Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH
V SRISHANANDA
Surendra S/o Shanthkumar Kote – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
| 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
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.
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
