Criminal Appeal No.1630 of 2014

5th August, 2014.

Petitioner Counsel: SANJAY R. HEDGE, S. NITHIN, H.S CHANDER MAULI ANIL KR. MISHRA
Respondent Counsel: Ms. ANITHA SHENOY

JUDGMENT

JUDGMENT :- Leave granted. In this appeal by special leave the appellants have challenged the judgment and order dated 2-12-2013 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in Siddaiah v. State of Karnataka.

2. The appellants are original Accused 1, 2 and 5 respectively ("A-1, A 2 and A-5," for convenience). They were tried along with three others ("A-3, A-4 and A-6") by the Fast Track Court III at Mysore for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 307 read with Section 149 of the Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC") in Sessions Case No. 334 of 1999.

3. By order dated 15-12-2006, the trial court convicted A-1 to A-6 for the offences punishable under Section 143 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced each one of them to pay a fine of Rs. 500 each, in default, to undergo SI for two months each. A-1 to A-6 were also convicted for offences punishable under Section 147 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1000 each, in default, to undergo SI for four months each. A-1 to A-6 were also convicted for offences punishable under Section 148 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1000 each, in default, to undergo SI for four months each. A-1 to A-6 were also convicted for offences punishable under Section 324 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for six months each. A-1 to A-6 were also convicted for offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for two years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 each, in default, to undergo SI for two months each. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

4. The appeal was carried by the accused to the High Court. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court acquitted A-3, A-4 and A-6 of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324 and Section 326 read with Section 149 IPC. A-1, A-2 and A-5 were acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148 read with Section 149 IPC. A-1 and A-5 were acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 326 read with Section 149 IPC. A-2 was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC. A-2 was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC. He was sentenced to undergo SI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000, in default, to undergo SI for six months for the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC. A-1 and A-5 were convicted for offence punishable under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to undergo SI for three months each and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000 each, in default, to undergo SI for one month. Out of the fine amount deposited by A-1, A-2 and A-5, a sum of Rs. 30,000 was directed to be paid as compensation to PW 2, Venkatesha and a sum of Rs. 10,000 each was directed to be paid as compensation to PW 3, Srinivasa Shetty, PW 4 Murthy alias Srinivasa Murthy and PW 5, Manjunath.

5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the appellants have filed the present appeal. We are informed that A-1 and A-5 have already undergone the three months' imprisonment and they have been released from jail. A-2 is in jail. He has undergone about 6 months and 24 days' imprisonment as on 1-8-2014.

6. On 24-2-2014, liberty was granted to the appellants to add the complainant as party-respondent. This Court directed that notice be issued to the complainant to find out whether more compensation could be paid to the victim. We are informed that Venkatesha s/o complainant late Lakshmana Shetty has been served. However, none is appearing for him nor is he appearing in person. On 4-4-2014, this Court directed the appellants to deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000 as litigation expenses in the Fast Track Court I, Mysore within one week. We are informed that, accordingly, the amount has been deposited.

7. The facts, briefly stated, are as follows: A-1, A-3 and A-4 are the sons of A-2; A-5 is the younger brother of A-2 and A-6 is the son of A-5. All the prosecution witnesses are related to each other. There are cases and counter cases between the accused and the prosecution witnesses. According to the prosecution witnesses, on the day of the incident viz. 15-7-1999, at about 7.00 a.m, when the grand-daughter of PW 1 viz. CW 9 Shilpa had gone to collect water from the public tap, A-1 scolded her. This incident of scolding was promptly reported by CW 9 Shilpa to PW 1. When PW 1 questioned A-1 about the scolding, A-1 slapped him. On seeing the incident of assault, the relatives of A-1 and PW 1 came to the place of incident. It is further the case of the prosecution that the accused assaulted the prosecution witnesses with deadly weapons. On the other hand, the case of the accused is that PW 1 and his sons picked a quarrel with A-1, A-3 and A-4 and assaulted them. They were treated in the Government Hospital, Nanjangud. Two cases were registered on the basis of the two different first information reports given by PW 1 and the accused. Both the cases were tried together. By his order dated 15-12-2006, the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Courts III, Mysore convicted the appellants and others as stated aforesaid. It appears that in the counter-case filed against some of the prosecution witnesses, the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Courts III, Mysore acquitted all of them of the offences alleged against them. Being aggrieved by the said order of conviction, the appellants and others approached the High Court. By the impugned judgment, the High Court partly allowed the appeal, however, convicted the appellants as aforesaid. Hence, the present appeal is filed by the appellants.

8. We have heard Mr. Sanjay Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Ms. Anita Shenoy, learned counsel for the respondents.

9. Mr. Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the evidence on record shows that it is PW 1, Lakshmana Shetty, who picked a quarrel with the accused and assaulted them. The accused received injuries. In fact, A-2 was in hospital for about 20 days. It is PW l Lakshmana Shetty, who was the aggressor. The counsel submitted that there was no intention to cause grievous hurt as the incident took place due to a sudden fight. The counsel pointed out that A-2 is nearly 70 years of age and is suffering from various ailments. He is in jail for about 7 months. In the circumstances, the sentence already undergone by A-2 may be treated as the sentence for the offence under Section 326 IPC and he may be directed to be released.

10. On the other hand, Ms. Shenoy, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the impugned order does not deserve any interference by this Court.

11. Insofar as appellants, A-1 and A-5 are concerned, we are informed that they have already undergone their sentence and have been released from custody. In any case, their conviction and sentence appears to us to be proper. A-2 is convicted for offence punishable under Section 326 IPC and sentenced to undergo SI for one year. We are informed that he has already undergone about 6 months and 24 days' imprisonment as on 1-8-2014. In this appeal, we are, therefore, basically concerned with the sentence of A-2.

12. It is a fact that the accused are closely related. The accused and the complainant stay in the same locality. In fact, they are neighbours. The incident happened way back in July 1999. The incident arose out of a trivial issue i.e a quarrel over a water tap. In the heat of passion, both sides attacked each other. Admittedly, the accused also received injuries. It is pointed out to us that A-2 was in fact in hospital for about 20 days. A-2 is admittedly nearly 70 years of age. We are informed by Mr. Hegde that he is suffering from various ailments. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, we are of the opinion that the sentence undergone by A-2 should be treated as the sentence for the offence under Section 326 IPC. Hence, the order of conviction of A-2 Huchegowda for the offence under Section 326 IPC is confirmed. However, the sentence imposed on A-2 Huchegowda for the said offence is reduced to the sentence already undergone by him. A-2 Huchegowda is directed to be released forthwith unless otherwise required in any other case provided the fine of Rs. 50,000 imposed on him by the High Court is paid by him.

13. On 4-4-2014, we had directed the appellants to deposit an amount of Rs. 50,000 as litigation expenses in the Fast Track Court I, Mysore. We are informed that on 16-4-2014, the said amount has been deposited with the District and Sessions Judge, Mysore in SC No. 334 of 1999. The complainant, PW 1 Lakshmana Shetty is stated to be dead. We direct that the said amount of Rs. 50,000 be paid as compensation to Venkatesha s/o complainant late Lakshmana Shetty. The District and Sessions Judge, Mysore is directed to issue notice to Mr. Venkatesha s/o late Lakshmana Shetty and inform him that he is entitled to receive the said amount of Rs. 50,000 deposited with it without furnishing security.

14. The appeal is disposed of in the aforestated terms.

Ordered accordingly.