Back
2019 Supreme(Kar) 398
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
K.N. Phaneendra, K. Natarajan, JJ.
Ranjith K. - Appellant
Vs.
State of Karnatka - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 471 of 2014, 475 of 2014, 766 of 2014
Decided On : 15-03-2019
Hashmath Pasha, Adv., Ranjan Kumar P, Adv., Vijayakumar Majage, Adv.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 302 r/w 34, 307 - Evidence Act - Section 27 - Indian Evidence Act - Section 24, 25 and 26 , 9 – Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Sections 162 and 428 - Offence of murder – Attempt to murder - Appeal against conviction - Accused No.1 Ranjith fell in love with deceased Divya D/o. P. Shyam, R/o.No.317, 1st B.Main, N.S. Palya, BTM II Stage, Bengaluru-76. It appears, sometime prior to the incident, some marriage talks were taken place with reference to the marriage of PW-8 Pradeep with the deceased Divya. In that context accused No.1 was not happy and he in fact threatened PW-8 over phone informing him that, he has been loving Divya for more than 4 years and he would like to marry her etc., and also threatened PW-8 to take care of himself other wise, he would do something later. In this background, it appears, Divya was not interested towards accused No.1 and started avoiding accused No.1. Therefore, this was the motive projected by the prosecution that accused No.1 has decided to do away the life of the deceased Divya. Therefore, he joined hands with his friend accused No.2 in order to help him to do away with the life of the deceased Divya - she had informed earlier to her father about the conduct of accused No.1 that accused No.1 had snatched her mobile phone and she was scared of accused No.1. For this reason, the father of deceased regularly used to accompany her to her work place/company and bring her back in the evening – Held, court and confirmed by the Division Bench of the High court, the convict concerned will get an opportunity to get such verdict tested by filing further appeal by way of special leave to this court. By way of abundant caution and as per the prescribed law of the Code and the criminal jurisprudence, we can assert that after the initial finding of guilt of such specified grave offences and the imposition of penalty either death or life imprisonment, when comes under the scrutiny of the Division Bench of the High court, it is only the High court which derives the power under the Penal Code - alter the said punishment with one either for the entirely of the convicts life or for any specific period of more than 14 years, say 20, 30 or so on depending upon the gravity of the crime committed and the exercise of judicial conscience befitting such offence found proved to have been committed - power derived from the Penal Code for any modified punishment within the punishment provided for in the Penal Code for such specified offences can only be exercised by the High court and in the event of further appeal only by the Supreme court and not by any other court in this country - court has not in detail considered the above said aspect, but it never said that such powers can be exercised by the Sessions court also, but indirectly in the said case also, it is the constitutional power exercised under Article 142 of the Constitution of India in order to do the complete justice. Therefore, it cannot be understood that some powers are also available to the learned Sessions Judge - court comes to the conclusion that it is not a rarest of rare case, but it falls beyond the punishment of life imprisonment, for that the court has to vividly consider what are all the mitigating circumstances prevailing in the case apart from the discussion with regard to the crime but without referring to the criminal at all. Therefore, under the above said facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion the extended sentence passed by the trial Court directing the Government that the accused should not be released from the prison for the rest of their life is on facts also erroneous and unwarranted - appeals filed by the accused/appellants in Criminal Appeal No.471/2014 and Criminal Appeal No.475/2014 are hereby partly allowed
K.N. Phaneendra, J.
The appellants who are arrayed as accused Nos.1 & 2 have challenged the judgment of conviction dated 7.5.2014 and the order of sentence dated 9.5.2014 passed by the Fast Track (Sessions) Judge-V, Bengaluru City, in SC No.1199/2012, and sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under section 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC with a direction that they should not be released from the prison for the rest of their life.
2. The accused persons have individually preferred appeals. Accused No.1 Ranjith.K. @ Batta has preferred an appeal in Criminal Appeal No.471/2014, whereas the accused No.2 Bhuvanesh. T.P. @ Kutti has preferred an appeal in Criminal Appeal No.475/2014. Apart from the above said two appeals, the State has also preferred an appeal in Criminal Appeal No.766/2014 on the ground that the trial Court has imposed the sentence without making any order regarding fine, and sought for modification of the judgment and to impose fine on the accused persons for the offence punishable under section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC, as imposition of fine is mandatory under the above said provision.
3. As the above said three appeals are arising out of a common judgment passed by the trial Court, they are taken up together for consideration on merits.
4. We have heard the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel Sri Hashmath Pasha for the accused and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the State. We have carefully perused and re-appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record and also examined the correctness of the judgment of the trial Court.
5. Before adverting to the grounds urged before this court by the respective counsels, we feel it just and necessary to have the brief factual matrix of the case.
6. It is the case of the prosecution that, accused No.1 Ranjith fell in love with deceased Divya D/o. P. Shyam, R/o.No.317, 1st B.Main, N.S. Palya, BTM II Stage, Bengaluru-76. It appears, sometime prior to the incident, some marriage talks were taken place with reference to the marriage of PW-8 Pradeep with the deceased Divya. In that context accused No.1 was not happy and he in fact threatened PW-8 over phone informing him that, he has been loving Divya for more than 4 years and he would like to marry her etc., and also threatened PW-8 to take care of himself other wise, he would do something later. In this background, it appears, Divya was not interested towards accused No.1 and started avoiding accused No.1. Therefore, this was the motive projected by the prosecution that accused No.1 has decided to do away the life of the deceased Divya. Therefore, he joined hands with his friend accused No.2 in order to help him to do away with the life of the deceased Divya. In this background, it is alleged that, on the day of the incident that was on 28.5.2012 at about 6.30 p.m., when Divya after completing her work in a company in which she was working, was returning to her house she was attached and assaulted by accused No.1 with lethal weapon by causing serious injuries. In fact, she had informed earlier to her father about the conduct of accused No.1 that accused No.1 had snatched her mobile phone and she was scared of accused No.1. For this reason, the father of deceased regularly used to accompany her to her work place/company and bring her back in the evening. On the day of the incident also, the said Divya had called her father at about 5.45 p.m., and requested her father to pick her from the office. As PW-2 Shyam was at Basavanagudi, he told her to go by bus on that day. In this context, the said Divya was proceeding to her house by walk in the 7th Main Road, BTM II Stage.
7. It is the further case of the prosecution that, taking advantage of the situation that the deceased was walking alone in the said road, accused Nos.1 and 2 came on a Splendor Motorbike bearing No.KA-51/Y- 3188 and accused No.1 got down from the motor cycle and went behind Divya and assaulted
