w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



State by P.S.I. v/s Billavara Somappa & Another


Company & Directors' Information:- PSI INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900DL2015FTC287956

    Criminal Appeal No. 216 of 2011 c/w Criminal Appeal No. 217 of 2011

    Decided On, 31 March 2015

    At, High Court of Karnataka

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP D. WAINGANKAR

    For the Appellant: B. Vishweshwaraiah, HCGP. For the Respondent: R1, Mahesh Shetty, R2, Arun Shyam, Advocates.



Judgment Text

(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 377 Cr.P.C. praying to modify the sentence imposed on 28.10.2010 passed in sessions case No.34/2008 passed by the District and sessions Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri and impose maximum sentence on the respondent/accused for the offence P/U/S 323 of IPC and etc.,)

1. The judgment and order dated 28.10.2010 passed by the Sessions Court, Madikeri, in S.C.No.34/2008 is called in question in these appeals by the State.

Crl.A.No.216/2011 is filed by the State praying for enhancement of sentence against accused No.1. Whereas Crl.A.No.217/2011 is filed against the judgment and order of acquittal acquitting accused for the offence under Section 307 r/w Section 34 of IPC. Since both these appeals are arising out of the same judgment, these appeals are clubbed and heard together.

By the impugned judgment, the Trial Court convicted accused No.1 for the offence under Section 323 of IPC. However, the Trial Court acquitted accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence under Section 307 r/w Section 34 of IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that at about 8.30 a.m. on 20.01.2008, when the complainant (PW.1) was involved in the road laying work along with PWs.2 and 3 namely Vasudeva and Ponnu, two unknown persons came there and obstructed PW.1 from working by threatening him that he has not attended the work in the Coffee Estate and instead he is doing road laying work; so saying, one of the two persons threatened PW.1 by showing Kathi and assaulted him with Kathi (chopper), consequent upon which PW.1 sustained simple injury on his shoulder. PWs.2 and 3 are the eye witnesses to the incident. Immediately, after the said incident the accused went away from the scene; PWs.2 and 3 informed PW.8 (P.N. Shivaprasad) about the incident who came to the spot and took the injured in a jeep to Siddapur Government hospital for treatment; Station House Officer (PW.7) recorded statement of injured/complainant in the hospital on 20.01.2008; since the place of assault was within the jurisdiction of Madikeri Rural Police Station, he sent the statement of the injured and the memo/intimation given by the medical officer to Madikeri Rural Police Station; PW.6-Sub-Inspector of Police of Madikeri Rural Police Station received the complaint along with memo through police constable attached to Siddapur Police Station at 6.30 p.m. on 20.01.2008 and registered a case in Crime No.6/2008 of Madikeri Rural Police Station. PW.10 another Inspector of Police took up further investigation of case and laid the charge-sheet.

3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution in all examined 11 witnesses, got marked 12 exhibits and 5 material objects. The accused were tried for the offences under Sections 323 and 307 r/w Section 34 of IPC. However, they are acquitted of the said offences. The Trial Court convicted accused No.1 only for the offence under Section 323 of IPC. Hence, these appeals by the State.

4. Learned advocates have taken us through the material on record and the judgment of the Court below. They argued in support of their respective contentions.

5. PW.1 is the injured eye witness. PWs.2 and 3 are the eye witnesses to the incident. PW.4 is a hearsay witness. He heard over the phone regarding the assault on PW.1. He is witness for mahazar Ex.P2, under which Pant, T-Shirt of PW.1 are seized. PW.5 is the Police Constable who carried the statement of the victim to Madikeri Rural Police Station from Siddapur Police Station. He also carried memo issued by the medical officer to Madikeri Rural Police Station. PW.6 is the Inspector of Police attached to Madikeri Rural Police Station. Based on the complaint lodged by PW.1, he registered a case and conducted part of the investigation. PW.7 is the Station House Officer of Siddapur Police Station, who recorded the statement of injured at Siddapur Government Hospital and transmitted the same to Madikeri Rural Police Station since the incident had taken place within the jurisdiction of Madikeri Rural Police Station. PW.8 is the Supervisor who received the telephonic information about the assault on PW.1 and shifted the injured to the hospital in a jeep. PW.9 is the Doctor who examined the injured and issued wound certificate as per Ex.P10. He has also given report as per Ex.P9 after examining Kathi (chopper sent to him). He has clarified that PW.1 had sustained one injury on the left shoulder measuring 3 X 1/2 cm and an abrasion on outer margin of the right ear. There were no other injuries. PW.10 is the Inspector who laid the charge-sheet after completion of investigation. PW.11 is the Assistant Director of Forensic Science Laboratory. He gave report as per Ex.P11. Serology report is at Ex.P12. It is specified in the report that blood stains were of human being and they belong to 'O' group.

6. In the matter on hand, the convicted accused has not filed appeal. Even otherwise, we find from the evidence on record that the Trial Court is justified in believing the version of PWs.1 to 3 while convicting accused No.1. All the three eye witnesses including the injured eye witness have specified that it was accused No.1 who assaulted PW.1, consequent upon which PW.1 sustained certain simple injuries. No overt act is alleged against accused No.2. Therefore, the Trial Court is justified in convicting accused No.1 only. It is also justified in exonerating accused No.2.

7. Question to be decided in these appeals is as to whether accused No.1 has committed offence under Section 307 of IPC or not. It is the case of the prosecution that accused No.1 was holding chopper which is a sharp cutting weapon. At that point of time, admittedly PW.1 was indulged in a road laying work. He was not having any arm. He was all alone. PWs.2 and 3 were working about 30 meters away from there. Thus, it is clear that, if really accused No.1 had got any intention to commit offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC, he could have done so, more particularly when PW.1 was unarmed and was all alone; on the contrary, accused No.1 was armed with chopper. Looking to the material on record, it is amply clear that accused No.1 had merely come to the spot for threatening PW.1 and prohibiting him from going ahead with road laying work since he was supposed to do the work in the Coffee Estate in which he was living. The grievance of accused No.1 appears to be that though PW.1 was provided with residential quarters in the Coffee Estate of accused No.2, PW.1 instead of working in the Coffee Estate, joined hands with PW.8 and indulged in the work of laying road. In this context, the incident must have occurred. Thus, the circumstances would clearly reveal that accused No.1 had not intended to commit murder but had intended only to threaten and prohibit PW.1 from proceeding with road laying work. As aforementioned, accused No.1 wanted PW.1 to work in the Coffee Estate since he was allotted a quarters in the Coffee Estate and had occupied the same.

As mentioned supra, the complaint merely states that two unknown persons came and one of such two unknown persons assaulted PW.1 with Kathi (chopper). No overt acts are attributed to another person who accompanied the assailants. Even before the Court, PWs.1 to 3 have clearly deposed that it was accused No.1 who assaulted PW.1 with Kathi and it was he who threatened PW.1. Not even a minute overt act is attributed to accused No.2. Therefore, the Trial Court is justified in acquitting accused No.2.

8. Hence, we are of the clear opinion that the Trial Court is justified in concluding that there is no intention on the part of the accused to commit any

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

offence than the offence under Section 323 of IPC. The wound certificate –Ex.P10, as aforementioned discloses only one incised wound on the left shoulder measuring 3 X 1/2 cm apart from one abrasion. The injuries are simple in nature. Except aforementioned injuries, no other injury is found on the body of PW.1. The Trial Court having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances, ordered accused No.1 to undergo imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. The accused No.1 has already undergone three months of imprisonment. Under the facts and circumstances, the three months imprisonment ordered by the Trial Court appears to be just and reasonable. Hence, we decline to enhance the sentence of imprisonment imposed on accused No.1. Accordingly, no interference is called for. The appeals fail and the same stand dismissed.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

28-05-2020 Banashankar @ Banashankar Patil Versus The State of Karnataka, Through P.S.I., Represented by Additional SPP High Court of Karnataka
22-02-2019 State of Karnataka, Represented by PSI Lokayuktha Police, Bengaluru Versus H.K. Ashwath High Court of Karnataka
24-01-2019 Pradeep & Others Versus The State of Karnataka through PSI, Ghantikeri P.S. Rep. by SPP. High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
10-01-2019 Devendra Bhimappa Naik Versus State of Karnataka, Through P.S.I. Chikkodi P.S., R/by SPP & Another High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
03-07-2018 Laxmi Versus The State of Karnataka, Through PSI, Represented by its Addl., State Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka
23-04-2018 Gangasingh & Another Versus The State of Karnataka, Through the PSI., Rep. by the Addl. State Public Prosecutor, Kalaburagi & Others High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi
09-02-2018 Shrishail Dodamani Versus The State of Karnataka Through PSI Aigali, R/by SPP, High Court of Karnataka, Bench at Dharwad High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
06-12-2017 Wasim Versus The State of Karnataka, Through the PSI., Indi Rural P.S., Represented by the Addl. State Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka
28-11-2017 S. Krishnappa Versus The State of Karnataka Through PSI, Ghataprabha Police Station, Represented by its Addl SPP High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
25-10-2017 Basavaraj Versus The State Represented by the PSI Karatagi Police Station, Gangavati High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
15-09-2017 Arun Kumar Jain & Others Versus The State of Karnataka by P.S.I. Hubli Town Police Station & Others High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
15-09-2017 Sangappa Versus The State of Karnataka, Through PSI Guledagudda Police Station, Reptd by Addl SPP, Dharwad Bench High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
07-09-2017 Suresh & Others Versus The State of Karnataka thru PSI, Jamkhndi Town, rep. by SPP & Another High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
17-07-2017 Hanumanth Versus The State of Karnataka, Through P.S.I., Rept. By the S.P.P. High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench at Gulbarga High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi
01-06-2017 Motilal & Others Versus The State of Karnataka, rep. by the PSI Muddebihal Police Station & Another High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi
03-03-2017 Abdul Shameed Versus State through PSI, Saidapur Police Station High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi
29-06-2016 Venkatesh Versus State Through PSI, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
22-06-2016 State of Karnataka by PSI of Hcsadurga Police Versus Manjunatha @ Kariugra & Another High Court of Karnataka
08-06-2016 Rakesh Kisan Nagarale Versus The State of Maharashtra through P.S.I. & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
13-03-2015 Yuvaraj Versus The State of Karnataka, rep. by the PSI., P.S. Muddebihal & Another High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi
12-03-2015 Dr. Pranesh Versus The State of Karnataka, rep. by PSI & Another High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi
05-03-2015 Mallu & Others Versus The State of Karnataka, represented by the PSI., Bijapur & Others High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi
03-07-2014 G.D. Thippeswamy Versus State by P.S.I. High Court of Karnataka
12-08-2013 Balu & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through P.S.I. Police Station In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
21-12-2012 Mrs. Bharati S. Khandhar Versus Maruti Govind Jadhav, PSI & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
04-10-2012 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore & Another Versus M/s. PSI Hydraulics, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
05-09-2012 State by P.S.I. Mahalakshmi Layout Police Station Versus D.P. Kumar High Court of Karnataka
05-08-2011 Vijaykumar & Others Versus The State of Karnataka, Through PSI, Alawandi Town Police Station, Represented by its SPP. High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
29-06-2010 Shekappa alias Chandrashekar Versus State of Karnataka through PSI, Bilagi Police Station High Court of Karnataka
22-01-2010 Shri Sameer Subhash Pednekar Versus State (through PSI AR Umarye Police Officer, Pernem Police Station) & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
06-11-2009 State through P.S.I. & Another Versus Shivamurthayya & Others High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Gulbarga
14-07-2006 Suo Motu Versus E.N.Sakore, P.S.I., Vairag Police Station (Contemnor) High Court of Judicature at Bombay
23-03-2006 The State by The PSI of Bhatkal Town Police Station Versus M. Karim & Others High Court of Karnataka
10-06-2003 State by PSI of Lakshmeshwar versus Mudakappa High Court of Karnataka
04-06-2003 State by P.S.I. of Town Versus Basanagouda Channaveeragouda Patil High Court of Karnataka
17-10-2002 Mohammed Sadiq Abdul Khalil Patel and five others Versus V.Y. Choughule, P.S.I. And two others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
17-10-2002 Mohammed Sadiq Abdul Khalil Patel & Others Versus V.Y. Choughule, P.S.I. & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
24-01-2002 STATE BY PSI (I AND O), ATHANI POLICE STATION VS. PUNDALIK ANNAPPA GARAGE High Court of Karnataka
31-05-1999 In the Matter of P.S.I. Data Systems Limited Versus High Court of Kerala
17-12-1996 Messrs Psi Data Systems Limited Versus Collector of Central Excise Supreme Court of India
03-02-1993 A.R. Singh, P.S.I. Mehmedabad Versus District Superintendent of Police High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
06-12-1991 PSI DATA SYSTEMS LIMITED VERSUS PRESIDING OFFICER, ADDITIONAL INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE High Court of Karnataka
06-12-1988 Atulkumar T.Jadwani (P.S.I.) Versus Deputy Inspector General Of Police,Junagadh High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
10-03-1988 State of Maharashtra Versus Genu Yeshwant Divate P.S.I., Ahmednagar Police High Court of Judicature at Bombay
31-08-1956 State Versus Yash Pal P.S.I. High Court of Punjab and Haryana


LawyerServices is a Premium Legal Tech solution.


Lawyers, Law Firms, Government Departments and Corporates rely on us for, Workflow Automation, Data Aggregation, Timely Updates, Case Management, Intelligent Research, Latest Legal Data Updates and a LOT more!

If you are a legal professional, CONTACT US, in order to see how our UNIQUE solution can benefit your organization.

Features Intro Close Box