The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:18939 CRL.RP No. 1488 of 2016 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1488 OF 2016 BETWEEN: 1. R. CHANDRASHEKAR (WRONGLY SHOWN AS SHEKHARA) S/O RAMACHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, 2. MANJUNATHA Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka S/O RAMACHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, PETITIONERS NO. 1 AND 2 ARE R/O HALIYURU, ARAMANEHALLA GAVATURU VILLAGE HOSANAGARA TALUK, SHIMOGA - 577 418. 3. RAMACHANDRA S/O DODDANAIKA, (PETITIONER NO.3 IS DEAD)
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. B S PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR P1 AND P2) …PETITIONERS AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY RIPPONPETE P.S. REP BY S.P.P HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE - 560 001. (BY SRI. NAGESHWARAPPA K, HCGP) …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.RP FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE ORDER DATED 31.08.2016 IN CRL.A.NO.131/2011 ON THE FILE OF V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA, SITTING AT SAGAR AND RESTORE THE ORDER OF - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:18939 CRL.RP No. 1488 of 2016 HC-KAR ACQUITTAL PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOSANAGARA IN C.C.NO.548/2006 BY ITS ORDER DATED 08.03.2011. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 27.02.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CAV ORDER 1. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 seeking to set aside the order dated 31.08.2016 in Criminal Appeal No.131/2011 on the file of the V Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga, Sitting at Sagar, and restore the order of acquittal dated 08.03.2011 in C.C.No.548/2006 passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosanagara. 2. The ranks of the parties will be considered henceforth as that of Trial Court for convenience. Factual matrix of the case: 3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 17.11.2005 at about 7.30 pm., Sri S. Vasanta / complainant was moving in his TVS XL motorcycle along with his grandchildren – CWs.2 and 3, after collecting the milk. The accused, in furtherance of their common intention, wrongfully - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:18939 CRL.RP No. 1488 of 2016 HC-KAR restrained the complainant and accused No.1, assaulted on the right hand of CW1. with an iron rod and made him to fall down from the motorcycle and then accused No.2 also assaulted on the right leg with a club and accused No.3 had assaulted on the head hand and body with a club, due to which CW.1 had sustained injuries over the back of the head, both hands and legs and his hands and legs were fractured and had sustained grievous injuries. Both CWs.2 and 3 had also sustained simple injuries. 4. Based on the statement of the injured, FIR came to be registered in Crime No. 129/2005. After conducting the investigation, submitted the charge sheet. 5. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined, in all, 18 witnesses namely PWs.1 to 18 and got marked 10 documents as per Exhibits P1 to P10 and also identified 7 material objects as M.Os.1 to 7. The Trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, acquitted accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences under Sections 341, 326, 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’). On appeal being filed by the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:18939 CRL.RP No. 1488 of 2016 HC-KAR respondent - State, the appeal was allowed and the Appellate Court recorded the conviction of accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences stated supra. Hence, accused Nos.1 to 3 / petitioners have preferred this revision petition. It is brought to the notice of this Court that during the course of the proceedings before this Court, accused No.3/petitioner No.3 has died. 6. Heard Sri B.S. Prasad, learned counsel for petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and Sri K.Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State. 7. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Appellate Court is required to be set aside, as the same is perverse, illegal and opposed to facts and law. 8. It is further submitted that even though the prosecution has stated that there was a fracture injury to P.W.1, the fact remains that no X-ray has been produced to demonstrate the fracture. In the absence of said X-ray, it - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:18939 CRL.RP No. 1488 of 2016 HC-KAR cannot be said that the injured had sustained grievous injury. Therefore, the Appellate Court has committed an error in arriving at a conclusion that the accused had committed an offence under Section 326 of IPC. Therefore, the same may be reduced to Section 324 of IPC and also, fine may be imposed instead of sentencing the accused for the offence as stated supra. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 seeks to allow the revision petition. 9. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent vehemently justified the findings recorded by the Appellate Court and he prays to dismiss the revision petition. 10. Having heard the rival contentions urged by the learned counsels for the respective parties, I have gone through the documents available on record. 11. P.W.1 being the injured has stated in his evidence that accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 had assaulted him and also explained the overt-act of each accused. He identified - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:18939 CRL.RP No. 1488 of 2016 HC-KAR MOs.1 to 5. Similarly, P.Ws.2 and 3 had also supported the case of the prosecution. 12. No doubt, the injured have supported the case of the prosecution. The Appellate Court has held that the accused had committed offences under Sections 341, 326, 324 r/w 34 of IPC. This Court consistently held that in the absence of X-ray report, the wound cannot be considered as a fracture wound. Having considered the said analogy, in the present case, no x-ray has been produced to demonstrate that the injured had sustained fracture injury. Therefore, the initiation of Section 326 of IPC, in my considered opinion, cannot be sustained. 13. Even though the learned counsel for the accused had submitted that the offence under Section 326 of IPC has to be reduced to Section 324 of IPC, the fact remains that the accused had already been convicted for the offence under Section 324 of IPC. Therefore, reducing Section 326 of IPC to Section 324 of IPC would not arise. In the strict sense, Section 326 of IPC cannot be made applicable to the case as the prosecution has not - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:18939 CRL.RP No. 1488 of 2016 HC-KAR produced the X-ray report, which was required to be produced to demonstrate that the complainant had sustained fracture injury. 14. As regards, the other offences are concerned, even though the accused have been convicted for the offences under Sections 341, 324 r/w 34 of IPC, after having considered the age and also antecedents of the accused, it is appropriate to reduce the imprisonment into fine, for the purpose of securing the ends of justice. 15. In the light of the observations made above, I proceed to pass the following:
Decision
ORDER (i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed-in-part. (ii) The conviction against the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 / accused Nos.1 and 2 in respect of offence under Section 326 of IPC cannot be sustained. Hence, it is set aside. (iii) As regards the conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 324 r/w 34 of - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:18939 CRL.RP No. 1488 of 2016 HC-KAR IPC are concerned, the sentence has been modified as follows: a) The petitioner Nos.1 and 2 / accused Nos.1 and 2 are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) each for the offences under Sections 341 and 324 of IPC and the same shall be deposited by them within a period of 8 weeks from the date of communication of this order to the Trial Court. b) The Trial Court is directed to take necessary steps to secure the fine imposed by this Court. c) After the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 / accused Nos.1 and 2 deposit the fine amount, the Trial Court is directed to retain Rs.5,000/- payable to the Exchequer of the State and the remaining balance has to be paid to PWs.2 and 3, on proper identification. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE Bss List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1