Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 641 (KAR)

Murali v. State

2010-05-26

ARALI NAGARAJ

body2010
JUDGMENT Arali Nagaraj , J.—The appellant herein was the accused in S.C.No. 627/2002, on the file of the learned Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City (hereinafter referred to as Trial Court for short). 2. He was charge sheeted for the offence under Section 304 part II of I.P.C. On appreciation of the oral evidence of PWs-1 to 13 and the documents at Exs.P-1 to 13 and also M.O Nos.1 to 5 placed on record by the prosecution, the Trial Court, by its Impugned Judgment and Order dated 31.12.2003, convicted the appellant-accused for the offences punishable under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- on default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. 3. Sri. N.R.Naik, the learned counsel for the appellant-accused fairly submits that while confirming the impugned judgment and order insofar as it relates to conviction of the appellant-accused for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC, the sentence of imprisonment may be reduced from six months to 53 days during which period he was in judicial custody during the Trial of this case. Sri. Vijay Kumar Majage, the learned High Court Government Pleader submits that if the sentence of imprisonment to be reduced, sentence of fine has to be increased proportionately to meet the ends of justice. 4. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant - accused and the High Court Government Pleader and, after going through the entire judgment and other materials on record, I am of the considered opinion that the Trial Court was justified in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC. However the offence under Section 323 of IPC is punishable with maximum sentence of imprisonment for one year or with fine which may extend to Rupees One Thousand or with both. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that ends of justice will be met with, if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period of 53 days during which the appellant - accused was in judicial custody, during the trial of this case and sentence of fine is enhanced from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 1,000/-. Hence the following, ORDER The present appeal is allowed in part. 500/- to Rs. 1,000/-. Hence the following, ORDER The present appeal is allowed in part. While confirming the impugned judgment and order passed by the Trial Court insofar as it relates to conviction of the appellant - accused punishable under Section 323 of IPC, sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months imposed by the Trial Court is hereby reduced to a period of 53 days during which period the appellant - accused was in judicial custody, during the trial of this case and sentence of fine is enhanced from Rs.500/- to Rs.1,000/-. The entire fine amount shall be paid to PW-5 Sujauddin, the son of the deceased Syed Chotiba. The enhanced fine amount shall be deposited by the appellant-accused before the Trial Court within four weeks from today. 6. Appeal partly allowed.