHAN
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGHFor Appellant(s) :
Mr. Nishant Patil, A.A.G.
Mr. D. L. Chidananda, AORFor Respondent(s) :
M/S. Shakil Ahmad Syed, AOR
Mr. Syed Ahmed Saud, Adv.
Mr. Mohd. Parvez Dabas, Adv.
Mr. Daanish Ahmed Syed, Adv.
Mr. Uzmi Jameel Husain, Adv.
Mr. Aqib Baig, Adv.
Mr. Mohd. Shakim, Adv.
Mr. Mohd. Shahib, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed order.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(NITIN TALREJA) (VINOD KUMAR)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
(Signed order is placed on the file)
4
[ad_1]
Source link