The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6486 CRL.RP No. 742 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.742 OF 2016 BETWEEN: SURESHA S/O PINNAIAH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/A MUKKADAHALLY VILLAGE, HARAVE HOBLI, CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK & DISTRICT-571301 …PETITIONER Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (BY SMT. KALPANA P V, AMICUS CURIAE V/O DT.30.01.2025) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY RURAL POLICE STATION, CHAMARAJANAGARA REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR-571301 …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. PUSHPALATHA B, ASPP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 & 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6486 CRL.RP No. 742 of 2016 CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AND FINE DATED 28.03.2012 PASSED IN C.C.NO.35/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR. DN.) AND CJM, CHAMARAJANAGAR AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. This petition is filed against the order of conviction and sentence in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 326 of IPC against
Legal Reasoning
accused No.1/petitioner wherein the Trial Court sentenced the petitioner to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC in default to pay fine amount, shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months and in respect of offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC is concerned, imposed fine of Rs.5,000/- and simple imprisonment for two months and in default of - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6486 CRL.RP No. 742 of 2016 payment of fine amount, shall undergo for simple imprisonment for nine months and the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.47/2012 filed by the State, sentence for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC is enhanced to two years instead of two months and upheld the fine of Rs.5,000/- against accused No.1. 3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution that on 19.10.2009 at about 9.30 p.m., when the victim was attending the nature call, at that time, accused No.1/petitioner came and abused in a filthy language and picked up a quarrel with the victim and kicked to his leg, as a result, he fell down and at that time, accused No.1 assaulted with the stone on the hip of victim, as a result, he sustained fracture on hip and he was inpatient and took the treatment. Based on the complaint, the police have investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet against this petitioner along with other persons. The Trial Court considering the evidence of PW1 who is an injured, PW9 - doctor as well as other - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6486 CRL.RP No. 742 of 2016 witnesses and taking into note of material on record, convicted this petitioner in respect of offence punishable under Sections 323 and 326 of IPC. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was preferred by the State before the First Appellate Court and the First Appellate Court confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court and sentence in respect of offence under Section 326 of IPC is enhanced to two years against two months. 4. The main contention of the learned Amicus Curiae who appears before the petitioner before this Court is that both the Courts have committed an error in appreciating the material on record. The Amicus Curiae would vehemently contend that the injured witness evidence is alone in the case on hand and further submits that though PW1 says that CW4, CW6 and CW8 witnessed the incident, all of them deposed that they came to the spot after hearing the hue and cry and they have witnessed the incident and doctor evidence is also very clear that if any person falls on the hard surface, this type - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6486 CRL.RP No. 742 of 2016 of injury will be caused and the very defence of the petitioner is also that while running away from the spot, he fell down and sustained injuries and the said defence is probable defence that while running from the spot, he fell down and sustained injuries and not assaulted him. Hence, this Court has to set aside the judgments of both the Courts. 5. Per contra, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the State would submit that P.W.1 is the injured witness. The prosecution relied upon other witness and particularly P.W.9, who deposed before the Court that injured came at around 10.30 p.m. in connection with assault and he had sustained injury on the right hip and he was admitted to the hospital and x-ray was taken and in terms of x-ray, superior pubic rami was fractured, but no dislocation. Injury No.1 is grievous in nature and injury No.2 is simple in nature and issued wound certificate in terms of Ex.P4. In the cross-examination, it is elicited that injuries are grievous in nature and also - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6486 CRL.RP No. 742 of 2016 suggestion was made that, if any person falls on the hard surface i.e., on the stone, he may sustain injuries like Ex.P4 and the same is admitted. She would also submit that injured P.W.1 is an eye witness and he is also an neighboring witness and evidence of C.W.1 disclose that accused only assaulted him. Hence, they sent him to the hospital. He turned hostile and suggestion was made that when C.W.1 fell down, at that time, accused had assaulted with stone and the evidence of P.W.1 as well as P.W.10 coupled with the evidence of P.W.9-Doctor is clear that he sustained injury on account of assault. Though P.W.1 says that P.W.8 is also an eye witness, he did not support the case of the prosecution. She also submits that the Trial Court rightly convicted the accused and the First Appellate Court having considered the nature of injury, since the sentence not commensurate with the gravity of the injuries enhanced the sentence. Hence, it does not require any interference. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:6486 CRL.RP No. 742 of 2016 6. Having heard learned Amicus Curie for the petitioner and learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State, the points that would arise for consideration of this Court are: (i) Whether both the Courts committed an error in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 323 and 326 of IPC and whether the First Appellate Court committed an error in sentencing him for a period of two years and whether it requires interference of this Court? (ii) What order? Point No.(i) 7. Having heard learned Amicus Curie for the petitioner and learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State and considering the material on record, as per Ex.P1-complaint, incident has taken place at 9.30 p.m. Having considered the evidence of P.W.1, he says that accused No.1 kicked him, as a result, he fell - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:6486 CRL.RP No. 742 of 2016 down and he took the stone and assaulted with the same which is marked as M.O.1 and accused Nos.2 to 4, who came to spot at that time abused him in a filthy language and instigated accused No.1 and this incident was witnessed by C.Ws.5, 6 and 8 and they pacified galata and thereafter, his parents and his wife took him to police station and the police advised him to take him to the hospital. In the cross-examination, he categorically admits that at the time of incident, his family members were inside the house and Basavaraju and Nagaiah are neighborers. 8. The other witness is P.W.10 and having considered his evidence, he says that he came to know the incident of assault with stone through C.W.1. But in the cross-examination, when he was treated as hostile, he says that when C.W.1 fell down, at that time, the accused No.1 assaulted him with stone. He denies the suggestion that no galata has taken place between the accused and - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:6486 CRL.RP No. 742 of 2016 the complainant and nothing is elicited in the cross- examination of P.W.10 that he was present at the spot. 9. P.W.9 is the Doctor, who says that within a span of one hour of the incident, the injured was brought to the hospital at around 10.30 p.m. and he treated him and found injury on the right gluteal region and he was having pain. Hence, he was referred to the Doctor for x- ray and x-ray report says that he had sustained fracture of superior pubic rami, but there was no dislocation. No doubt, suggestion was made that, if any person falls on the hard surface i.e., on the stone, the nature of injuries mentioned in Ex.P4 would be caused, the same was admitted . But, the fact is that when the incident has taken place at 9.30 p.m., immediately he went to the police station and police advised to take him to the hospital and immediately, he was taken to the hospital within a span of one hour of the incident and he gave the history in the hospital that accused No.1 assaulted him. No doubt, there is a variance in the evidence of other - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:6486 CRL.RP No. 742 of 2016 witness, C.W.10 says that he found that he was lying at the spot, when he went to the spot. But, the Court has to take note of the nature of injuries. 10. It is also important to note that the family of the complainant and the accused were not in good terms and there was animosity and the same has also emerged during the course of evidence and motive of committing
Legal Reasoning
the assault is also that they were not in cordial terms. When such being the material on record i.e., the evidence of P.Ws.1 and P.W.10 and also medical evidence, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court and confirmation of the same by the First Appellate Court regarding conviction and sentence is concerned. 11. With regard to the sentence is concerned, the same is modified by the First Appellate Court enhancing it for a period of two years. While enhancing the same, the First Appellate Court has given the reason that offence - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:6486 CRL.RP No. 742 of 2016 under Section 326 IPC is punishable with life imprisonment or 10 years and fine and Trial Court has convicted accused No.1 and sentenced him to undergo only two months imprisonment and the same has to be enhanced. The Trial Court taking note of the fact that superior pubic rami of the P.W.1 was fractured due to the assault made by the accused with stone, enhanced the sentence for a period of two years. Having considered the reasoning of the First Appellate Court and also the material on record, the wound certificate which is marked as Ex.P4 only specify regarding the nature of injuries. The injured went to the hospital at 10.30 p.m., but for how long he was treated as inpatient in the hospital, nothing is mentioned and also on perusal of evidence of P.W.9-Doctor also, except stating that he was treated as inpatient, he has not stated as to for how long he was treated and there no medical records before the Court to that effect. 12. No doubt, there is a fracture, there is no dislocation and the same is evident from the evidence of - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:6486 CRL.RP No. 742 of 2016 P.W.9-Doctor. Having taken note of the nature of injury i.e., fracture that too, the accused No.1 assaulted with stone, it is the specific case also that when he kicked the accused No.1, at that time, he suddenly took stone at the spot and assaulted with stone and accused also not carried the same and took the stone which was lying at the spot and assaulted with the same and there was no intention to cause such injury, however P.W.1 has sustained a fracture. Hence, taking note of said fact into consideration, it is appropriate to reduce the sentence from two years to six months, since they are neighborers and they were not in cordial terms and galata has taken place and incident has taken place in the year 2009. However, the fine amount is enhanced from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.50,000/-. Point No.(ii) 13. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the following: - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:6486 CRL.RP No. 742 of 2016
Decision
ORDER (i) The criminal revision petition is allowed in part. (ii) The sentence imposed by the First Appellate Court for a period of two years is reduced to six months as observed above, subject to enhancement of fine amount from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.50,000/-. Out of the fine amount of Rs.50,000/-, Rs.40,000/- is ordered to be payable to the P.W.1 and the remaining amount of Rs.10,000/- shall vest with the State. (iii) The Registry is directed to pay the fee of Rs.5,000/- to the Amicus Curie, who appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN/ST