The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13037 CRL.RP No. 1493 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1493 OF 2016 BETWEEN: 1. HANUMANTHAPPA S/O. DODDARANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, 2. PARAMESHAPPA S/O. PUTTANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT ATTIMAGGE VILLAGE, HOSADURGA TALUK. CHITTRADURGA DISTRICT, PIN-574 145. Digitally signed by HARIKRISHNA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (BY SRI. KARIAPPA, N.A. AMICUS CURIAE) …PETITIONERS AND STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HOSADURGA POLICE STATION, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE, PIN--560 001. (BY SRI. RAJATH SUBRAMANYA, HCGP) …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRL. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13037 CRL.RP No. 1493 of 2016
Legal Reasoning
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT HOSADURGA IN C.C.NO.541/2012 DATED 21.11.2015 AND CONFIRMED BY THE I ADDL. DIST. AND S.J., CHITRADURGA IN CRL.A.NO.81/2015 DATED 20.10.2016. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL ORDER This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.10.2016 passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga (hereinafter referred to as the 'learned Sessions Judge') in Crl.A.No.81/2015, whereby the learned Session Judge had dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosadurga (for short 'the trial Court') in C.C.No.541/2012 dated 21.11.2015. 2. Abridged facts of the prosecution case are that: On 02.04.2012 at about 7.45 p.m., in Athimagge Village of Kelagalhatty-Athimagge road near Kallubhave of Hosadurga Taluk, while PW.1-Thimmappa @ Thimmanna-the injured in this case, was returning to his house, at that time, accused - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13037 CRL.RP No. 1493 of 2016 Nos.1 and 2 insisted him for money. When he refused to pay, they have abused him in filthy language. Thereafter, accused No.2 caught hold him and accused No.1 assaulted him with stone. Owing to the same, he sustained head injuries. Hence, PW.1 lodged a complaint before the Hosadurga Police on 03.04.2012 as per Ex.P1 against the accused. On the strength of Ex.P1, the said police registered FIR against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC in Crime No.98/2012 dated 03.04.2012 as per Ex.P6. Thereafter, PW.7 investigated the case and laid charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 326, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC before the trial Court. 3. After securing the presence of the accused, the trial Court framed charges against the accused for the aforementioned offences and read over same to the accused. However, the accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to prove the charges levelled against the accused before the trial Court, the prosecution in total - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13037 CRL.RP No. 1493 of 2016 examined 7 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.7 so also got marked 6 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 so also got identified 1 material object as MO.1. 5. On assessment of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 506 r/w 34 of IPC. However, convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 504 r/w 34 of IPC and thereby sentenced the accused to undergo a simple imprisonment for a period of six months and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w 34 of IPC and also sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 504 r/w 34 of IPC, in default of payment of fine amount, directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, the accused filed a criminal appeal before the learned Session Judge in Criminal Appeal No.81/2015. 6. On reassessing of the entire evidence and documents on record, learned Session Judge, dismissed the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13037 CRL.RP No. 1493 of 2016 appeal filed by the revision petitioners herein by confirming the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the trial Court. Hence, the accused preferred this revision petition.
Legal Reasoning
7. Heard the learned Amicus Curiae, Sri Kariappa N.A., for the revision petitioners so also the learned HCGP, Sri. Rajath Subramanya, for the respondent. 8. The primary contention of the learned Amicus Curiae for the revision petitioners is that both the Courts have grossly erred by convicting and sentencing the accused for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC without appreciating the evidence and materials on record in a right perspective. He would further contend that the evidence of PW.1-injured and the other witnesses are totally contradictory to each other. Further PW.5-Doctor, who treated the injured by giving first-aid deposed that, the injured was shifted to another hospital for higher treatment. However, the prosecution failed to examine the Doctor, who treated the injured later and also failed to produce the wound certificate. Accordingly, he prays to allow the revision petition. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13037 CRL.RP No. 1493 of 2016 9. Per contra, learned HCGP by supporting the impugned judgments submitted that, both the trial Court and the Session Court after meticulously examining the entire evidence and documents available on record, passed well reasoned judgments, which do not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. He would further contend that PW-1- the injured categorically deposed that the accused are the perpetrators of the crime and he also identified MO.1, the material object i.e., the stone. The oral evidence of PW.1 is corroborates to the testimony of PW.5-the Doctor and the wound certificate as per Ex.P3. In such circumstances, the prosecution has categorically proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the revision petition. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties so also perused the documents, the only point that would arise for my consideration is: "Whether the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the trial Court, which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court, is required interference by this Court?" - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:13037 CRL.RP No. 1493 of 2016 11. I have given my anxious consideration on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties and also carefully perused the entire materials on record placed before me. 12. On careful perusal of the evidence, PW.1- complainant-injured in this case has categorically stated that on the date of incident, i.e., on 02.04.2012 while he was returning to his house, on the way, the accused Nos.1 and 2 have insisted him to pay cash, when he refused, they both assaulted him with MO.1-stone on his head. Thereafter, he was shifted to hospital. PW.5-Doctor treated him. This evidence of PW.1 corroborates to the testimony of PW.2-wife of PW.1. Further the wound certificate issued by PW.5-Doctor as per Ex.P3, depicts two injuries on PW.1 and injury No.2 is the grievous in nature. Apart from this evidence, PW.3-hearsay witness also supported the case of the prosecution. The evidence of these witnesses clearly corroborates to the testimony of PW.7, the investigation officer. Though the defence has cross-examined all these witnesses at length nothing worthwhile has been elicited from them to discard their testimony. In such circumstances, I am of the considered view that the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:13037 CRL.RP No. 1493 of 2016 prosecution has proved that the accused are the perpetrators of the crime and the trial Court and Session Court rightly convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 324 and 504 of IPC. 13. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the incident occurred in the year 2012 and aside from this case, no other cases were registered against the accused so also there are no bad antecedents against them. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstance of the case, imprisoning accused at this stage may not serve any purpose. 14. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pramod Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2023 (9) SCC 810 and held at paragraphs No.13.2 as under: “13.2. In India we do not have any such sentencing policy till date. The prevalence of such guidelines may not only aim at achieving consistency in awarding sentences in different cases, such guidelines normally prescribe the sentencing policy as well, namely, whether the purpose of awarding punishment in a particular case is more of deterrence of retribution of rehabilitation, etc. In the absence of such guidelines in India, the courts go by their own perception about the philosophy behind the prescription penal certain consequences for particular nature of crime.” specified of - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:13037 CRL.RP No. 1493 of 2016 14. However, certain mitigating factors like, gravity of offence, motive for committing a crime, the manner in which it was committed need to be borne in mind and thereafter the sentence should be imposed. As discussed supra, no criminal antecedents of the accused have been brought on record and from the record now made available before this Court, it cannot be said that the accused acted in a premeditative disposition and on over all consideration of the circumstances of the case and considering the fact that, the incident occurred about 13 years ago, I am of the considered view that, albeit the prosecution proved that the revision petitioners/accused committed offences punishable under Sections 324 of IPC and the sentence pronounced for the said offence was six months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- each, but I consider that awarding substantive sentence in the instant case that occurred nearly a decade ago serves no purpose. Instead, I find it appropriate to impose reasonable fine to the accused for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC would meet the ends of justice. 15. Accordingly, I answer the point raised above in partly affirmative and proceed to pass the following: - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:13037 CRL.RP No. 1493 of 2016
Decision
ORDER i) The revision petition filed by the revision petitioner/accused No.1 and 2 is allowed-in- part. ii) The sentence imposed by the trial Court which was confirmed by the Session Court for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC is hereby modified and the accused are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. iii) The sentence imposed by the trial Court which was confirmed by the Sessions Court for the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC is hereby kept in-tact. iv) All default sentences shall run concurrently. v) The revision petitioners/accused shall deposit the fine amount before the trial Court within eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. vi) If the accused fail to pay the fine amount within eight weeks and fail to surrender before the Trial Court, the learned Magistrate is directed to secure their presence and commit them to prison to undergo the default sentence. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:13037 CRL.RP No. 1493 of 2016 vii) If the accused deposit the fine amount, the learned Magistrate is directed to notify the same to PW.1 and disburse the fine amount i.e., Rs.1,00,000/- on proper identification as compensation under Section 357(1) of Cr.P.C. The balance amount shall be submitted to the State Treasury. viii) The bail bonds executed by the accused/revision petitioners shall stand cancelled. ix) Registry is directed to return back the Trial Court records along with a copy of this order to the learned Sessions Judge forthwith. x) Registry is directed to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- as honorary to the learned Amicus Curiae, Sri. Kariappa N.A., for assisting the Court in this revision petition. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE KTY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17