LexVINAY&ORS. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA&ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2015] 5 S.C.R. 424 VINAY&ORS. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA&ANR. (CriminalAppeal No. 644 of2015) APRIL 16, 2015 [T. S. THAKUR AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 326 and 427 rlw. s. 34 - Dispute between two brothers- Five injured eye-witnesses- Injuries also sustained by accused party - Conviction u/ss. 307 and 427 rlw. s.34 by trial court sentencing the accused D for 3 years and 6 months RI respectively - High Court modified the conviction uls. 307 to one u/s. 326 while upholding conviction uls. 427 - The sentence was reduced from 3 years to 3 months and from 6 months to 3 months - On appeal, held: In view of the consistent version of injured E eye-witnesses, supported by medical evidence, conviction upheld - However, in view of the relationship between the parties, nature of injuries, counter a/legations by both the parties and in view of the fact that 13 years have passed since the incident, sentence of 3 months is reduced to the period F already undergone - In addition to the fine imposed by High Court, Rs. 25,0001- imposed as fine with direction to pay the amount to the victims as compensation u/s. 357(1) Cr.P.C. - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- s. 357(1). G Partly allowing the appeal, the Court H HELD: 1. Complainant and his associates have consistently deposed about the incident and the attack on them by the appellants with sickles and the injuries 424 VINAY v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 425 sustained by them. The testimony of the injured A witnesses is also supported by the medical evidence. As the appellants wielded deadly weapons, namely, sickles and talwars and that PWs 1, 3 , 4 and 5 have sustained grievous injuries, the High court rightly convicted the appellants under Section 326 IPC r/w B Section 34 IPC and under Section 427 IPC r/w Section 34 IPC. [Para 8] [430-A-E] 2.1 There was animosity between two factions which led to attack and injuries on both sides. Nature of C injuries on the person of complainant and the complainant party and the accused party suggested that both parties attacked each other and the appellants seem to have exceeded the right of private defence, if 0 any. After the occurrence, more than thirteen years have passed, the complainant party and the accused are entangled in litigation. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and the relationship between the parties, interest of justice would be met by E reducing the sentence and imposing fine. [Para 9] [431- B-Dl 2.2 Sub-section (1) of Section 357 provides power to award compensation to victims of the offence F out of the sentence of fine imposed on accused. The amount of compensation is to be determined by the courts depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case, nature of the offence and the capacity of the accused to pay. Considering the facts and G circumstances of the present case and the nature of the offence, sentence of imprisonment of three months imposed on the appellants is reduced to the period - already undergone by them and also imposing a fine of H 426 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2015] 5 S.C.R. A Rs.25,000/- so as to compensate the injured witnesses in addition to the compensation awarded by the High Court. [Para 1 O] [431-Ei 433-E-G] Harl Singh v. SukhbirSingh & Ors. (1988) 4 SCC 551: B 'I 988 (2) Suppl. SCR 571; Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad vs. State of Maharashtra (2013) 6 SCC 770: 2013 (8) SCR 863 - relied on. 2.3 Out of the fine amount to be deposited by the c appellants-accused, the injured witnesses PWs 1, 3, 4 and 5 who sustained grievous injuries shall be paid compensation of Rs.17,500/- each and PW 2, who suffered simple injuries shall be paid compensation of Rs. 5,000/-. [Para 11] [434-8-C] D Case Law Reference 1988 (2) Suppl. SCR 571 E 2013 (8) SCR 863 relied on. Para 10 relied on. Para 10 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 644 of 2015 From the Judgment and Order dated 30.11.2011 of the F High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench at Dharwad in Criminal Appeal No. 515 of2010 G H R. S. Hegde, Shanti Prasad, Rajeev Singh for the Appellants. V. N. Raghupathy, for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. Leave granted. VINAY v. STATE OF KARNATAKA [R. BANUMATHI, J.] 427 2. This appeal arises out of the judgment dated A 30.11.2011 passed by the High Court of Karantaka, Circuit Bench at Dharwad in Criminal Appeal No.515/2010 mod
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.