Parshuram Patil Vs. State of Karnataka

Parshuram Patil vs State of Karnataka

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Decided Feb 01, 2010

~5 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/842574

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/842574
Court: Karnataka High Court
Judge: Arali Nagaraj, J.
Decided On: Feb 01, 2010
Case Number: Criminal Revision Petition No. 2251 of 2009
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- CRIMINAL PROCDURE CODE, 1973 - SECTIONS 374 AND 372(2) - Judgment of conviction - Order of Sentence - Appealed against - Homicidal death of the deceased Acharya amounting to murder due to compression of mouth, nostrils and neck - P.W.2 Narasimhan heing in a disoriented condition with injuries tied to a chair - Inc...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Acts & sections: Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 279, 304A and 337

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Parshuram Patil

Advocate G.A. Holeyannavar, Adv.

Respondent

State of Karnataka

Advocate P.H. Gotkhindi, High Court Government Pleader

Legal References

Acts: Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 279, 304A and 337
Reported In: 2010(2)KCCR813

Excerpt

.....evidence consistent with the guilt of the accused - expert evidence indicating presence of accused no.2 at the scene of offence - plea of alibi set up by the accused no.1 - proof of guilt of the accused by the circumstantial evidence - factum of presence of accused no.1 to 3 on the spot of the incidence, at the time of incident in room no.523 of the hotel ashoka on 7-5-2001 with the common intention to commit the offences alleged by the prosecution - held, plea of alibi must be proved with absolute certainty completely excluding the possibility of presence of the accused ] concerned at the place of occurrence. - the plea of ability taken by the accused needs to be considered only when the burden which lies on the prosecution has been 1 discharged satisfactorily. while weighing the prosecution case and the defence pitted against each other, if the balance tilts in favour of the accused, the prosecution would fail and the accused would be entitled to benefit of that reasonable doubt which would emerge in the mind of the court. - further held, the inconsistent pleas of the defence would help the accused only as an additional circumstance if other circumstances point out to the guilt of the accused. in other words, the falsity in the case of defence cannot be equated with proof of facts alleged by the prosecution. however, in a case of circumstantial evidence, the falsity of defence would assist the prosecution indicating the guilt of the accused. the prosecution is placing reliance on the independent witnesses and not depending upon the falsity of the defence as the burden of proof rests on the prosecution. - on facts, held, p.w.2 is the injured witness. according to him, accused no.1 took him to room no.523. accused nos. 2 & 3 were present in the room. this p.w.2 was discharged from the hospital on 16.5.2001. his statement was recorded only on 4.6.2001. the evidence of doctor who treated him would indicate he did not completely get over his problem at..........as to conviction of the accused for the offence under section 279 of ipc. while submitting so, he further contends that, the trial court was not justified in convicting the accused for the offence under section 304-a of ipc in view of undisputed fact that though the accident occurred on 5/1/2006 at about 08-30 a.m., the deceased died on 12/1/2006 i.e., seven days after the occurrence of the said accident and there is no material on record to show that the death was due to the very same injuries sustained by victim boy as a result of the said accident.5. per contra, sri p.h. gotkhindi, the learned high court government pleader strongly contends that, the factum of accident occurred on the date, time and place as alleged in the charge framed against the accused has been found to have been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and the findings of the trial court as well as appellate court that the said accident was due to rash and negligent driving of his vehicle by the accused is nut in dispute and therefore the trial court was justified in convicting the accused for the offence under section 304-a of ipc also.6. pw.9, the father of the deceased boy, has only stated in his evidence that, his deceased son sustained some injuries to his head as a result of the said accident and that he died on 12/1/2006 while he was under treatment. the prosecution has not chosen to produce the wound certificate to show the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased in the said accident.7. the post mortem examination report which is marked as ex.p.7 only reveals that the death of the deceased was due to injuries sustained by him to his head. therefore, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner-accused, the prosecution has failed to establish that the deceased succumbed to the very injuries which he sustained as a result of the said accident. therefore i am of the opinion that the conviction of the revision petitioner-accused for the.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

Arali Nagaraj, J.

1. The accused in C.C. No. 141/2006 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge (Senior Dn.) and CJM, Dharwad, has challenged in this revision the correctness of the impugned Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence dated 25/1/2002 passed in the said case convicting him for the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay fine of Rs. 400/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for another period of 15 days for the offence under Section 279 of IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default sentence of simple imprisonment for a further period of one month for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC.

2. Further, the revision petitioner-accused has also challenged in this revision the correctness of the Judgment and Order dated 1/9/2009 passed in Crl.A. No. 31/2008 by the learned Prl. Sessions Judge, Dharwad, dismissing the said appeal and confirming the conviction of the accused for the said offences.

3. Heard the arguments of Sri G.A. Holeyannavar, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner-accused and Sri P.H. Gotkhindi, the learned High Court Government Pleader. Perused both the Judgments and also entire material on record obtained from the Trial Court.

4. At the outset, Sri G.A. Holeyannavar, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner-accused submits that, though several grounds are urged in the revision petition challenging the correctness of both the Judgments, he does not dispute the findings recorded by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court as to conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 279 of IPC. While submitting so, he further contends that, the Trial Court was not justified in convicting the accused for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC in view of undisputed fact that though the accident occurred on 5/1/2006 at about 08-30 a.m., the deceased died on 12/1/2006 i.e., seven days after the occurrence of the said accident and there is no material on record to show that the death was due to the very same injuries sustained by victim boy as a result of the said accident.

5. Per contra, Sri P.H. Gotkhindi, the learned High Court Government Pleader strongly contends that, the factum of accident occurred on the date, time and place as alleged in the charge framed against the accused has been found to have been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and the findings of the Trial Court as well as Appellate Court that the said accident was due to rash and negligent driving of his vehicle by the accused is nut in dispute and therefore the Trial Court was justified in convicting the accused for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC also.

6. PW.9, the father of the deceased boy, has only stated in his evidence that, his deceased son sustained some injuries to his head as a result of the said accident and that he died on 12/1/2006 while he was under treatment. The prosecution has not chosen to produce the wound certificate to show the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased in the said accident.

7. The post mortem examination report which is marked as Ex.P.7 only reveals that the death of the deceased was due to injuries sustained by him to his head. Therefore, as rightly submitted by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner-accused, the prosecution has failed to establish that the deceased succumbed to the very injuries which he sustained as a result of the said accident. Therefore I am of the opinion that the conviction of the revision petitioner-accused for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC cannot be sustained. However, since the fact that the deceased sustained some injuries to his head is not in dispute, the conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC deserves to be altered to the one under Section 337 of IPC.

8. For the reasons aforesaid, the present appeal is allowed in part. The conviction of the revision petitioner-accused for the offence under Section 279 of IPC and also the sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of one month imposed on him for the said offence along with the sentence of fine of Rs. 400/- with the default sentence of simple imprisonment for a further period of 15 days is hereby confirmed.

However, the conviction of the revision petitioner-accused for the offence under Section 304A of IPC is hereby altered to the one under Section 337 of IPC. Accordingly he is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. Both the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.

Further, the revision petitioner-accused shall pay to PW.9 Shankar Ramachandrappa Guroji, the resident of Kalaghatagi, the father of the deceased boy, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation. If this amount is not deposited with the Trial Court by the accused within eight weeks from today, the Trial Court shall recover the same and pay to PW 9.

The revision petitioner-accused shall surrender to the custody of the Trial Court for receiving sentence of imprisonment.

A copy of this order shall be sent forthwith to the Trial Court for information and compliance.

Same Court & Year Karnataka · 2010 Same Parties Parshuram Patil vs State of Karnataka Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Arali Nagaraj, J. Acts & Sections Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 279, 304A and 337

Criminal