Karnataka High Court
Karthik K N vs State Of Karnataka on 26 July, 2024
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:29718
CRL.RP No. 1120 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1120 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
KARTHIK K.N.,
S/O NAGABHUSHAN JOIS,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/AT KADTHUR POST,
THIRTHAHALLI TALUK,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 432.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SUNIL KUMAR B.N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY UDUPI TOWN POLICE,
UDUPI DISTRICT.
Digitally
signed by REPRESENTED BY S.P.P.,
MALATESH HIGH COURT BUILDING COMPLEX,
KC AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
Location: BENGALURU - 560 001.
HIGH
COURT OF ...RESPONDENT
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI.CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C.,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT, CONVICTION AND
SENTENCE PASSED ON ITS ORDER DATED 01.07.2015 PASSED
BY THE ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND 1 ADDL. J.M.F.C, AT UDUPI IN
C.C.NO.922/2012 AND SENTENCE DATED 02.07.2015
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:29718
CRL.RP No. 1120 of 2021
CONVICTING THE PETITIONER HEREIN UNDER SEC.353 AND
323 R/W 34 OF IPC AND ALSO ORDER OF THE APPELLATE
COURT DATED 15.07.2021 CONFIRMING THE CONVICTION
AND SENTENCE BY THE PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
UDUPI IN CRL.A.NO.41/2015 AND ALLOW THE RP AND ACQUIT
THE PETITIONER HEREIN IN THE ABOVE CASE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL ORDER
Heard Sri B.N. Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondent- State.
2. The revision petitioner/accused who suffered an order of conviction in CC No.921/2012 for the offences punishable under Sections, 353 and 323 r/w Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 353 of IPC and ordered to pay fine amount of Rs.3,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC and a sum of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable -3- NC: 2024:KHC:29718 CRL.RP No. 1120 of 2021 under Section 353 of IPC. The same was confirmed in Crl.A.No.41/2015.
3. At the outset, learned counsel Sri Sunil Kumar submits that in the event this Court maintaining the order of conviction, taking note of the fact that the revision petitioner was only a passenger who unnecessarily got involved in the incident along with the co-accused and has been convicted with the aid of Section 34 of IPC, may be dealt leniently by suitably enhancing the fine amount and setting aside the imprisonment period.
4. Learned HCGP however opposes the revision grounds in toto and submits that if this Court shows any leniency or mercy to the revision petitioner, it would send a wrong message to the Society and people like revision petitioner gets encouraged by the leniency shown by this Court and may indulge in similar activities, which would result in chaos in the society and therefore, sought for dismissal of the revision petition in toto. -4-
NC: 2024:KHC:29718 CRL.RP No. 1120 of 2021
5. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the materials on record meticulously. During the course of arguments, a memo came to be filed which reads as under;
"The petitioner humbly submit as follows, the petitioner being aggrieved by the judgment, conviction and sentence dated 15.03.2006 passed by the Addi Civil Judge & JMFC at Udupi in C.C. No. 922/2015 convicting the petitioner under section 353 and sentenced to S1 for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to undergo St for fifteen days and further, for the offences punishable u/s 323 to pay Fine of Rupees 3000/-, in default to undergo SI for six months and the same has been affirmed by the Principal District & Sessions Judge at Udupi in Cri. Appeal No.41/2015 by its order dated 15.07.2021. Now the Jebatide petitioner begs this Hon'ble court may be, kindly suspend the 3 months simple imprisonment and the petitioner is herewith agreed to pay the Rs.20,000/-. Hence this memo."
6. The Court has taken note of the contents of the memo.
7. The facts of the case in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition is as under; -5-
NC: 2024:KHC:29718 CRL.RP No. 1120 of 2021 7.1 A charge sheet came to be filed against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 353 r/w Section 34 of IPC by Udupi Town Police contending that in the road race that occurred on 20.05.2012, at about 9.12 p.m., the accused along with the co-accused, picked up quarrel with the driver and conductor of the KSRTC bus and physically assaulted them, which caused inconvenience to the driver and the conductor in discharging their official duty.
7.2 Accused pleaded not guilty and there was a trial held. After due trial, the learned Magistrate considering the oral and the documentary evidence placed on record, convicted the accused for the aforesaid offences and sentenced as aforesaid. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused filed an appeal before the District Court in Crl.A.No.42/2015.
7.3 The learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records and re-appreciating the material -6- NC: 2024:KHC:29718 CRL.RP No. 1120 of 2021 evidence on record, dismissed the appeal of the accused maintaining the conviction and the sentence.
7.4 Being further aggrieved, the revision petitioner/accused is before this Court in the light of rival contentions of the parties.
8. This Court meticulously considered the oral and the documentary evidence on record.
9. Admittedly, the driver and the conductor who are the victims in the incident had no previous enmity or animosity as against the accused to falsely implicate him in the case. Infact, that is the first occasion that the driver and the conductor have seen the accused in their life. On account of the road rage, viz., a private bus in the process of overtaking the KSRTC bus, the ugly incident has occurred resulting in physical injury to the driver and the conductor besides being discharging the official duty by the driver and the conductor of the KSRTC bus. -7-
NC: 2024:KHC:29718 CRL.RP No. 1120 of 2021
10. Admittedly, the revision petitioner was a passenger in the private bus and his duty was to remain in the bus and there was no necessity for him to get down from the bus and join the hands with the private bus driver and the conductor.
11. The materials on record therefore clearly establishe the overt acts of the present petitioner. Same has been rightly appreciated and re-appreciated by both the Courts in its proper manner.
12. Therefore, this Court, that too in the revisional jurisdiction, cannot revisit into the factual aspects and offsetting the findings recorded by both the Courts.
13. It is in this background, the memo of the revision petitioner needs to be considered while modifying the sentence, if possible in the facts and circumstances of the case.
14. Having regard to the nature of the offence and in the absence of the previous criminal antecedents of the -8- NC: 2024:KHC:29718 CRL.RP No. 1120 of 2021 revision petitioner and taking note of the fact that it is an isolated incident that has occurred on an ill fate day, this Court is of the considered opinion that the contents of the memo can be accepted and the imprisonment period ordered by the trial Magistrate and confirmed by the First Appellate Court needs to be set aside.
15. In view of the foregoing discussions, the following:
ORDER i. Criminal Revision Petition is allowed-in-
part.
ii. While maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 353 r/w Section 34 of IPC, the sentence ordered by the trial Magistrate confirmed by the First appellate Court is modified as under;
iii. The accused- revision petitioner is directed to pay enhanced fine amount of Rs.20,000/- apart from the fine already -9- NC: 2024:KHC:29718 CRL.RP No. 1120 of 2021 imposed by the trial Magistrate and confirmed by the First Appellate Court in a sum of Rs.1,000/ for the offence punishable under Section 353 of IPC and a sum of Rs.3000/- for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC.
iv. Time is granted for the accused to pay the balance amount till 31.08.2024.
v. After receipt of entire fine amount, in addition to the compensation amount of Rs.1,000/- ordered by the trial Magistrate, additional compensation of Rs.15,000/- is to be paid to PW-1- Sri Jathappa.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE PN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48