1

      NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 176 OF 2009

K.RAVICHANDRA & ORS.                              ...APPELLANT(S)

                               VERSUS

STATE OF KARNATAKA                                ...RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T R. BANUMATHI,J.

1. This appeal arises out of the judgment dated

02.07.2008 in Crl.A. No. 136 of 2002 passed by the High

Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in and by which the High

Court of Karnataka has reversed the order of acquittal and

convicted the appellants-accused under Section 304 (II),

IPC and also for other offences and sentenced them to

undergo imprisonment for three years.

2. Appellant No. 1 - accused no. 1 sent a Deepavali

greeting  to  PW-16  (daughter  of  PW-1)  expressing  his

passionate love for her and PW-16 showed the greetings to

her father.  When appellant No. 1 visited the village, PW-

1  along  with  PW-7  (H.C.  Jayaramegowda)  went  near  the

canteen belonging to one Lingaraju to question accused no.

1 about his conduct. During the talks, appellant nos. 1 to

4 wielded clubs and attacked PW-1, PW-3 and PW-17 and also

the deceased -Ramu. Deceased - Ramu sustained injuries on

his on his scalp, parietal  bone, his right thumb and

2

forearm  and  also  sustained  injuries  on  the  leg  and

succumbed to injuries.

3. Upon  consideration of the evidence, the Trial Court

acquitted all the appellants holding that the prosecution

has failed to prove the motive and also the intention of

the  accused  and  that  the  prosecution  has  not

satisfactorily  explained  the  injuries  on  the  accused

persons. The trial court also held that the evidence of

PW-1 and other witnesses are inconsistent with each other

and that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of

accused beyond reasonable doubt. On those findings, the

trial Court acquitted all the appellants.

4. The  High  Court  in  appeal  set  aside  the  order  of

acquittal and convicted all the appellants as aforesaid

under Section 304 II IPC read with Section 149.

5. We  have  heard  Mr.  Mahesh  Thakur,  learned  counsel

appearing  for  the  appellants  as  well  as  Mr.  V.  N.

Raghupathy, learned counsel appearing for the State of

Karnataka and perused the impugned judgment and materials

on record.

6. The  evidence  of  injured  witnesses  PW-1  –

complainant,  PW-3  (wife  of  the  deceased)  and  PW-18

(brother of PW-1) is consistent and corroborating each

other  on  various  aspects  like…….,  (1)  which  accused

assaulted whom (2) the weapon wielded by the accused and

(3)  on  which  part  of  the  body  of  the  witnesses  the

3

injuries  were  caused.  The  evidence  of  these  injured

witnesses and also eye witness PW-7 is corroborated by the

medical evidence also. The prosecution established that

the appellants are responsible for causing injuries to the

witnesses and the death of the deceased - Ramu.

7. Learned  counsel  for  the  appellants  submitted  that

admittedly witnesses PW-1 and PW-7 went to one Lingaraju’s

canteen  for  panchayat  to  enquire  the  first  accused

regarding his conduct for sending the letter to PW-16.

Drawing our attention to the injuries sustained by the

accused, learned counsel submitted that the prosecution

has  not explained  the injuries  on the   person  of the

accused and the trial Court had rightly held that the

complainant party are the aggressors and rightly acquitted

the accused and the High Court erred in reversing the

same.

8. Admittedly  the  accused  persons  also  sustained

injuries as seen from the evidence adduced by the accused

party (Exs. D-8 to D-10). It is fairly well settled that

it is not always incumbent upon the prosecution to explain

the injuries of the accused persons. The prosecution is

obligated to explain the injuries of the accused persons

only if the injuries sustained by the accused are grievous

in nature. In the present case, there is no evidence to

show that the injuries on the accused persons are grievous

in nature.  As pointed out earlier, the complainant party

4

went near the canteen of one Lingaraju only for panchayat

and they were unarmed. That being so, during the talks

there was no reason for the accused party to wield clubs

and attack the complainant party, on whose side at least

three  of  them  were  injured  apart  from  the  death  of

deceased  -  Ramu.  When  appreciation  of  evidence  by  the

trial court suffered from perversity, the High Court being

the  Appellate  Court  rightly  reversed  the  order  of

acquittal and convicted the appellants under Section 304

(II)  IPC and  also for  other offence  for the  death of

deceased.  The High Court, in our view, has shown leniency

to  the  appellants  by  sentencing  them  to  undergo

imprisonment only for a period of three years. In view of

above, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned

order.

9. The appeal is dismissed.

10. The appellants shall surrender within a period of

four weeks from today to serve out the remaining sentence

failing which they shall be taken into custody.  

….......................J. [R. BANUMATHI]

…......................J. [INDIRA BANERJEE]

NEW DELHI 6TH SEPTEMBER, 2018