IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

KALABURAGI BENCH

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2020

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE Dr.JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.3635/2012

Between :

1. Siddamma

W/o Bhimsha Hulandagera,

Age: 58 years,

Occ: Business,

2. Shivamma,

W/o Devindra,

Age: 40 years, Occ: Buisness,

3. Kantamma

W/o Bheemaraya Soolahalli,

Age : 42 years,

Occ: Coolie,

4. Sumitrappa,

S/o Mallappa Hulandagera,

Age: 58 years, Occ: Coolie,

All R/o Pilkum Area, Wadi,

Tq: Chittapur,

Dist: Gulbarga.

.. Appellants

( By Sri Mahantesh H. Desai, Advocate )

Crl.A.No.3635/2012

2

And:

The State through

The State of Karnataka,

Through: The Wadi PS,

Represented by SPP:

High Court of Karnataka

Circuit Bench at Gulbarga.

.. Respondent

( By Sri P.S.Patil, HCGP)

This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of

Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the impugned judgment of

conviction and order on sentence passed by the IV

Addl.Sessions Judge, at Gulbarga, in S.C.No.2/2011, on

14.8.2012, convicting the accused/appellants No.1 to 4 for

the offence punishable under Section 325 read with

Section 34 of IPC.

This Criminal Appeal coming on for Hearing this day,

the Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

The present appellants who were accused Nos.1

to 4 in S.C.No.2/2011, in the Court of learned IV

Addl.Sessions

Judge,

Gulbarga,

(hereinafter

for

brevity referred to as `trial Court’), have challenged

the judgment of conviction and order on sentence

dated 14.08.2012, wherein accused were convicted

Crl.A.No.3635/2012

3

for the offence punishable under Section 325 read

with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860

(hereinafter for brevity referred to as `IPC’), and

sentenced them accordingly.

2. The summary of the case of the prosecution is

that on 5.6.2010, at about 9.00 a.m., in a place

called Pilkum Area at Wadi, all the four accused in

furtherance of their common intention to commit the

murder of deceased Ramesh, had assaulted him by

hands and kicked him on his back and squeezed his

scrotum, due to which, Ramesh died on the spot.

Therefore, the accused had committed the offence

punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of

IPC. Since the accused pleaded not guilty for the

charges

framed

against

them

for

the

offence

punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of

IPC, the trial was held.

Crl.A.No.3635/2012

4

3. In order to prove the alleged guilt against the

accused, the prosecution got examined thirteen

witnesses as PW-1 to PW-13 and got marked

documents from Exs.P-1 to P-11 and material objects

from MO-1 to MO-5. On behalf of the accused, neither

any witnesses were examined nor any documents

were marked as exhibits. After hearing both side, the

trial Court by its impugned judgment of conviction

and order on sentence dated 14.8.2012, convicted all

the four accused for the offence punishable under

Section 325 read with Section 34 of IPC and

sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for

a period of three years and to pay a fine of `1,000/-

each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo

simple imprisonment for a period of three months. It

is against the said judgment of conviction and order

on sentence, the appellants/accused have preferred

this appeal.

Crl.A.No.3635/2012

5

4. The lower Court records were called for and

the same are placed before this Court.

5. Heard the arguments from both side and

perused the materials placed before this Court.

6. For the sake of convenience, the parties would

be referred to as per their ranks before the trial Court.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants/

accused in his argument submitted that the conduct of

PW-1, who is the mother of the deceased, is

unnatural, as such, her evidence is not trustworthy.

Consequently, the accused deserves to be acquitted of

the alleged offence.

He

also

submitted

that

admittedly there were no injuries found on the person

of the deceased except the injury to scrotum in the

form swelling and hemorrhage. As such, the

allegation that accus