IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH
V SRISHANANDA, J.
Surendra S/o Shanthkumar Kote - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Karnataka - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.200009 of 2021
Decided on : 18-06-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. incident and initial investigation facts (Para 3) |
| 2. details of the crime and evidence (Para 4) |
| 3. trial and evidence presentation process (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. arguments questioning the evidence (Para 8 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. court's evaluation of evidence (Para 19) |
| 6. final modification of conviction and sentence (Para 20) |
JUDGMENT :
V SRISHANANDA, J.
1. Heard Sri. Shivanand V. Pattanashetty, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned HCGP for the respondent-State.
2. The present appellant is the accused who has suffered an order of conviction in S.C.No.243/2016 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bidar, by Judgment dated 16.12.2020 sentenced the accused as under:
ORDER
i. Accused Surendera S/o. Shanthkumar Kote, is hereby sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 years for the offence punishable U/Sec. 394 of IPC and shall pay fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.
ii. The DLSA, Bidar, is directed to work out compensation to Pw.8 Ramu and Pw.9 Anilkumar, by taking into consideration nature of injuries and the period of hospitalization.
iii. The accused is entitled for set off the period of detention during crime stage as provided U/Sec. 428 of Cr.P.C., iv. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused stands cancelled.
v. MO.1 knife is ordered to be confiscated to the State after the appeal period.
vi. The interim order of custody of vehicle given in favour of accused Surender S/o. Shanthkumar Kote, is hereby recalled and the vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA 38 L 4985 is ordered to be confiscated to State. Since accused is in judicial custody the concerned policed shall take possession of the vehicle and produce before the Court for confiscation.
vii. Issue conviction warrant accordingly.
viii. The Chief Administrative Officer of this Court is directed to send the certified copy of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence to the District Magistrate/Deputy Commissioner, Bidar, in compliance of Section 365 of Cr.P.C. and also DLSA, Bidar.
ix. The Chief Administrative Officer of this Court is directed to furnish free copy of the Judgment of conviction and order on sentence to the accused forthwith.
3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under:
3.1. On 15.06.2016 a complaint came to be alleged with the Gandhi Gunj Police Station, Bidar, contending that, at about 11.00 p.m., the appellant came on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-38/L-6985, to Beldale Petrol Pump, Gumpa, Bidar, for filling the petrol to his motorcycle. Ganapathi being the salesman in the said petrol pump filled the petrol worth Rs.100/- at the request of the appellant. After filling the petrol, Ganapathi demanded payment of Rs.100/- being the cost of the petrol. The appellant not only refused to pay the amount of Rs.100/- but also he snatched Rs.500/- cash held by Ganapathi and wanted to escape away on the motorcycle.
3.2. On hearing the hue and cry, one Ramu and another Anilkumar who were the co-workers of Ganapathi, rushed to the scene and held the motorcycle and caught hold of the accused. Having failed to escape away from the scene of offence, the accused took out a knife which was in his possession and stabbed on the stomach of Anilkumar and assaulted Ramu with the same weapon behind the ear and caused grievous injuries and later on escaped away with the cash of Rs.500/-.
3.3. Immediately thereafter, Ganapathi approached the Gandhi Gunj Police Station and lodged the complaint. The police after registering the case thoroughly investigated the matter inter alia, arrested the accused and recovered the knife which was used in the incident pursuant to the voluntary statement given by the accused and on conclusion of the investigation, filed the charge-sheet.
4. Learned trial Magistrate committed the matter to the Sessions Court in view of the fact that, the offence alleged against t
AI
Conviction under Section 394 necessitates corroborative evidence, which was lacking due to hostile testimony; therefore, conviction was modified to Section 324.
Conviction under Section 397 of IPC requires evidence of a deadly weapon; court held that evidence sufficed for conviction under Section 392 instead.
The intent to commit murder must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, and in this case, it was established that the act fell under grievous hurt.
In a criminal case, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; failure to establish clear evidence or motive results in acquittal.
The court emphasized that when reasonable doubt exists regarding a prosecution's case, it must favor the accused, leading to acquittal.
The court held that insufficient evidence of intent to cause death led to the acquittal of the accused from serious charges while affirming some convictions based on the established facts.
The court upheld the conviction of the appellants for serious offences based on credible witness testimonies while recognizing insufficient evidence for conviction under Section 354D.
Robbery – One credible witness outweighs the testimony of a number of other witnesses of indifferent character – Order of conviction can be passed on the basis of sole testimony of injured witness.
The court upheld the conviction for attempted murder but granted probation instead of imprisonment, emphasizing rehabilitation over punishment due to the appellant's age and reformation.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.