Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH
V. SRISHANANDA
Bheemashankar @ Bheemu S/o Yamunappa Hulimani – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. description of the incident and evidence. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. argument on conviction inconsistencies. (Para 8 , 10 , 12 , 14 , 17) |
| 3. court's reasoning on charge specifications. (Para 15 , 16 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 4. final decision and order regarding conviction. (Para 21 , 24) |
JUDGMENT :
V. SRISHANANDA, J.
Heard Sri. Ashok B. Mulage, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri. Veeranagouda M.Malipatil, learned HCGP for the respondent-State.
2. The present appellant is the sole accused, who is convicted in S.C.No.78/2017 and sentenced as under:
ORDER
The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of eight years and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty five thousand rupees only) for the offence punishable under Section 397 of INDIAN PENAL CODE . In default to pay fine amount, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year.
On such deposit of fine amount, entire fine amount of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty five thousand rupees only), shall be paid to injured/PW.1-Pramod T.V. as compensation under Section 357 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
The accused shall be entitled to the benefit of set-off for the period of detention undergone as under trial
Conviction under Section 397 of IPC requires evidence of a deadly weapon; court held that evidence sufficed for conviction under Section 392 instead.
Conviction under Section 394 necessitates corroborative evidence, which was lacking due to hostile testimony; therefore, conviction was modified to Section 324.
The use of a deadly weapon in robbery establishes the offence under Section 397 IPC, regardless of injury, and a defective charge does not invalidate the conviction.
The court clarified that for conviction under Section 397 IPC, the prosecution must prove grievous injury and involvement of five persons, which was not established in this case.
The prosecution must prove all elements of an offence beyond reasonable doubt; insufficient evidence led to a conviction modification from Section 307 to Section 324 IPC.
Point of law : whenever the charge is framed for higher offence, the Court retains the power to convict an accused for a lesser offence even in the absence of a charge being framed for lesser offence....
The broad interpretation of the use of weapons in armed robbery under Section 397 of IPC, emphasizing that the mere display of a weapon or any action inducing fear in the victim's mind is sufficient ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court has the authority to analyze the evidence and modify the conviction and sentence based on the facts and circumstances of the case.
The actual user of a deadly weapon during a robbery is solely liable under Section 397 IPC, while others involved may face lesser charges if not directly implicated.
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
