Siddarama And Ors vs State Of Karnataka

Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

In the meantime, Puttaswamy (P.W.4), who had returned to the place after purchasing tickets and Niruvanigouda (P.W.3) and Jayabharathi (P.W.1), who had come in the said train, which had arrived by that time at the railway station, saw the incident. When Nirvanegouda (P.W.3) and Puttaswamy (P.W.4) attempted to go near the accused to rescue Kumara, they were threatened by the accused. In the meantime, the train had left the railway station and the accused left the place and ran away. Kumara was grievously injured. Leaving others to look after Kumara, Puttaswamy took the child and went to his village to inform Kumara's father-in-law - Rajegowda (P.W.5). Karthikeyan, Railway Station Master (P.W.17), who had by then come to know of the assault, came to the spot. When Rajegowda and Annegouda assured him that they would shift the injured to the hospital and also inform the police, he returned to the office. In a tempo, the injured was shifted to Bherya Clinic. Since there was no sufficient facility to treat the injured, he was shifted to K.R. Nagar hospital. There, they were advised to take the injured to K.R. Hospital, Mysore and, therefore, the injured was taken there. Dr. B. Suhasini, Assistant Surgeon in K.R. Hospital (P.W.18) examined Kumara at about 12 noon and gave treatment. In the meantime, Kuchela Shetty who was the S.H.O. (P.W.13) of Saligrama Police Station had come to the hospital. He could not take the statement of Kumara, since Kumara was undergoing emergency treatment. Immediately after the treatment, at about 4.00 p.m. P.W.13 recorded the statement of Kumara. On the basis of the same, D.V. Suresh (P.W.16), who was P.S.I. of Saligrama Police Station (P.W.16) registered a case in Crime No.14/1990 and forwarded the FIR to the jurisdictional Magistrate. He went to the spot and conducted spot mahazar as per Ex.P5. He also took steps to apprehend the accused who were found absconding. The accused Nos.1 to 4 were arrested on 19.7.1990 and on the voluntary information furnished by them, choppers allegedly used by the accused for assault were recovered. The accused Nos.5 and 6 were arrested on 28.7.1990 and accused No.7 was arrested on 27.3.1991. Other accused were found absconding. Despite treatment, Kumara's left leg could not be saved and it had to be amputated in view of the grangrene that had set in by that time. After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against all the accused showing the accused No.11 absconding. Later accused No.11 Ramakrishna was arrested and a separate case registered against him was also tried along with S.C.No. 109/1990.

Accused persons pleaded not guilty. In order to establish the accusations, 20 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. PWs 1 and 3 are the eye witnesses and PW7 was the injured. PWs 2, 5, 9 and 17 went to the place of incidence immediately after the occurrence. PW5 was examined to prove the motive. PW 18 was the doctor who examined the injured. The accused persons pleaded innocence and in their examination in terms of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Cr.PC'), false accusations were pleaded. Accused no.11 examined himself as DW1 to establish the plea of alibi.

The convicted accused persons filed an appeal (Criminal Appeal No.888/2000) while the State of Karnataka filed Criminal Appeal No.12/2001 for enhancement of sentence and to set aside the acquittal. By the impugned judgment the High Court allowed both the appeals in part. While maintaining the conviction and sentence imposed in respect of the offence relatable to Section 143, 147 and 341 read with Section 149 IPC and the consequential sentence the conviction in terms of Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC was altered to Section 326 read with Section 149 IPC and the sentence of 8 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- was thought to be appropriate. But the High Court did not interfere with the acquittal of the accused persons as done by the trial Court.

Considering the background facts it would be appropriate to reduce the custodial sentence to five years but enhance the fine in respect of each appellant to Rs.20,000/-. In case the fine amount is not deposited within two months, the default custodial sentence would be two years. In case the amount is deposited, 3/4th of the amount deposited shall be paid to the victim PW-7 within one month of the deposit.

With the above modification of sentence, the appeal is dismissed.