Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
N.K. SUDHINDRARAO, J.
The State of Karnataka Doddaballapur Rural Police Station – Appellant
Versus
Nagaraju @ Rajanna S/o Annayappa – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 500 of 2010
Decided On : 05-06-2018
Judgment : Appeal - Quantum of Sentence - Section 304-II of IPC - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the conviction of accused Nos. 1, 2, and 3 for the offence punishable under Section 304-II of IPC. The accused were convicted for the death of Y. Hanumantharaju, who was found tied to a coconut tree and beaten by the accused. The prosecution sought enhancement of the sentence imposed by the Trial Judge.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the punishment imposed by the Trial Judge was unreasonably low and disproportionate to the gravity and seriousness of the offence. The Court held that the accused had committed the offence with common intention and deserved a more rigorous punishment.
Issues: The main issue was the adequacy of the sentence imposed by the Trial Judge and whether the accused deserved a more severe punishment for the offence committed.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the punishment should be proportional to the offence and that the accused had committed the offence with common intention. The Court also considered the nature of the injuries, the circumstances of the case, and the conduct of the accused in determining the appropriate sentence.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeal in part and sentenced accused Nos. 1 to 3 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 18 months and pay a fine of Rs. 75,000 each. In case of default in payment of fine, the accused were to undergo imprisonment for six months. The Court also ordered that the fine amount be distributed among the widow and children of the deceased in equal proportions.
1. Appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 18.02.2010 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District in S.C. No. 13/2005, wherein the accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 therein were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304-II of IPC and imposed fine of Rs. 25,000/- and as accused had spent one month twenty one days as under trial prisoners, judicial custody during trial for the said period was treated as the period of imprisonment and thus they were given benefit of set off. However it is seen that, the period of imprisonment consequent to non-payment of time is not mentioned. State being aggrieved by the quantum of sentence imposed by the learned Trial Judge has preferred the appeal seeking enhancement of the same.
2. Trial court records are made available.
3. Heard learned counsel appearing for both sides.
4. Another development to be considered in the disposal of the present case is that the State had preferred Crl. A. No. 501/2010 before this Court and when the matter came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court their Lordships found the matter in the said appeal was challenging the same Judgment and sentence. The prosecution insisted that it should have been considered for the offence punishable under Section 302. In the judgment dated 18.01.2011, their Lordships considered the aspect and observed at paragraph 5 as under:
“5. On perusal of the postmortem report given to us, we note that the opinion of the doctor is that the death was due to vasovagal shock as a result of injuries over the abdomen. It further indicates that all the internal organs of the deceased were intact except for a sub-coetaneous Haemotoma around umbilicus. Having regard to the circumstances in which the incident happened, as explained by the learned trial Judge there was justification to conclude that there was no pre-plan to do away with the life of the deceased and the accused were only intending to teach him a lesson for the alleged theft of coconuts in the garden. If at all they wanted to do away with his life, when the accused were three in number, they could have definitely caused much serious injuries. Therefore, we are of the opinion, that no purpose would be served in admitting this appeal filed challenging the acquittal of the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC.”
5. And matter was disposed of as mentioned in paragraph 6 as under:
“6. We note that already another Criminal Appeal No. 500/2010 is filed by the State under Section 377 Cr.P.C. seeking enhancement of sentence. In that view of the matter, this appeal does not survive for consideration. Therefore, leave to file appeal is rejected.”
6. Thus, the sum and substance of order in Crl. A. No. 501/2010 dated 18.01.2011 in observing that the disposal of the said appeal did not arise for consideration in the presence of the earlier appeal i.e. the present one in Crl. A. No. 500/2010. As a result, the said appeal was rejected. The prayer in the present appeal is against the inadequacy of sentence on the accused persons.
7. Sri. C.H. Hanumantharaya, learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents in the case would submit that there is a threshold bar for entertaining the present appeal as the matter has been already dealt with. In this connection, learned senior counsel would submit on Sections 385, 386 (a) and (c) of Code of Criminal Procedure. He would submit that when the matter was before the Division Bench of this Court, it was disposed of as Stated above.
8. In this connection, in a document that includes a judgment, observations or opinion and a finding etc. are to be read with reference to whole context of the matter, sentence, statement and related cannot be isolated from the document. In this connection, the matter is quite simple that this appeal was preferred by the prosecution seeking enhancement of sentence on 5.5.2010 and was registered as Crl. A. No. 500/2010. By virt
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
