The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3650 CRL.RP No. 1263 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1263 OF 2016 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. CHIKKAHANUMANTHAIAH @ KURUDA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, S/O CHIKKAHANUMANTHAIAH. 2. SRI. LOKESH, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, S/O CHIKKAHANUMANTHAIAH. BOTH ARE RESIDING AT BILLAKEMPANAHALLI, BIDADI, RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT-562 109. (BY SRI. ABHINAV R., ADVOCATE – THROUGH V.C.) …PETITIONERS AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY BIDADI POLICE, RAMANAGARA-562 109, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22.08.2016 PASSED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.22/2015 BY THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA AND JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 14.08.2015 PASSED BY Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3650 CRL.RP No. 1263 of 2016 AND CIVIL JUDGE IN PRL. C.C.NO.709/2011 IN SO FAR AS CONVICTING THE PETITIONERS FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 324 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC AND ACQUIT THEM OF THE SAID OFFENCE BY ALLOWING THE PRESENT PETITION. RAMANAGARA JMFC, 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 for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent State. 2. This criminal revision petition is filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence for the offence punishable
Legal Reasoning
under Section 324 of IPC. Though the Trial Court convicted the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 324, 341, 504, 506B read with Section 149 of IPC, the same is modified by the Appellate Court acquitting them for other offences and confirmed the same for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC. 3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution before the Trial Court is that on 29.04.2011 at about 7.10 a.m. near the complainant’s house situated at Billakempanahalli Village, all the accused with common object to commit the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3650 CRL.RP No. 1263 of 2016 offences indulged in quarrel with the complainant in connection with usage of 8 feet road and out of them, Chikkahanumanthaiah @ Kuruda assaulted the complainant with rod and Lokesh assaulted the complainant with wooden stick. Padma, Saroja and Rathnamma attempted to pour acid on the complainant’s wife by name Muthamma and son by name Rudraiah. All the accused abused the complainant in a filthy language and accused No.3 Narasimhaiah and accused No.4 Harish caused threat to the complainant with dire consequences by showing the sickle. When the accused were assaulting the complainant’s wife, Narasimhaiah, Ramanna and Thammaiah intervened and subsided the quarrel. In view of the said incident, the complaint was lodged and crime was registered in Crime No.260/2011 and the police investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 324, 341, 354, 504, 506B read with Section 149 of IPC. The accused persons were secured and they did not plead guilty and hence trial was made by the prosecution and P.W.1 to P.W.9 are examined and Exs.P.1 to 4 and M.O.1 and M.O.2 are marked and 313 statement of the accused was recorded and accused did not plead any defence evidence. The Trial Court having considered the material on record, convicted all the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3650 CRL.RP No. 1263 of 2016 accused for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 324, 341, 504 and 506B read with 149 of IPC and acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 354 read with 149 of IPC. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal is filed and the Appellate Court on re-appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, acquitted all the accused persons for other offences and only confirmed the sentence against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Sections 324 read with 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and fine of Rs.5,000/- each. In default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. 5. The State has not filed any appeal against the acquittal order passed by Appellate Court. Accused Nos.1 and 2 have filed this revision petition before this Court challenging the conviction for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with 34 of IPC. 6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the complaint is dated 29.04.2011 and the same was lodged at 10.00 a.m., though allegedly the incident - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3650 CRL.RP No. 1263 of 2016 was taken place at 7.10 a.m. The learned counsel would contend that there are no any independent witnesses. The
Legal Reasoning
learned counsel contend that P.W.7 is the recovery witness and he says that the police have not seized the rod and club, but the witnesses have given the same. The learned counsel contend that the material clearly discloses that there was a dispute between the parties with regard to usage of passage of 8 feet. The learned counsel contend that the complainant has converted the civil dispute as criminal case. The evidence of P.W.2 is that the incident took place at night and P.W.3 also deposed to the same effect. There are several inconsistencies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, particularly P.Ws.1, 4 and 5. These inconsistencies are material and enure to the benefit of the petitioners for extending the benefit of doubt in favour of the petitioners. In addition thereto, there are huge contradictions in relation to assault on P.W.1 by using the rod and seizure of the same. The learned counsel contend that the prosecution has failed to prove that the three injuries that are stated to be found on P.W.1 as mentioned in Ex.P.3 wound certificate was result of assault by using M.O.1 by the petitioners. The learned counsel contend that the very appreciation of the evidence by the Appellate Court as against - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:3650 CRL.RP No. 1263 of 2016 this revision petitioners is contrary to material on record and both of them are innocent and in the absence of any sufficient evidence, convicting and sentencing is erroneous and it requires interference of this Court and to acquit accused Nos.1 and 2 since there are no corroboration to each other. 7. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that the Court has to take note of the injuries sustained by P.W.1. The learned counsel contend that the evidence of injured is the best witness and he categorically deposes that accused Nos.1 and 2 assaulted him with iron rod and club. The wound certificate corroborates with the evidence of P.W.1 and other witnesses P.W.2 and P.W.3. It is the specific case that accused No.1 assaulted with M.O.1 and accused No.2 assaulted M.O.2. P.W.3 is the wife of P.W.1, who was also present at the time of the incident. P.Ws.1 to 3 are the eye witnesses and P.W.4 and P.W.5 are the recovery witnesses and they have also clearly deposed before the Court regarding the case of the prosecution. P.W.6 is an independent witness. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that there was a dispute between the parties with regard to passage and the same is admitted by the petitioners and the evidence of P.W.8 and P.W.9, who are the investigating witnesses, corroborates with - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:3650 CRL.RP No. 1263 of 2016 the prosecution witnesses. The case of the petitioners is total denial and nothing is explained with regard to the injuries sustained by P.W.1. The evidence of P.W.8 doctor is clear that P.W.1 had sustained injuries, even though no fracture, but assault was made with the rod and club. The learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court the wound certificate Ex.P.3, which clearly discloses that there was tenderness over the lower back, abrasions over the front of the left chest measuring 3 x 1 cm. and 1½ x 1 cm. fresh injury, tenderness over the front of the chest and patient was referred to x-ray of the lower back and chest and x-ray shows no evidence of any fracture, injuries 1 to 3 are simple in nature. The evidence of P.W.8 doctor discloses that these injuries could be caused by usage of rod and club. Hence, there is a clear evidence against the petitioners that both of them assaulted P.W.1 and there are no inconsistencies as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners and all of them have categorically deposed with regard to the date of incident as well as timings as 7.10 a.m. and the complaint was lodged immediately and there are no contradictions as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:3650 CRL.RP No. 1263 of 2016 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader and having perused the material available on record, the points that arise for the consideration of this Court are: (i) Whether the First Appellate Court committed an error in convicting and sentencing the revision petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 324 read with 34 of IPC and whether it requires interference of this Court by exercising the revisional jurisdiction? (ii) What order? Point No.1: 9. Having perused the material on record, it is not in dispute that the incident was taken place on 29.04.2011 at 7.10 a.m. in front of the house of the complainant. The case of the petitioners is total denial that no such incident was taken place and they have been falsely implicated in the case since there was a civil dispute between the parties with regard to the usage of 8 feet passage. Having perused the case of the prosecution and also the defence, it is not in dispute that there was a civil dispute with regard to the usage of 8 feet of passage. The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that civil dispute is converted as criminal case with an intention to punish - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:3650 CRL.RP No. 1263 of 2016 the petitioners. It is important to note that P.W.1 is the injured witness and he specifically says that accused No.1 assaulted him with rod and accused No.2 assaulted with club and though P.W.3 was having sickle, he only caused the threat. It is important to note that though conviction order was passed against all the accused by the Trial Court, the same is reversed by the Appellate Court. Now the only point for consideration is with regard to whether accused Nos.1 and 2 assaulted P.W.1 with iron rod and club. The evidence of P.W.1 is clear with regard to the assault made with iron rod and club, as a result, he fell down and he identifies his signature in Ex.P.1 complaint. No doubt, in the cross-examination of P.W.1 it is elicited that at the time of incident, except these witnesses, no other persons were there. He categorically says that on the date of accident itself he gave the complaint. It is suggested that the house was not given to him and due to that enmity, the complaint was given and the said suggestion was denied. 10. The other witness is P.W.2. P.W.2 also reiterates the evidence of P.W.1 and in the cross-examination, he categorically says that in the morning at 6.30 to 7.00 a.m., he used to involve in the work of dairy since he is a Secretary of the Milk Producers Society and categorically says that iron rod and club - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:3650 CRL.RP No. 1263 of 2016 was given to the police at the time of seizure by collecting the same and again he says that club and iron rod were lying at the spot. 11. The other witness is P.W.3 who is the wife of P.W.1 and she also reiterates that there was an issue between them with regard to usage of passage and also says that she was also present at the time of incident and witnessed that both accused Nos.1 and 2 were assaulted P.W.1 with club and iron rod. In the cross-examination of P.W.3, it is elicited that they are the blood relatives and also there was a dispute with regard to usage of passage and it is deposed that there was a festival in the previous date of the incident and she says that complaint was given at 8.00 a.m. and her husband was taken to the hospital and he was there about 3 to 4 days and police also seized the club and iron rod. 12. The other witness is P.W.4 and he also says that he had witnessed the incident i.e., both accused Nos.1 and 2 were having rod and club in their hands and accused No.1 assaulted with club and in his cross-examination, it is elicited that incident was taken place near the dairy when he was standing there and he deposed that C.Ws.4, 5 and 7 went and pacified the galata. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:3650 CRL.RP No. 1263 of 2016 13. The other witness is P.W.5 and he also says that he heard the sound when he was inside the house and when he came out, he saw that accused No.1 was assaulted with the club and accused No.2 assaulted with the rod. 14. These are the eye-witnesses speak about the incident and they have also the signatories to the mahazar when police came and conducted mahazar at 1.30 to 2.00 p.m. 15. The other witness is P.W.6 and he also speaks that incident was witnessed by him and assault was also witnessed by him and he says that police also drawn the mahazar. Hence, it is clear that P.W.5 and P.W.6 speak about the incident and also the seizure. 16. P.W.7 is the recovery witness who speaks that the police came and seized the club and rod and mahazar was conducted around 3.00 p.m. and he identifies M.O.1 and M.O.2 and categorically says that iron rod and club was given by Rudraiah or Rammaiah to the police and categorically admits that in front of the house of the accused, his house is situated but denied the suggestion that having enemity. 17. Other witness is the doctor who has been examined as P.W.8 since he has treated injured P.W.1 who came to the - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:3650 CRL.RP No. 1263 of 2016 hospital with the history that incident was taken place at 7.10 and on examination of P.W.1, he found the injuries which have been mentioned in Ex.P.3. In the cross-examination, when suggestion was made that if any person abruptly falls on the hard surface would sustain such the injuries, for that the doctor says that only injury No.1 and 3 would cause but not injury No.2. 18. The other witnesses are formal witnesses of Investigating Officer who conducted investigation having received the complaint and filed the charge sheet. 19. This Court re-assessed the evidence on record. The scope of revision is also very limited and only this Court has to take note of the legality and correctness of the finding of both the Courts. Now, the finding of the Trial Court is concerned, taken note of the evidences and witnesses who were present at the spot and inured witness P.W.1. No doubt, the very submission of the learned counsel for the State that best witness is the injured witness. It is not in dispute that P.W.3 is the wife of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and other witnesses have also spoken about how the incident was taken place and assault was made. No doubt, P.W.1 says that assault was made by accused No.1 with - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:3650 CRL.RP No. 1263 of 2016 iron rod and accused No.2 assaulted with club and P.W.2 and P.W.3 says the same. P.W.4 and P.W.5 says that accused No.2 assaulted with iron rod and accused No.1 assaulted with club and there is some discrepancy. But injured witness categorically says that accused No.1 assaulted with the rod and accused No.2 assaulted with club. The Court has to take note of wound certificate which is marked as Ex.P3. P.W.8 – doctor’s evidence is very clear that those types of injuries can be caused by the weapon like M.O.1 and M.O.2 and seizure of M.O.1 and M.O.2 also proved by the prosecution by examining the witnesses. No doubt, one of the witness says that the Rudraiah and another person produced the same before the police. But the fact that mahazar was conducted in between 1.00 to 3.00 p.m., and though there are minor discrepancies with regard to mentioning the timing is concerned, but all speak about drawing of the mahazar in between 1.00 to 3.00 and seized at the spot on the date of the incident itself and complaint was lodged immediately. When such material is there, there is no any error committed by the Trial Court while appreciating both oral and documentary evidence placed on record. The First Appellate Court in detail discussed the evidence available on record particularly taking into note of evidences of all the witnesses and - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:3650 CRL.RP No. 1263 of 2016 re-appreciated both oral and documentary evidence placed on record and also taken note of the fact that there was no any cordial relationship between them and petitioners also not disputes the fact that there was a civil dispute with regard to the usage of passage of eight feet is concerned. All witnesses speak that the incident was taken place at 7.10 a.m., and having considered the evidence of these witnesses, in detail discussed by the First Appellate Court. There are no contradictions in the evidence of these witnesses. 20. The Court has to see that whether the evidence of prosecution witnesses discredited the evidence of witnesses and there are eye-witnesses to the incident and apart from that medical evidence also supports the case of the prosecution that P.W.1 had sustained injuries and type of injuries also mentioned at Ex.P.3 and doctor evidence also corroborates the same. When such being the case, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court with regard to appreciation of evidence available on record is concerned. 21. The issue before this Court is only for convicting accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC. No doubt, the injuries are simple in nature. - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:3650 CRL.RP No. 1263 of 2016 However, the specific case is that accused persons used the club and rod for assaulting and nothing is found to discredit the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. When assault was made with club and iron rod, the First Appellate Court also rightly had taken note of the material available on record. Hence, I do not find any error in the finding of both the Courts. Only scope of revision is if the finding of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court is not legal and it suffers from any perversity while appreciating the evidence, then only this Court can exercise the revisional jurisdiction. Hence, I do not find any such circumstances warranted in the case and minor discrepancies will occur when the witnesses are examined after long time and mathematical niceties cannot be expected by the Court. The very contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there are inconsistencies in the evidence also not found as contended by him and only in order to nurse the personal grudge, case is filed and converted civil case into criminal case also cannot be accepted. The Court has to see the circumstances under which the incident was taken place. I have already pointed out that there was a dispute between the complainant party and the accused party with regard to the usage of passage is concerned and in that connection, the - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:3650 CRL.RP No. 1263 of 2016 alleged incident was occurred. When such being the case, I do not find any ground to entertain this revision petition with the finding of both the Courts by exercising the revisional jurisdiction. Hence, I answer the above point as negative. 22. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners would vehemently contend that this Court can exercise its discretion with regard to the sentence is concerned on the ground that there is no any grievous injuries and there are only simple injuries. The learned counsel for the State would submits that the Court has given only the sentence of one year since both the petitioners/accused have used the rod and club and this Court cannot reduce the sentence. 23. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties it is emerged in the evidence that the complainant’s party and the accused party are the blood relatives and the alleged incident is with regard to the usage of the passage by the parties and the alleged incident was taken place and assault was made with club and rod and injuries sustained are also simple in nature. Taking note of said fact into consideration, it is appropriate to reduce the sentence by increasing the fine amount imposed by the Trial Court since, the incident was taken - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:3650 CRL.RP No. 1263 of 2016 place in the year 2011 i.e., more than a decade ago. Considering the said fact into consideration, it is appropriate to reduce the sentence to six months by imposing fine of Rs.20,000/- each. Point No.2: 24. In view of the discussions made, I pass the following:
Decision
ORDER The revision petition is dismissed confirming the conviction order in respect of Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC dated 14.08.2015 passed in C.C.No.709/2011 by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Ramanagara. However, sentence is reduced to six months by enhancing the fine amount to Rs.20,000/- each. Out of the said fine amount of Rs.40,000/-, ordered to pay Rs.30,000/- to P.W.1 and Rs.10,000/- shall vest with the State. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE MD/SN