CHERIYANDA RAVINDRA @ SUBRAMANI vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59564-DB
CRL.A No. 495 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010073532019




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 27 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.PRAMOD

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 495 OF 2019 (C)

BETWEEN:

CHERIYANDA RAVINDRA
@ SUBRAMANI
S/O. CHERIYANDA NANAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT MALLANGERE KANOOR VILLAGE,
VIRAJPET TALUK,
KODAGU DISTRICT 571 217
…APPELLANT







(BY SRI. M.T. NANAIAH, SENIOR COUNSEL, A/W;
SRI. PRABHUGOUD B TUMBIGI AND;
SRI. BALASUBRAMANYAM, B.N,ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
VIRAJPET SUB DIVISION,
VIRAJPET,
REP BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA.
HIGH COURT BUIDLING,
BANGLAORE 560001
…RESPONDENT

Digitally signed
by
SHARADAVANI
B
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA


(BY SMT.SOWMYA R., HCGP FOR R1;
SMT. YAMINI MUNIRAJ, ADVOCATE FOR COMPLAINANT)

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59564-DB
CRL.A No. 495 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010073532019


THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C TO SET ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED
07.02.2019 AND SENTENCE DATED 06.03.2019 IN
S.C.NO.17/2014 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KODAGU-MADIKERI SITTING AT
VIRAJPET IN FINDING THE APPELLANT GUILTY FOR THE
OFFENCES P/U/S 307 OF IPC AND SEC.3(2)(v) OF SC/ST (POA)
ACT AND ETC.,

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.PRAMOD

ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)

This appeal is preferred against the judgment of
conviction and order on sentence passed by the Court of
Second Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu-
Madikeri, sitting at Virajapet, wherein the appellant-
accused was convicted and sentenced for the offences
punishable under Section 307 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v)

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59564-DB
CRL.A No. 495 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010073532019


of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, "SC/ST
(POA) Act") and Section 30 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959
(for short, "Arms Act"). He has been acquitted of the
offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC.


2. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel
Sri. M T Nanaiah appearing for the appellant-accused,
Smt. Sowmya, learned High Court Government Pleader
appearing for the State and perused the evidence and
material on record.


3. The appellant-accused was charged on four
counts, firstly that on 17.01.2014 at about 11.00 a.m.,
when the victim (PW.1) was plucking coffee seeds in
Sy.No.69/82P of Mallanagere of Kanoor Village, he fired at
her from a SBBL gun and caused grievous injuries to her;
secondly, that he fired the gunshot with an intention to
commit her murder; thirdly, he used the SBBL gun to

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59564-DB
CRL.A No. 495 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010073532019


commit an offence and thereby contravened the terms and
conditions of the gun licence and; lastly that he committed
an offence under the Indian penal code, punishable with
more than 10 years, knowing fully well that the victim
belongs to Scheduled Tribe.


4. The charges were framed against the appellant-
accused for the offences punishable under Sections 326,
307 of IPC, Section 30 of the Arms Act and Section 3(2)(v)
of the SC/ST (POA) Act.

5. Appreciating the oral and documentary
evidence on record, the trial Court held that the
prosecution has established that PW.1-injured sustained
gunshot injuries and there is nothing to disbelieve the
testimony of the prosecution witnesses which establishes
that the accused has committed the offences p/u/s 307 of
IPC, Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act and Section 30 of
Arms Act.

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59564-DB
CRL.A No. 495 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010073532019



6. The defence of the accused was that,
admittedly, there was a civil dispute between the parties
and on the date of incident, PW.2-M T Appaiah, the
husband of injured PW.1-M A Anuja, fired from a gun at
the accused however, PW.1 sustained the gunshot injuries
and therefore, the injuries sustained by PW.1 was not on
account of the gunshots fired by the appellant-accused.

7. Learned Senior Counsel Sri. M T Nanaiah
appearing for the appellant-accused contended that even
before the registration of case against the accused, he had
lodged a complaint with the police and a case was
registered in Crime No.3/2014 against PW.2-Marathi
Appaiah and PW.8-Vasantha. He contended that, the FIR
at Ex.D5 and the complaint averments clearly establishes
that on the very same day i.e., on 17.01.2014 at about
10.15 a.m., both PWs.2 and 8 had trespassed into the
disputed land with an intention to pluck coffee seeds and
PW.2- M T Appaiah fired at the accused and his wife
PW.13-Sajita and also committed theft of coffee seeds

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59564-DB
CRL.A No. 495 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010073532019


valued at Rs.28,000/-. He contended that the prosecution
has suppressed the said incident and without proper
investigation, the police have filed a 'B' Report whereas,
they registered a false case against the accused alleging
that he fired gunshots at PW.1 and caused injuries to her.

8. The learned Senior Counsel further contended
that, according to PW.6, the injuries sustained by PW.1
are superficial and simple in nature, contrary to the Wound
Certificate issued by PW.20. Further, the prosecution has
failed to establish that the injured, i.e., PW.1 is a member
of Scheduled Tribe. Hence, neither the provisions of SC/ST
(POA) Act are attracted nor the prosecution has
established that the accused has committed an offence
under Sections 307 IPC or 326 of IPC.

9. Per contra, the learned HCGP contended that
PW.1 is the injured and she has supported the prosecution
case. Her evidence is further coroborated by the evidence
of PWs.2 to 8 and the medical evidence. She contended

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59564-DB
CRL.A No. 495 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010073532019


that the SBBL gun used in the commission of the offence
was seized and as per ballistic expert's report, the said
SBBL gun was used and three pellets were also removed
from the body of PW.1. She further contended that from
the evidence of PWs.19 and 22 and the documents at
Ex.P16 and Ex.P25, it is evident that PW.1 is a member of
Scheduled Tribe and therefore, the trial Court has rightly
convicted the accused for the offences under Section 307
of IPC, Section 30 of the Arms Act and Section 3(2)(v) of
the SC/ST (POA) Act.

10. The complaint at Ex.P1 is lodged by the injured-
PW.1. A perusal of the complaint averments shows that
the lands of the accused and the complainant are situated
adjacent to each other and there was a long-standing
dispute between them in respect of the coffee estate
situated in Sy.Nos.69/82 and 69/11. On 17.01.2014, at
about 11.00 a.m., when the complainant and others were
plucking coffee seeds, the accused trespassed into the
land and questioned them as to why they were plucking

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59564-DB
CRL.A No. 495 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010073532019


the coffee seeds in the disputed land and then fired at the
complainant. Consequent to which, the complainant
sustained injuries to her right hand, right thigh, back and
left shoulder. She was shifted to Gonikoppa Government
Hospital for treatment, wherein her statement was
recorded by the police, based on which, a case was
registered against the accused.

11. The complainant/injured examined as PW.1 has
supported the case of the prosecution. She has
corroborated the complaint averments. In the cross-
examination, it was suggested to her that on the day of
alleged incident, they were plucking coffee forcibly and her
husband was watching the estate by holding a gun
belonging to CW.7-Vasantha(PW.8). When the accused,
his wife and his father came and questioned them as to
why they are plucking the crop, her husband fired a
gunshot at the accused and by mistake the said gunshot
hit her. The said suggestion was denied by PW.1. The said
suggestion was also made to other witnesses, but, all of

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59564-DB
CRL.A No. 495 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010073532019


them have denied that PW.1 sustained the gunshot
injuries when her husband fired at the accused.

12. The defense has got marked the complaint-
Ex.D3 and the FIR- Ex.D5, registered against PWs.2 and 8.
It is alleged therein that on 17.01.2014 at about 10.15
a.m., when the accused and his wife were proceeding to
the estate, they saw PWs.2 and 8 trespassing into the
disputed land and on seeing the accused and his wife
going towards the land, they fired at them, but they
escaped. It is also alleged that they had committed theft
of about 10 to 15 bags of coffee valued at Rs.28,000/-.

13. It is not in dispute that after investigation, a
B-report was filed in the said case registered against PW.2
and PW.8 in Crime No.3/2014 of Ponnampet Police
Station. It is not the case of the defense that in the said
incident, the accused had sustained injury due to firing by
PW.2.

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59564-DB
CRL.A No. 495 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010073532019



14. The learned Senior Counsel, drawing the
attention of the Court to the evidence of PW.18, contended
that the accused had gone to the police station to lodge
the complaint against PWs.2 and 8 and he was in the
police station by 03.00 p.m. on 17.01.2014. He contended
that even though the accused was in the police station, he
was not arrested but shown to have been arrested on the
following day.

15. PW.2 in the cross-examination has denied the
suggestion that the accused had come to the police station
prior to 17.01.2014, but he was not arrested because the
case in Crime No.3/2014 was not yet registered by that
time. A perusal of the FIR registered against PWs.2 and 8
and the complaint lodged by the accused shows that the
said FIR was registered at about 8.00 pm i.e., subsequent
to registration of the FIR against the accused in Crime
No.2/2014. The Investigating Officer has failed to explain
as to why the accused was not arrested when already a
case was registered against him in Crime No.2/2014 by

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59564-DB
CRL.A No. 495 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010073532019


03.00 p.m. on 17.01.2014. However, that itself is not a
ground to disbelieve the entire case of the prosecution.

16. A SBBL gun-MO.5 belonging to the accused was
seized after his arrest. The said gun and the pellets
removed from the body of PW1 were sent for examination.
The Ballistic expert is examined as PW21. He has deposed
that on 24.01.2014, he received 8 sealed articles, which
were intact and tallied with the sample seal sent by the
I.O. and the Medical Officer. The said articles are as
follows:
Art.No.1 contains one 12 bore SBBL Gun
bearing No.16063 of Sujatha Arms
Manufacturing Co.
Art.No.2 contains one 12 bore fired cartridge
case
Art.No.3 contains two 12 bore cartridges
Art.No.4 contains one old white coloured
tarpol
Art.No.5 contains 7 deformed lead pellets
Art.No.6 contains one cotton nighty
Art.No.7 contains one petticoat

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59564-DB
CRL.A No. 495 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010073532019


Art.No.8 contains 3 deformed lead pellets.


17. PW21 has stated that the cartridge case in
Article No.2 was compared with that of tested cartridges
T.1 to T.3 under the comparison microscope. The clothes
and individual characteristics of firing pin on the cartridge
case on Article No.2 tallied with the tested cartridges.
Hence, opined that the cartridge case in Article No.2 was
fired through SBBL gun in Article No.1. He has further
stated that there are 6 gunshot holes present on front side
of the nighty and same are marked at 6H.1 to H.6.
4 holes present in petty coat (Article No.7), marked at H.1
to H.4. The edges of the holes are swabbed and subjected
to chemical test for the presence of blood with a positive
result. He opined that these holes are caused due to
impact of lead pellets. Further stated that the presence of
gunshot residues were detected on the pellets in Article
No.5 and the pellets in Article Nos.5 and 8 are the
components of 12 bore cartridges which could have been

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59564-DB
CRL.A No. 495 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010073532019


fired through SBBL gun in Article No.1. The effective range
of Article No.1 gun was 40 yards. His opinion is marked as
Ex.P22 and method of examination/reasoning for giving
his opinion is marked as Ex.P23. In the cross examination,
the defence has elicited that PW21 had also issued Ex.D10
opining that Article No.1 in that crime was bearing
discharge and the holes caused in nighty and petticoat
could be caused by any 12 bore gun loaded with the same
size pellets.

18. It is the contention of the learned counsel for
the appellant that Ex.D1 is the opinion furnished by PW21
with regard to the gun which was seized at the instance of
PW2. The said gun belonging to PW8 was also found to be
used. Hence, it was PW2 who fired at the accused, but
PW1 sustained injuries, accidentally.

19. All the witnesses have categorically denied the
suggestion that PW1 sustained gun shot injuries due to the
shots fired by PW2. On the other hand, PW1's evidence
supported by the evidence of PW2 to PW8 and cumulative

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59564-DB
CRL.A No. 495 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010073532019


effect of their evidence establish that the accused fired
from MO5, due to which PW1 sustained injuries.

20. PW1 in her evidence has stated that the
accused pointed the gun at all of them and fired bullets
which hit on her right hand, right thigh and left shoulder.
Even PW2 has stated that the accused fired bullets
towards them and the bullets hit on his wife's right hand,
right thigh, left shoulder and back etc. Admittedly, pellets
were removed from the body of PW1 and not the bullets.
The evidence of the ballistic expert-PW21 would also
confirm that the lead pellets were removed from the body
of PW1.

21. PW26-Doctor attached to K.R.Hospital has
stated that 03 pellets of various sizes of 2-3 mm were
removed. As per Ex.P22, issued by PW21, the deformed
lead pellets in Article No.8 weighed about 0.3259 grams
and weight of the single deformed pellet was 0.108 grams.
Neither PW20, the doctor who administered first aid to

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59564-DB
CRL.A No. 495 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010073532019


PW1 at Gonikoppa Government Hospital nor PW26, the
doctor who treated PW1 at K.R. Hospital have stated that
the injuries sustained by PW1 was life threatening. Even
though PW20, who issued the wound certificate-Ex.P21
opined that the injuries are grievous in nature, he has
stated that 03 superficial pellets were removed. In the
cross examination, he has admitted that he did not
examine the depth of injuries. He gave first aid treatment
and referred the injured to higher hospital. According to
him, any gunshot injury will be grievous in nature, but
admitted that in case of grievous injuries, there will be
fracture, dislocation or skin deep injuries. He has stated
that, superficial injury will not be grievous injury,
according to medical term. Further stated that, just
because the injuries mentioned in Ex.P21 were gunshot
injuries, he opined that those are grievous in nature.

22. From the above evidence of PW20, it is evident
that only because the injuries were caused by gun shot,
he opined in Ex.P21 that those injuries were grievous in

- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59564-DB
CRL.A No. 495 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010073532019


nature. He did not examine the depth of injury. He
administered only first aid and referred the injured to the
higher hospital.

23. PW26 is the doctor who examined the injured-
PW1 and removed the pellets from her body. He has
stated that the pellets of various sizes of 2-3 mm were
removed. He admitted in the cross examination that the
injuries were superficial injuries and all the injuries were
simple in nature. As already stated, neither PW20 nor
PW26 have stated that the injuries sustained by PW1 were
life threatening injuries. It is not established that the
pellets used to fire were sufficient to cause the death of a
person. The prosecution has also not established the exact
distance from which the accused fired the gunshot. As we
find from the evidence of PW1, she saw the accused from
a distance of about 60 to 65 feet away, but at another
stretch she has stated that the accused fired the gunshot
from a height of about 150 feet. As per Ex.P22, the
opinion of the ballistic expert, the effective range of SBBL

- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59564-DB
CRL.A No. 495 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010073532019


gun in Article No.1 is about 40 yards (120 feet). Hence, it
cannot be held that the accused had fired at PW1 from his
SBBL gun, with an intention to commit murder.
Admittedly, pellets were used and there is no evidence to
show that they were sufficient to cause the death of a
person. It is also not established that PW1 had sustained
grievous injury. However, from the evidence of PW26, it
can be safely held that PW1 sustained simple injuries
caused by pellets fired at her by the accused from a SBBL
gun and therefore, the accused is liable to be convicted for
an offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC.

24. In view of our finding that the accused has
committed an offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC
and not under Section 307 of IPC, applicability of Section
3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, will not
arise.

- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59564-DB
CRL.A No. 495 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010073532019



25. The finding recorded by the trial Court to
convict the accused for the offence punishable under
Section 30 of the Arms Act, calls for no interference.

26. It is submitted that the accused was arrested
on 18.01.2014 and before he was granted bail, he was
under incarceration for a period of 219 days during
pre-trial and post-conviction. He has no criminal
antecedents. No untoward incident has taken place,
subsequent to the incident in question. Hence, in the facts
and circumstances of the case, the period of imprisonment
undergone by the accused can be held to be sufficient
sentence, with imposition of appropriate fine, which would
meet the ends of justice.

27. In view of the above discussions and for the
foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i. Criminal Appeal is Partly allowed.

- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59564-DB
CRL.A No. 495 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010073532019


ii. The Judgment dated 07.02.2019 and the Order
on Sentence dated 06.03.2019 passed by the Court of II
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu-Madikeri,
Sitting at Virajpet in Special Case No.17/2014, insofar as
convicting the accused/appellant for the offence
punishable under Section 307 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v)
of SC/ST (POA) Act, are set aside.
iii. Accused is convicted for the offence punishable
under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced to imprisonment
for the period already undergone by him.
iv. The conviction and sentence passed against the
accused for the offence under Section 30 of the Arms Act
is confirmed. The sentence shall run concurrently.
v. Accused shall pay a fine of Rs.3,00,000/-
(Rupees three lakhs only). In default of payment of fine,
he shall undergo imprisonment for a period of 6 months.
vi. The fine amount shall be deposited before the
trial Court within a period of 3 months and on deposit, the

- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59564-DB
CRL.A No. 495 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010073532019


entire amount shall be released in favour of PW1-injured,
as compensation, on due identification.

Sd/-
(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)
JUDGE


Sd/-
(B.PRAMOD)
JUDGE




BSV/TL
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9