RAVI RANA SINGH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application in I.A.No.1/2018 is filed by the accused/appellant seeking suspension of sentence dated 14.12.2018 passed in S.C.No.377/2012 on the file of the Hon'ble LXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City and consequently release him on bail on such terms and conditions.

(2.) The appellant is the sole accused in SC No.377/2012 on the file of the LXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City, having been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part I of IPC and sentenced to undergo 10 years of imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for five months and for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC the appellant was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month, vide judgment dated 12.12.2018.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant contended that PW.6-Aparna and the accused/appellant, Ravi Rana Singh, studied together in the National Institute of Fashion Technology, Bengaluru and became well-known to each other. PW.6-Aparna was residing in a house at HSR layout, 2nd Sector, Bengaluru. The accused visited the house of PW.6 on 16.10.2011, while the painting work was in progress, he found one Koushik present in her house. Therefore, some quarrel took place between the accused, PW.6 and the deceased. At that time, the accused is said to have stabbed the deceased who succumbed to the injuries. The accused also sustained injuries in the quarrel and he was admitted in the same hospital where PW.6 was admitted and took treatment. Even though the accused lodged a complaint to the Police, his complaint was not registered by the Police and the same was suppressed. Even though he was treated for more than a month, the injuries found on the accused were suppressed by the prosecution. Therefore, the genesis and origin of the offence has been suppressed by the prosecution. Hence, the benefit of doubt shall have to be extended. Though the accused admitted the incident and had taken the plea of private defence, he got marked more than 30 documents, which were not properly appreciated by the Court below, but stated that the accused exceeded the right of private defence, which is not correct. The evidence of PW.6 has not been properly appreciated even though she knows the accused/appellant, but when she was admitted to the hospital, she has stated that some unknown person assaulted. The neighbours were there, but she has intimated that some unknown person assaulted the deceased. These aspects were not properly considered. Therefore, the accused/appellant is having a good ground for acquittal and prayed for suspension of sentence.