KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Mohan M. Shantagoudar and Pradeep D. Waingankar, JJ.
K.P. Thammanagwda & Ors.—Appellants
versus
State of Karnataka—Respondent
Crl. A. No. 918 of 2012 and Cr. A. No. 828/2010
Decided on 28.4.2015

IMPORTANT POINT
Victim of crime cannot seek for enhancement of sentence in an appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 341 and 326/34—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Appellants convicted for offences—Appeal by accused as well appeal by victim PW5 to convict accused for offences under Section 307 IPC—Victim PW5 was riding motorcycle with PW6 as its pillion rider when accused persons armed with deadly weapons like chopper way laid victim and assaulted him causing multiple injuries including multiple fracture injuries—FIR was lodged by PW6 immediately after incident—overt act of each accused was narrated by PW5 in evidence and evidence was consistent with version given in FIR—Trial Court was justified in relying upon their evidence—Medical report fully corroborated evidence of PW % & 6—Question whether accused were liable to be convicted under Section 307 IPC—Doctor did not state if injuries so sustained by victim would have resulted in death if emergency treatment was not given—Injuries sustained by victim were not on vital organ of body—Though victim had sustained grievous injuries—Offence under Section 327 IPC was rightly held attracted.

       (ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 326/34—Accused persons assaulted victim by deadly weapon chopper causing several grievous injury—Trial Court awarded three years imprisonment with fine—Victims appeal as well appeal by appellants for leniency in sentence—View on sentence taken by trial court was itself lenient—Section 372 Cr.P.C. victim could not seek for enhancement of sentence.

       Held: Sri Bhagavan learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused Nos. 2 to 4 as aforementioned, prays that leniency may be shown in favour of accused inasmuch as there was no motive on the part of any of accused Nos. 2 to 4 to commit offence; the incident has taken place at the instance of accused Nos. 1 to 6; Accused No. 1 has expired and Accused. No. 6 is acquitted; already 13 years have lapsed from the date of the incident and therefore he submits that the victim may be compensated in terms of money by imposing higher sentence of fine and by reducing the sentence of imprisonment.

       We, do not agree with the said submission made by the defence counsel. Having regard to the number of severe injuries sustained by the victim and as the victim was assaulted mercilessly when he was going to his house on a motorcycle after completion of the work that too when he was unarmed; since there was absolutely no provocation on the part of the victim during the relevant point of time and that the accused had come to the spot fully prepared inasmuch as they were armed with weapons, in our of considered opinion, the sentence of imprisonment of three years as imposed by the Trial Court itself is a lenient view under the facts and circumstances of the case.

       Unfortunately, in the matter on hand, the State has not filed the appeal. Therefore, we are unable to enhance the sentence. The appeal is filed only by the injured-victim. In law (proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C.), he cannot seek for enhancement of sentence. In the matter on hand, unfortunately the victim though has filed the appeal has not sought for compensation or for enhancement of compensation. He has merely sought for the conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 307 IPC.

       Looking to the totality of facts and circumstances, in or considered opinion, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court appears to be just and proper. Hence, no interference is called for. The appeals fail and the same stand dismissed.

       Result: Appeals dismissed.